As the controversy over the National Communications Commission’s (NCC) review of Want Want China Times Group’s bid to acquire cable TV services owned by China Network Systems (CNS) continues, Premier Sean Chen (陳冲) has nominated new members of the commission, saying he expects the nominations to be approved by the legislature before the end of July. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Lee Hung-chun (李鴻鈞), convener of the legislature’s Transportation Committee, has promised that the case will be decided before the end of the current session.
Regardless of whether we are dealing with the current crop of NCC members or the next, Want Want’s proposed acquisition cannot go ahead. The reasons for this are threefold: first, to prevent media convergence; second, because Want Want chairman Tsai Eng-meng (蔡衍明) is not fit to operate cable channels; and third, for reasons of national security.
It is generally recognized in democracies the world over that concentrating a nation’s media in the hands of a small number of organizations will lead to the monopolization of expression, which contradicts the fundamental values of pluralist democracy.
Want Want is already Taiwan’s largest mass media organization. If it now goes on to acquire parts of CNS, it will control the viewing content of more than 1 million cable TV subscribers. Combined with the group’s already considerable influence over news reporting in this country, the acquisition would almost certainly cause monopolization of expression, threatening our democracy.
The next point is that the group’s chairman, Tsai, is unfit to run a media organization.Tsai has instructed China Times journalists not to criticize the president or government officials, he dismissed the China Times editor-in-chief for publishing “[Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits Chairman] Chen Yunlin is a C-lister,” he claimed in a Washington Post interview that the person pictured obstructing the tanks in the Tiananmen Square Massacre “is still alive,” indicating that he thought there was no massacre and he also offered a NT$1 million (US$34,000) reward to anyone who could reveal the identity of a current China Times reporter who, under the pseudonym Chien Chung-shih (錢衷時), published an article in the Chinese-language Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) in February criticizing the China Times for being pro-China.
Such behavior suggests that Tsai does not possess modern democratic values, something that someone running a media empire should certainly have.
In addition, there was the major coverage in the China Times of China’s Fujian Province Governor Su Shulin’s (蘇樹林) visit to Taiwan, to which the paper devoted lavish attention five days in a row. Responding to a question in the legislature, Mainland Affairs Council Minister Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛) said an investigation had shown there was “clear evidence” that the newspaper had been involved in illegal advertising in this case.
Evidently, the Want Want bid is about more than mere media convergence: The group’s willingness to help the Chinese government peddle propaganda in Taiwan also constitutes a national security issue. The National Communications Commission should be thinking in terms of preventing the acquisition on the grounds of national security.
In the event that the commission is powerless to stop the acquisition on a legal basis, the very least it should do is restrict the group’s right to operate a news cable channel. This is really the comission’s legal bottom line.
In 2010, Dafu Media, owned by Daniel Tsai (蔡明忠), sought to acquire cable systems owned by Kbro Co. Since Kbro already had its channels, which at the time had more than 1 million subscribers, the National Communications Commission wanted Dafu to make certain assurances before it would approve the acquisition, so as to avoid excessive media convergence.
These assurances included guarantees that the company would not operate news or finance channels without obtaining licenses, to prevent it from broadcasting its own news channels on favorable frequencies and crowding out other news channels. It also had to promise to abide by additional clauses stipulating that it would operate its channels in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.
The NCC should be rigorously applying the same standards of the Dafu bid to the Want Want bid, because the latter already owns satellite news channels, such as China Television and CTiTV. If Want Want succeeds in acquiring the CNS cable TV services, it will own 12 channels and 11 cable TV services, covering over 1 million subscribers.
This would hand it more control, and presents a higher risk of media convergence, than was present in the Dafu bid.
Article 6 of the Administrative Procedure Act (行政程序法) states: “No differential treatment is permitted for administrative acts without a good cause.”
This is a concrete expression of the legal principle of administrative self-restraint, as applied in the 2004 Administrative Supreme Court interpretation No. 1392. This interpretation stated that, according to the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution, administrative bodies are expected to deal with situations that are of a similar nature in an equal manner, which is the essence of administrative self-restraint.
Based on this, and given that the circumstances for both the Want Want media acquisition and the Dafu bid are essentially identical, the National Communications Commission clearly cannot treat the Want Want acquisition differently in its administrative handling of the approval process.
Instead, because the Want Want bid is likely to have a more significant impact than the Dafu bid, the National Communications Commission should certainly be applying the principle of administrative self-restraint to strictly forbid Want Want from operating a news cable channel. The commission should also implement other restrictions, even stricter than those that were applied to the Dafu bid.
Huang Di-ying is a lawyer and a member of the Taiwan Bar Association’s Commission on Human Rights.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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