During its more than two years in office, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has used taxpayers’ money to buy space or time in the media in an attempt to create illusions about its policy achievements, while at the same time clamping down on media that express opinions at variance with its own. For example, the government refused for a long time to grant a broadcast licence to Next TV and now the National Communications Commission (NCC) has disciplined the ERA communications group by revoking the broadcasting licence of its variety TV channel. When it comes to the government’s own embedded marketing, however, the NCC does nothing.
These blatant moves to clamp down on certain media outlets have produced a climate of intimidation throughout the media sector. Washington-based watchdog group Freedom House has lowered its ranking for press freedom in Taiwan for two years in a row, specifying Taiwanese media’s acceptance of embedded marketing by the government as one of the main reasons. The UK-based Economist Intelligence Unit went so far as to reclassify Taiwan as a “flawed democracy.”
Who allowed the NCC’s power to reach this unimaginable level? Governing and opposition party politicians must bear some of the blame for letting this happen, as must society as a whole. While political parties all want control over the media, society has failed to play its role of pressuring and monitoring government bodies, thus allowing the NCC to act in this unbridled fashion. Over the years there have been many calls and campaigns for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the government and the military to pull out of the media, but it seems the media has once again become a tool in the hands of political parties — all the more so now that Ma has control of all branches of government. In July, the legislature’s Organic Laws and Statutes Bureau published a report on embedded marketing, questioning whether the Ma administration was guilty of undermining the media’s role and responsibilities as the fourth estate.
Advanced democratic countries all have rules about embedded marketing — or policy placement — by the government. For example, the US government needs to get approval from Congress before it can allocate a budget for public information. Britain’s regulations are particularly strict, allowing the government to disseminate information only of a public service nature and forbidding it from using the media for other kinds of propaganda. EU regulations are very strict too, forbidding news and current affairs programs from accepting sponsorship or embedded marketing. There are many such examples and we would do well to learn from the experience of these other countries.
Although the NCC is a product of compromise between Taiwan’s rival pan-blue and pan-green political forces, the people running it have forgotten that they are supposed to play an impartial role and they have abandoned their duty to uphold the core values of the media.
By wielding various laws, including the three broadcasting acts, the Computer-Processed Personal Data Protection Act (個人資料保護法), the Children and Youth Welfare Act (兒童及少年福利法) and others, NCC bureaucrats have the power to approve or reject licence applications, which means life or death for media outlets, and to set the amount of administrative fines. Regulations governing termination of broadcasting rights as a penalty under the Radio and Television Act (廣播電視法) and Satellite Broadcasting Act (衛星廣播電視法) state that stations that have been instructed three times to abide by the rules, but fail to do so, can be ordered to stop broadcasting.
The NCC’s remit extends over everything from radio and television to digital convergence media, not to mention cinema, and even how much mobile phone providers and cable television companies can charge for their services. It has authority over who can and cannot invest in news media, and over embedded marketing, advertising on Web pages, and even concerts, songs and music albums. As the Internet, electronic information and a variety of storage media continue to develop, the NCC’s powers are certain to grow even broader over time. The NCC is answerable only to the Cabinet and all it needs to exert control over the media is to quote from the various laws and regulations, sometimes interpreting them rather broadly. The NCC’s revocation of ERA TV Variety channel’s licence and its repeated refusal to grant a broadcasting licence to Next TV are examples of its use of this power to interpret the law. It is no good complaining — the NCC is an “independent” body and it can do more or less as it chooses.
The process for appointing NCC commissioners is that they are nominated by the premier and subject to approval by the legislature. That being the case, the Cabinet and the legislature cannot shirk their responsibility for monitoring the NCC. Just as that body’s powers have been endowed through legislation, so can they be changed through legislative amendments. Besides, the NCC is subject to oversight by the Control Yuan, so there is no need to just meekly go along with whatever the NCC decides. If the premier and legislators fail to act, they will have nobody but themselves to blame when problems arise.
Lu I-ming is the former publisher and president of Taiwan Shin Sheng Daily News.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with