Ting Hsin International Group (頂新國際集團) has got into trouble three times within a single year for failing to ensure the safety of its food products. By allowing tainted cooking oils to enter the market, the group has broken the law and betrayed the trust of its consumers. These failures have caused serious risks and have aroused the anger of officials and the general public. Some have even accused Ting Hsin of endangering people’s lives for the sake of profit.
Ting Hsin’s problems are no longer just a matter of one or two substandard products or poor management. The group’s owners and managers have been shown to lack a sense of corporate responsibility and ethics as they sacrifice consumers’ health to maximize profits. To make matters worse, Ting Hsin spokespeople’s attempts to explain these incidents do not contain a hint of the professional introspection that one would expect from a major producer.
Several county and city governments, schools and colleges have decided to boycott the companies responsible for producing tainted foods. People are refusing to buy or eat their products to drive them out of the market.
While all this is going on, it should be kept in mind that Ting Hsin is applying to acquire cable television operator China Network Systems (中嘉寬頻), which serves nearly 30 percent of cable TV customers in Taiwan. One wonders how the National Communications Commission (NCC) is going to assess this bid by the owners of a corporation so lacking in corporate responsibility and ethical conscience to step into the media sector — especially when it wants to operate a system that is big enough to influence the channel allocation and positioning of every commercial TV station.
Oils and other foodstuffs are food on the table and information is food for the mind. Furthermore, information is the bedrock of a free and democratic country. Are those who have demonstrated a lack of corporate ethics in food production fit to run companies in the media sector, where they will have a strong influence over the public’s mental sustenance?
Existing laws regarding cable television do not specifically regulate how those who bid to operate cable TV channels should be assessed for their fitness to do so. However, Article 1 of the Cable Radio and Television Act (有線廣播電視法) does list the purposes of its enactment as being “to promote the sound development of the cable radio and television industry, to safeguard the audio-visual rights and interests of the public, and to enhance social well-being.”
If an entrepreneur who applies to run a cable TV system has clearly demonstrated a lack of business ethics and blatantly infringed laws and regulations without regard for the public’s well-being or the national interest, the harm such a person could do through media operations could be even greater than that caused by tainted food products, because a society that lacks free and accurate information will probably be incapable of overseeing government and business.
The question of an operators’ fitness to run media organizations has widespread implications, so the NCC should stop using the excuse that there are no specific regulations pertaining to the issue. After all, precedents from other countries are available for reference.
In July 2007, a scandal broke out in connection with interception of police telephone calls by reporters working for well-known British newspaper the News of the World, which was owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News International and its parent, News Corp. This behavior violated reporting ethics that are commonly accepted by the British public and attracted widespread condemnation.
A British parliamentary inquiry into the affair concluded that the hacking was not the work of “a single rogue reporter,” but rather a case of “wilful blindness” by the entire media corporation, as its management chose to disregard serious breaches of journalistic ethics.
It found that the affair arose from a corporate culture and style that permeated the organization from top to bottom, and that the key role in the whole affair was played by none other than the corporation’s executive chairman — Murdoch.
It found that, following the outbreak of the scandal, Murdoch had sought to evade his responsibility and mislead parliament.
The report concluded that “Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company.”
Existing laws governing broadcasting and electronic media declare that the aims of the government’s oversight and management of the media are the public’s viewing and listening rights, the sound development of the industry and social well-being. The NCC should do a proper job of pursuing these aims to prevent the government’s competence from being repeatedly cast into doubt.
Furthermore, future legal amendments should include “fitness” as one of the criteria to be considered when assessing those that apply to operate major media outlets. Prospective operators that lack corporate social responsibility and a moral conscience and those deemed incapable of taking on the responsibilities that media organizations should bear in a free and democratic society should be subject to a more open process of public hearings to judge whether they are fit to run media operations.
Flora Chang is a professor at National Taiwan University’s Graduate Institute of Journalism.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations