The internal dispute over Public Television Service’s (PTS) board of directors has developed into a legal battle between PTS chairman Cheng Tung-liao (鄭同僚) and some of the board members, hurting PTS’ development. However, if we could use this opportunity to develop a public assessment system to evaluate the management’s performance, then internal operations and personnel changes could be carried out professionally and in the public interest.
PTS could use the crisis as a turning point to eliminate political interference and move toward independence and professionalism.
Hence, we call on Cheng and the board of directors to drop the lawsuit and publicly explain the conflict. More importantly, a fair and professional evaluation of the management team must be conducted and a decision as to who should stay must be made based on public assessment.
The problem could be resolved by amending the Public Television Act (公共電視法) following a review of the systemic shortcomings that the dispute has revealed.
As the authority in charge, the Government Information Office (GIO) should take full responsibility for the political deadlock facing the PTS board and push for a prompt legal amendment based on changes drafted by PTS.
Despite the link between PTS and politics, PTS operations do not have to be influenced by politics. By distinguishing between legal rights and responsibilities, demanding accountability from PTS’ operator and respecting the group’s autonomy from politicians, we should be able to build a system that serves the public interest rather than political parties.
In terms of the current conflict, we feel the following problems are systemic and should be addressed without delay.
First, the GIO has a responsibility to explain why it is not illegal to add more board members. Additional board members should be nominated by the Cabinet and approved by the legislature.
Officially appointed board members who have been involved in planning and management at PTS should not be held responsible for administrative errors, nor should they be deprived of their right to comment on and assess the issues affecting PTS.
Second, can the chairman of the board and top management be replaced?
The Act says that the term for board members is three years and the chairman is elected among members of the board. It also says that the general manager should be nominated by the chairman and approved by two-thirds of the board and that the general manager should be directed and monitored by the board.
As the highest supervisory unit, the board of directors has the power to re-elect the chairman and replace the general manager. However, to ensure staff stability and operational efficiency, PTS should avoid a political tug-of-war over votes. What is needed is rational discussion and assessment of who is appropriate for the management team.
Third, we must look at the procedures and legal basis for replacing the chairman of the board and top management. It is the duty of the chairman and the general manager to manage PTS, but the Act only regulates the replacement of the general manager and makes no mention of the re-election of the chairman. This is what has caused the current difficulties.
To balance their respective duties and powers and avoid political wrangling, benchmarks must be developed to assess and monitor the performance of the chairman and general manager’s team. In addition to assessing employee satisfaction with the team, PTS has put a lot of effort into establishing public assessment benchmarks in recent years. It is now crucial that PTS employ fair assessment standards to evaluate the management team and decide whether to keep the chairman and general manager.
Finally, the Cabinet and the legislature, which were responsible for exacerbating the conflict, should ask themselves whether they did anything to help PTS apart from adding board members and changing the structure of its board.
The Act must be amended if the problems mentioned here are to be solved.
Hung Chen-ling is an associate professor at National Taiwan University’s Graduate Institute of Journalism; Chad Liu is an associate professor at National Chengchi University’s Department of Journalism.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG AND DREW CAMERON
Speaking at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit on May 13, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said that democracies must remain united and that “Taiwan’s security is essential to regional stability and to defending democratic values amid mounting authoritarianism.” Earlier that day, Tsai had met with a group of Danish parliamentarians led by Danish Parliament Speaker Pia Kjaersgaard, who has visited Taiwan many times, most recently in November last year, when she met with President William Lai (賴清德) at the Presidential Office. Kjaersgaard had told Lai: “I can assure you that ... you can count on us. You can count on our support
Denmark has consistently defended Greenland in light of US President Donald Trump’s interests and has provided unwavering support to Ukraine during its war with Russia. Denmark can be proud of its clear support for peoples’ democratic right to determine their own future. However, this democratic ideal completely falls apart when it comes to Taiwan — and it raises important questions about Denmark’s commitment to supporting democracies. Taiwan lives under daily military threats from China, which seeks to take over Taiwan, by force if necessary — an annexation that only a very small minority in Taiwan supports. Denmark has given China a
Many local news media over the past week have reported on Internet personality Holger Chen’s (陳之漢) first visit to China between Tuesday last week and yesterday, as remarks he made during a live stream have sparked wide discussions and strong criticism across the Taiwan Strait. Chen, better known as Kuan Chang (館長), is a former gang member turned fitness celebrity and businessman. He is known for his live streams, which are full of foul-mouthed and hypermasculine commentary. He had previously spoken out against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and criticized Taiwanese who “enjoy the freedom in Taiwan, but want China’s money”
A high-school student surnamed Yang (楊) gained admissions to several prestigious medical schools recently. However, when Yang shared his “learning portfolio” on social media, he was caught exaggerating and even falsifying content, and his admissions were revoked. Now he has to take the “advanced subjects test” scheduled for next month. With his outstanding performance in the general scholastic ability test (GSAT), Yang successfully gained admissions to five prestigious medical schools. However, his university dreams have now been frustrated by the “flaws” in his learning portfolio. This is a wake-up call not only for students, but also teachers. Yang did make a big
RSS