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
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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