There is no constant but change. If an exception proves a rule, we see this in the unending wait for “party, state and military withdrawal from the media.”
The National Communications Commission (NCC) recently made it easier for political parties to invest in the media, a departure from the spirit of this withdrawal. In the end, the media will suffer as a result.
The idea of the withdrawal was an important milestone in Taiwan’s democratization. Far from being an inevitable part of the process, it was only possible because of the hard work of certain individuals. Not even broadcast media were able to fully democratize even after the end of Martial Law in 1987 and it is only in the last few years that the initial phase of public TV and privatization of the industry was completed. The withdrawal of party, state and military control was easier said than done and the frustrations met along the way are an interesting footnote in the history of democratization in Taiwan.
Withdrawal is a complex issue, not least because public TV relies on financial support from the government and because we expect the government to have a media policy. The NCC’s desire to redefine is understandable, with certain reservations: The revised “party, state and military clause” lacks a comprehensive approach and there is no clear differentiation between political parties and the government.
The NCC said in a press release that indirect investment was “necessary” in the early stages of a nation’s development, adding that government investment was needed to promote economic growth and support major industries, including the media. This, however, begs the question: Is Taiwan really in the early stages of development? And while it is true that, with appropriate supervision, the government should be able to invest in broadcasting of a non-political nature, is it a good idea to extend this right to political parties?
In its “Principles of the Liberalization of the Market Economy and the Response of the Industry,” the NCC was of the opinion that “it does not make much sense to impose a blanket ban without consideration of whether investment on the part of political parties, the state and the military actually adversely affects the satellite broadcasting industry. Furthermore, a complete ban on such investment will reduce the amount of funding available to satellite TV stations, and this will have an impact on the development of the industry.”
Leaving aside the question of whether the NCC regulations can resolve the practical problem of control, it remains difficult to see any good reason to treat political parties, the government and the military as a single entity.
Finally, the NCC said that “simply banning investment from these areas is not as effective as monitoring the political leanings of the media itself. Consequently, we believe it makes sense to allow a restricted amount of indirect investment (of no more than 10 percent).”
The government and political parties are separate. The former is kept in check by fairly rigorous public oversight mechanisms and constitutional norms, whereas the latter is composed of groups that promote specific ideas and represent specific interests. The two play different roles in democratic politics and the NCC has no business in lumping them together, much less turning a blind eye to the fact that the party in government is doing nothing about returning party assets that belong to the nation.
Is the NCC really allowing itself to be complicit with the murky doings of political parties?
Hu Yuan-hui is an associate professor of communications at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
A Facebook post by Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) earlier this month achieved record levels of engagement — although perhaps inadvertently. In it, he attacked Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator and Taipei mayoral candidate Puma Shen (沈伯洋) for an op-ed published in 2014 discussing drug harm reduction policies. In attempting to stir up fear with talk of community centers, drugs and needles, Chiang’s comment section exploded. More than 100,000 comments poured in within the first two hours; more than 330,000 after the first 12; and more than 400,000 by noon the following day. Rather embarrassingly, many commenters made a point
Southeast Asian food delivery platform Grab Holdings Ltd in March applied to acquire Delivery Hero SE’s Foodpanda operations in Taiwan, with the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) scheduled to announce its decision on Oct. 27. On the surface, the deal is a business merger — but in substance, it involves personal data, national geospatial information and digital sovereignty. It cannot be assessed solely in terms of market share and price competition. Grab has extensive and long-standing connections to Chinese capital. In 2015, Chinese ride-hailing firm Didi Chuxing and China Investment Corp, a sovereign wealth fund, invested in Grab. Grab invested in Chinese autonomous-driving
The official English name for Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator and Taipei mayoral candidate Puma Shen’s (沈伯洋) campaign is “the Taipei Current.” It comes from the Chinese term yangliu (洋流), a direct translation of which would be “ocean current,” using the last character of Shen’s name, yang (洋, “ocean”). The Chinese term is a reference to the 2018 campaign for Kaohsiung mayor that swept a hitherto marginal player within the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), who is now legislative speaker, whose successful campaign then was termed the “Han Wave” (韓流). Shen’s usage of the Chinese term is intentional.
The most troubling message coming out of Washington for Taipei is not any single statement but the cumulative effect of a series of signals suggesting that US President Donald Trump is rethinking Taiwan’s strategic value while viewing the US-China relationship through the lens of a transactional great-power bargain. The danger behind Trump’s new softness toward Beijing is a potential US-China bargain that undermines Taiwan’s core interests. During Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) recent state visit to Washington, Trump and Xi appeared to rewrite the history of World War II. In a Sept. 25 fact sheet on Xi’s visit, the White House said,
RSS