On June 16, the legislature’s Education and Culture Committee decided to eliminate Article 14, Section 1 of the Radio and Television Act (廣播電視法), abolishing the Act Governing the Broadcasting Development Fund (廣播電視事業發展基金條例). This in turn might mean the liquidation of the Broadcasting Development Fund (BDF). While some may consider this a minor issue, the legislature has taken a first step in the right direction.
A decision must be made on the BDF, and although the Cabinet has yet to turn its attention to the issue, there is no reason why the legislature shouldn’t take the initiative.
This must be followed by a second and even more important step, which is related to one of the reasons for doing away with the act. The legislature says the BDF has fulfilled its mission and no longer acts according to the original purpose of the law. The truth is, however, that since its establishment more than 20 years ago, the fund has never been able to fulfill its mission. This is the reason the legislature should go further.
In the 1980s, the original three TV channels and the Broadcasting Corporation of China (BCC) monopolized almost all radio and TV resources. As long as the government released some of the profits from this monopoly and produced some high-quality programming, it could retain these communication channels.
But too many unprofessional considerations went into the production of programs sponsored by the BDF and every TV station was forced to broadcast the shows, forcing the bulk of viewers to tune in to pirate TV stations.
As a consequence, the old three stations suffered and satellite TV reaped the benefits. For instance, TVBS began broadcasting a 9pm political talk show because at that time, the old three stations were broadcasting the programming they were told to broadcast, rather than what the public wanted to see.
This is why the fund has been unable to fulfill the mission it is legally charged with. In comparison, Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) is highly trusted by the Hong Kong public and still broadcasts its programs on Hong Kong’s TV stations. Its programming has a large audience and is well appreciated. Although Taiwan uses a similar model, its achievements are shamefully limited. With a budget of about NT$1 billion (US$33 million), RTHK only produces 15 hours of programming per week, but it is broadcast by local cable TV stations that enjoy an 80 percent market share. In addition, RTHK has an annual budget of more than NT$1 billion to produce programming for seven radio channels.
Like Hong Kong, Taiwan should provide the public with credible and quality radio and TV programming that will attract a large audience on a daily basis. At the same time, we are faced with an opportunity, or maybe a challenge: If cross-strait talks were also to include TV, then if China’s CCTV channel 4 or 9, or other channels, could be broadcast on a fixed frequency and had to be carried on local Taiwanese TV, what programs would Taiwan choose for Chinese TV to carry?
Whether to compensate for the neglected TV and radio rights of the public over the past 20 years or to welcome the prospect of cross-strait TV and film exchanges, we need a larger production center for producing TV and radio programming, and at the same time we must ensure that programming produced by that center is effectively broadcast. From this perspective, the legislature’s abolishing the legal basis for the BDF can be seen as a seed which may sprout and create opportunities for an even larger fund for producing TV programs.
The next problem we have to face is who has the power and the responsibility and is best qualified to nurture this new baby? Cable TV or commercial terrestrial TV? The Taiwan Broadcasting System or the Satellite Television Broadcasting Association? Or some kind of alliance between these organizations after they have been revised? Such technical issues are not hard to solve. Whether the legislature comes up with a solution after researching it, or if it urges the Cabinet to complete the task, it’s all for good for the public and cross-strait TV culture exchanges.
Feng Chien-san is a professor of journalism at National Cheng Chi University.
TRANSLATED BY ANNA STIGGELBOUT AND TED YANG
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
RSS