Because of confrontation between the pan-blue and pan-green camps, the Public Television Service (PTS) has easily been branded as being either pro-blue or pro-green.
During the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) rule, officials were discontented with PTS. For example, coverage of Chinese spouses, the red shirt demonstrations, the proposed Suhua Highway and China’s development often irritated the government. It believed that PTS was “pro-blue” because the station uncovered facts and monitored the government. But isn’t that precisely what the media are supposed to do?
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government is also annoyed by the PTS’ insistence on uncovering facts and monitoring the government and has attempted to interfere politically with the station’s operations. On Dec. 9, the legislature approved KMT legislative caucus whip Lin Yi-shih’s (林益世) proposal that the PTS budget undergo item-by-item approval by the legislature.
Perhaps Lin was discontented by PTS’ coverage of the government’s crackdown on demonstrations during Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit, or its exposure and analysis of poor government performance. Such news reports can at most be considered “not pro-government.” To dark-blues, however, they are considered “pro-green.”
Thus, the KMT and the DPP follow the same approach when dealing with PTS, while the station itself has remained unchanged.
Taiwan is a nation divided into blue and green. Everything that isn’t blue is green and vice versa, and there is no room for people of other colors. Those who label themselves politically also label others, and so pro-blues will see anyone who isn’t blue as being green, and vice versa. By the same reasoning, anyone who is neither blue nor green will still be labeled. But shouldn’t we demand that the media stay objective, neutral and colorless? Although PTS is often labeled blue or green, that is a result of politicians’ prejudice rather than anything the station has done.
Aside from prejudice, shortsightedness is another problem. Most politicians are discontented with PTS because they look at it from their government’s perspective. Taking a long-term view, we see that the station is quite fair, as it does not compromise with those in power but treats them according to the same standards. Politicians criticize the station because they have not paid attention to its past performance.
This is also why Western governments evaluate their public television stations from a long-term perspective. The BBC reports to the British queen once every 10 to 15 years, and she forms an independent evaluation committee. Although it also reports to parliament, that report is only delivered at the end of each year and parliament can only offer suggestions. This is completely different from the prior approval proposed by Lin.
Before President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) came to office, he repeatedly pledged not to interfere politically with the media. But the KMT is now attempting to do precisely that, a phenomenon rarely seen in developed countries. Sadder still, PTS is a rare exception in Taiwan, because most electronic media are usually strongly pro-blue or pro-green.
Once the legal amendment is passed, there will be massive political interference in PTS’ operations. Although this may be advantageous to the pan-blue camp under a KMT government, the station may be forced to turn green if the green camp comes to power. Neither the KMT nor the DPP will be the winners and Taiwan will be the biggest loser.
Lii Ding-tzann is a professor at National Tsing Hua University’s Institute of Sociology.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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
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
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.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS