On the same day that Kevin Lau (劉進圖), former editor of the Ming Pao, was slashed six times in a vicious attack on the streets of Hong Kong, protesters gathered outside the Taipei branch of China Construction Bank (CCB) over worries that the bank could influence freedom of the press in Taiwan by removing its advertisements from local papers, as it has done in Hong Kong when media outlets there write unfavorable things about China.
The two incidents have attracted a lot of attention from local media. However, it is more important to focus on the cross-strait service trade agreement that the legislature is reviewing to ensure that it does not jeopardize freedom of information in the nation.
Advertisements are a major source of income for media outlets and Internet content providers. The service trade agreement entails opening up almost every type of business involved in production and sales operations in the advertising industry, with the exclusion of television and radio advertising. The reason for doing this could very well be that the government wants to create an illusion that the opening will not be very far-reaching. Opening up to advertising agencies means that China will be able to control who gets to run advertisements in newspapers, magazines and on the Internet.
How information provided by Internet platforms and the content and direction of journalism will be affected when advertising agencies control the sourcing of advertising must be discussed.
Other issues that need to be analyzed include the direction the advertising industry is headed and what pressures toward self-censorship will be placed on media outlets and other information providers.
A look at the local advertising market shows that the budget strategies of major international advertisers are controlled from their primary Asian operations centers, which more often than not are in China. So it is inevitable that the these firm’s advertising strategies will be influenced by Beijing to some degree.
When it comes to the budgets for advertisements placed by the Chinese government to meet its propaganda purposes, such as ads for travel and real estate in China, as well as the Chinese government’s use of embedded marketing in the media for a variety of things, specific media outlets are preferred by the Chinese government over others for ideological reasons.
It is not hard to imagine that the current situation — in which the placement of advertisements is a result of manipulation by vested interests instead of market competition — would become worse if the service trade agreement were passed and that the advertising market as a whole would suffer further distortion. Apart from influencing the source of income for media outlets and Internet content providers alongside compromising their professional autonomy, this will also severely damage the public’s right to information.
The government is blind to the fact that in a democratic society, commercial advertising can have indirect yet strong influence on press freedom and freedom of information and it insists that any advertisements aimed at meeting the political goals of the Chinese Communist Party will be prohibited in Taiwan.
The government also chooses to deliberately overlook the ability of large advertising agencies to control things here and in China and the power they have in negotiating advertising prices. As such, those who know how the media operates can easily see that this is an extremely stupid method of political propaganda that treats freedom of information as if it were nothing.
Regardless of whether it is media outlets, Internet content providers or the public that will be affected by the service trade agreement, people need to oppose the opening up of the advertising industry to China through the accord because this is definitely not just any old issue that can be ignored.
Liu Ching-yi is a professor in the Graduate Institute of National Development at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Drew Cameron
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry