The current list of people nominated by the premier to serve as members of the National Communications Commission (NCC, 國家通訊傳播委員會) has drawn much controversy surrounding their backgrounds, characters and integrity, as well as potential conflicts of interest. Even more questionable is that none of the candidates is concerned with media democracy and the rights of viewers and listeners. Can it be that Premier Sean Chen (陳冲) does not really care about safeguarding the media, freedom and democracy? Or could it be that — through the eyes of the Cabinet — that the NCC, which is in charge of national media policy development, is nothing more than a stooge to media corporations to assist the development of media businesses?
The National Communications Commission Organization Act (國家通訊傳播委員會組織法) lists the purposes for which the commission was established, and these aims include: enforcing the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech; promoting the sound development of communications; preserving the independence of the media; ensuring fair and effective competition in the communications market; protecting consumers’ interests and respecting the rights of the disadvantaged; and promoting the balanced development of cultural pluralism. Of these six aims, only two have to do with the development of media businesses; the other four are concerned with culture and the quality of communications in relation to freedom, democracy and the audience’s rights and interests. However, among the current list of nominees, apart from two legal academics, all the others have connections to media businesses.
Among the first set of people who served as commissioners after the commission was set up were Lin Tung-tai (林東泰), who is a specialist in political communications and public opinion, and Liu Yu-li (劉幼俐), who is an expert on policy, law and new communications technologies. Among the second-term commissioners, Bonnie Peng (彭芸) is a specialist in international and political communications and Chung Chi-hui (鍾起惠) is an expert on the quality of radio and television media and the rights of readers and listeners. All four are highly reputable experts in media and communications and have written a great deal about their respective fields. Their expertise and accomplishments complemented those of other commissioners who specialize in economics, business and law, ensuring that the commission is able to carry out its full functions.
Compare that with the current list of nominees. Howard Shyr (石世豪) is a doctor of law specializing in administrative law and related subjects; Peng Shin-yi (彭心儀) specializes in technology law; Yu Hsiao-cheng (虞孝成) has worked in information technology and related businesses; and Chen Yuan-ling (陳元玲) has a media business background. There are also three commissioners who will continue in their posts for another two years. They are Chang Shi-chung (張時中), Wei Shyue-win (魏學文) and Liu Chorng-jian (劉崇堅), whose backgrounds are in information technology, communications technology and the telecommunications industry respectively. Not one of these continuing and prospective commissioners is concerned with media democracy or specializes in communications culture or the rights of readers and listeners. The list of nominees and the composition of the NCC show that the Cabinet’s view of the value of the media is confined to a business mindset which overlooks the fact that the media are a cornerstone of democratic and cultural values. The Cabinet’s choice of appointees also narrows the role of NCC commissioners and weakens the democratic function of the media in a free society.
We would like to ask the premier which of these commissioners is an expert in media independence, cultural pluralism or the rights of the disadvantaged. Does he think these are all unimportant aspects? Is developing media businesses all that Taiwan needs to do to safeguard the public’s viewing and listening rights? Is there no need for the commission to concern itself with the issue of whether these big media businesses are using official public agencies for private benefit, stifling plurality of opinion and trampling on media independence and the rights of the disadvantaged?
The Cabinet should thoroughly review its current choice of nominees and present a new list of people in keeping with the founding purposes of the NCC. The commission, which plays a decisive role in defining how the media will develop, should do more than just assist the development of media businesses and promote digital convergence. It should also uphold and enhance media independence to promote freedom of expression, the rights of the disadvantaged and cultural pluralism.
Flora Chang is a professor at National Taiwan University’s Graduate Institute of Journalism; Chen Ping-hung is a professor at National Taiwan Normal University’s Graduate Institute of Mass Communication; Kuang Chung-hsiang is an associate professor at National Chung Cheng University’s Department of Communication.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers