The manner in which the Public Television Service (PTS) has been run and the government’s handling of the issue are cause for concern.
Members of the station’s board of directors serve three-year terms, during which they cannot be replaced except as outlined in Article 18 of the Public Television Act (公共電視法).
In contrast, the chairman of the board and his management team enjoy no such protection. Their appointment or dismissal is, according to the imperfect Act, decided by the board.
The board would fail in its duty if it believed the PTS management team to be incompetent, yet did not replace it. So would government officials if they thought the board of directors was not capable of running PTS, but did nothing about it.
Responsible actions should be based on facts and performed in accordance with the law. Where the law fails, it can be amended. Likewise, administrative measures should be clearly explained to the public.
With PTS, unfortunately, the government has tried to cover up serious problems. As usual, bureaucrats enjoy their power, but are reluctant to take responsibility. This amounts to dereliction of duty that has compromised the image of PTS.
Should the PTS board of directors replace the station’s management? Was the chairman of the board right to try to protect his team by filing an injunction? What about the lawsuit filed by a PTS supervisor against Government Information Office Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) and eight newly appointed board members? Did the government’s appointment of additional directors derive from legitimate motives, or was it a case of underhanded interference?
Two regrettable matters at PTS over the past two years deserve mention here.
The umbrella Public Broadcasting System (PBS) employs more than 1,000 people, and its income from government funding, advertising and independent sources is almost NT$4 billion (US$126 million). PBS may be puny compared with public broadcasting companies in Japan, Europe, South Korea and Australia, but by Taiwanese standards it appears to be well-established.
It “appears to be” rather than “is” because it is a small-scale operation whose income does not cover its expenditure, and because the government has for many years failed to give it proper planning support.
A year ago, without approval from its board of directors, the PTS management took out advertisements criticizing the legislature, but it has not been willing to put the same energy and resources into giving the public a clear account of PTS’ difficulties. It seems management are concerned about retaining the service on its present scale rather than appropriate expansion.
The second regrettable thing is efforts to stimulate performance by stressing ratings. Management says the station has performed well over the past two years, but 70 percent to 80 percent of its staff think otherwise.
It is not for me, as an outsider, to judge which side is right and which is wrong. Yes, ratings are the first thing commercial sponsors look at. Even the BBC has to take viewer numbers into account.
Even so, it is one thing to do something because you have to, and another to embrace it wholeheartedly. Non-commercial broadcasters abroad all refer to ratings, but they also stress their limitations. They attach equal or greater importance to other criteria such as appreciation indices and enterprise transparency.
Taiwan is a latecomer to democracy. We still have much to learn about running public broadcasting services and political rights and duties. If we can learn from the experience and use it to improve legislation, then the PTS controversy may do some good.
Feng Chien-san is a professor of journalism at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath