And the hits just keep on coming. Inappropriate and outrageous comments from officials of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration are nothing new, but few have been more jaw-dropping than those from former Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and Control Yuan President Wang Chien-hsien.
At a forum on Sunday, Chiang urged Ma to seek a peace agreement and a pact on military confidence-building measures with China before the end of his term, and called for granting Chinese television stations, such as China Central Television and Phoenix Television, local broadcasting licenses.
Politicians across party lines were quick to criticize the ideas. Then Wang spoke up in favor of Chiang’s proposals on Wednesday.
Both men said outstanding international news coverage by Chinese TV stations would fill the void left by their Taiwanese counterparts, which waste too much time on gossip and “irrelevant” domestic news. They also believe that worries about Beijing’s united front strategy are unnecessary because Taiwan should have confidence in its democracy.
Their critique of local media outlets could be justified because these outlets have frequently been criticized for a lack of professionalism and international perspective. This issue is worth discussing.
However, how they can view China, one of the most restrictive countries in the world, as the messiah for Taiwan’s media chaos is beyond belief. They also failed to suggest Taiwan seek reciprocal treatment for opening up its media market to Chinese TV stations. Wang did propose Taiwan receive the same treatment — but one year after Chinese media enter the local market.
In Freedom of the Press 2013, the latest report by Washington-based Freedom House, Taiwan was judged to have a “free” press with an overall “freedom score” of 26 points, one point lower than the previous year. China was rated as “not free” and home to “the world’s most sophisticated censorship apparatus.”
Chiang and Wang’s comments raise two concerns. First, as bad as the local coverage of international news is, Taiwanese enjoy almost complete freedom of information from terrestrial and cable TV, radio and the Internet, while China regularly blocks Taiwanese and international news Web sites and frequently blacks out segments from international outlets such as CNN. It is true that one does not have to view the entrance of Chinese TV stations to the local market as a doomsday scenario, but reciprocity would be the key word here, hence the repeated calls from civic groups for a cross-strait media freedom protection agreement.
Second, the most shocking aspect of the comments is that they came from senior politicians, not Chinese officials, including the former top cross-strait negotiator no less. These comments have not only raised suspicions about the pair’s position and integrity, but highlighted concern about an emerging group of “compradors” — the term used to describe Chinese managers working for foreign businesses in China during the Qing Dynasty. With more people, most of them businesspeople, reaping benefits from closer cross-strait trade, it appears that more Taiwanese are willing to parrot Beijing’s line and demands.
Unfortunately, it has become the norm to hear such comments and demands from taishang (a term used to describe Taiwanese working in China) and businesspeople like those who have been trying to purchase more media outlets in Taiwan. However, when current and former officials are willing to sacrifice basic universal rights, such as personal safety and media freedom, and make Beijing’s demands to their own government, Taiwan is in serious trouble.
Ma’s persistent silence in the face of such talk only adds to the public’s suspicions. He needs to do something to allay such concerns before things get out of hand.
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his