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.
RSS