President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) assumed office among high hopes last month. In his inaugural speech, he said that he would “never interfere with the media.”
This can be interpreted in two ways.
Ma could be making an entirely pointless statement, as anyone knows that the government should not interfere with the media at will, though he might be attempting to ingratiate himself with the media, and especially media bosses, by saying so.
Or Ma could have made the statement because the government has no media or broadcasting policies, and perhaps the perfunctory statement was meant to cover up a lack of media-related policies.
A tally of the media policies proposed by Ma amounts to three related claims: a proposal during the election campaign to create a “Hoklo program production center”; the aforementioned promise to “never interfere with the media” during his inauguration speech; and the “national Hakka broadcasting station” he said would be incorporated into the Taiwan Broadcasting System (TBS), as proposed by Council of Hakka Affairs Chairman Huang Yu-chen (黃玉振).
The “Hoklo programs production center” proposal lacks any real content. If it refers to the regionalization of production resources within TBS to support the founding of a southern station, then concrete plans and budgets should be provided. Without more detail, it’s difficult to figure out what Ma meant when he made the proposal.
The idea of a “national Hakka broadcasting station” is more concrete and worthy of encouragement.
It only awaits implementation by Ma and the Council for Hakka Affairs. However, media policy cannot give preference to the Hakka population alone.
Speaking as a Hakka, I, like many other Hakka, simply desire equal rights — not special treatment. From this angle, Taiwan also needs national broadcasting stations for Aboriginals, new immigrants, foreign residents, women, children and workers.
But how Ma plans to turn TBS into a truly public system, make government-operated broadcasting stations public and incorporate them into TBS — while transforming TBS into a genuinely national television and radio medium — is a more important and fundamental issue in media policy.
However, it is not enough to incorporate broadcasting services into TBS. The TBS budget should be greatly expanded, and the privately owned shares of the Chinese Television System (CTS) should be purchased and donated to TBS, so that CTS can become a public television station.
Without these moves, the media chaos caused by the long-term dominance of commercial broadcasting is not going to fix itself.
Ma should not refrain from interfering with the media, which would mean shirking the responsibility of improving the media environment.
Instead, he should actively interfere and strive to strengthen the public media sector, which is inadequate compared with Japan, Korea or European countries.
Ma should make commercial media bear more responsibility by increasing the proportion of domestically produced programs and ensuring basic labor rights for creative individuals employed in the media and broadcasting sector.
These are important, overdue policies that Ma should immediately declare, promote and implement.
Lo Shih-hung is the convener of the Campaign for Media Reform and an associate professor of communications at National Chung Cheng University.
TRANSLATED BY ANGELA HONG
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS