The National Communications Commission (NCC) has given its approval to a transfer of stocks in the Broadcasting Corp of China (BCC), a decision that displeased the Cabinet.
Ownership restrictions are crucial in determining whether the media environment will improve or deteriorate further. The central issue of the transfer should not be turned into a weapon in the fight between political parties.
The commission has not published its investigation into the viability of the transfer and it based its decision on the promises of the buyer rather than on a substantive review.
This is unacceptable. We appeal to the commission to immediately publish the contents of its investigation, hold a public hearing and reconsider its approval of the transfer of BCC shares.
In late January, suspicions rose that former UFO Radio chairman Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康) was planning to take over the shares using four front companies. There were also claims that the firms were undercapitalized, questions about where the stated capital came from and other problems. The NCC reacted by saying that apart from demanding that the party concerned fix these problems, it would start an investigation together with the Investment Commission and the Financial Supervisory Commission. At that time, the NCC was handling the case in a suitable way.
But after waiting five months, we still haven't heard if the four firms were real companies. If the NCC had arrived at a judgment based on months of investigations, why should the party concerned need to be guaranteeing anything?
The NCC has also yet to publish the results of another investigation it has been conducting for six months. That probe was to answer questions such as whether the four companies were front companies, what the source of their investment capital was and whether this would result in a media monopoly. The public has a right to know, and the NCC should publish the results as soon as possible to gain the public's trust.
The BCC's promises that political parties, the government and the military would withdraw from the media and that there would be no investment from China, Hong Kong or other overseas investors are an entirely inappropriate basis for the NCC to approve a transfer. This is just as absurd as, say, the abolition of driving tests and traffic violation data. It is like making someone sign a document saying: "I promise I will not break any rules," and then give them a driving license without a second glance.
The withdrawal of political parties, the government and the military from media operations and a block on foreign investment in the broadcasting industry are all clearly specified in legislation. The question of whether the transfer of BCC shares to the four companies allegedly related to Jaw is legal should be investigated by the NCC -- as the authority in charge -- on its own initiative and be based on evidence. How then can they base their approval on verbal or written promises by a party that it will not break the law?
As to influence from cross-media ownership accumulating for one person, the NCC believed a promise that a shareholding in UFO Radio held by Jaw's wife, Liang Lei (
According to Clause 18 of the Enforcement Rule of the Broadcasting and Television Law (
On the issue of a media monopoly, letters containing arguments for and against the transfer that NCC spokesman Howard Shyr (
The combined coverage of the two broadcasting networks is more than 20 percent, the audience in all areas varies between 20 percent and 50 percent, and they get more than 30 percent of commercials. The BCC, for a very long time, has also had the most analog radio frequencies. From these numbers it is clear that the moment the transfer was approved, a monopoly resulted.
Pan-blue and pan-green-camp politicians should not obscure the seriousness of this problem for their political ends. When approving such a large transfer of media shares, the BCC should conduct substantial research and not take lightly the task that the public has entrusted it with.
Lo Shih-hung is founder of the Campaign for Media Reform. Chad Liu is an assistant professor in the Department of Communications at National Chung Cheng University.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS