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
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
RSS