Taipei Times: The legislature soon may erase the so-called "vegetarian clause" to secure the PTS' annual budget. How do you respond to concern whether the service is worth spending taxpayers' money on?
Lee Yung-te (李永得): Since we now already have so many TV channels, the question of why Taiwan needs a public television service has become a controversial one. However, as commercial television stations can become quite prosperous, social justice can never be fulfilled according to experiences of other western countries such as the UK's BBC and Japan's NHK. I'd like to outline five values of Taiwan's PTS to demonstrate that the service's existence is a must. [The service] is for disadvantaged minorities, cultural achievements, the disabled, the elderly and children that commercial television stations tend to ignore.
Therefore, it should put its emphasis on quality, public services, taking care of minorities' interests, setting a fine example for other commercial channels to look up to and promoting cultural exchange with other countries. Take children's programs for example: Commercial stations, which aim to pursue profits only, consider children as non-consumers and, therefore, will not invest heavily in producing high-quality programming for children. They will instead purchase and air foreign-made children's programs, which will likely confuse Taiwanese children's cultural identity if they grow up with these programs.
Meanwhile, as studies showed that public television services worldwide have played an important role in elevating the nation's overall broadcasting qualities. That is, if public television produces fine quality programming, other commercial stations will follow so that poor-taste programs will gradually be weeded out.
TT: The service is not allowed to carry commercials, but it should be capable of raising funds for itself. How do you think the service can increase its income so that taxpayers won't be overburdened?
Lee: Right now some expect us to focus on striving for sponsorship from corporations that endorse the service's goals, but I disagree. Instead, I emphasis two sources [of income]: First, copyright fees for the service's programming and sale of their reproduced products [such as video and audiotapes] to instructional institutes, and secondly, small-value donations from our members. This is more culturally meaningful for the service's development. In fact, the first source has brought us as much as NT$70 million in profit per year. Nevertheless, I am not saying that industrial sponsorship is not important. I think it should be put as a long-term goal since only international corporations such as Citibank are willing to put down their money regardless of the service's current low ratings.
TT: Some criticize that the PTS, though pursuing quality programming, has spent too freely. For example, it has staffed personnel in redundant positions. How do you strike a balance between quality and cost?
Lee: Quality is definitely not an excuse for us to waste money. To produce high-quality programs in an efficient way is the key factor to maintaining the service's competitiveness. Therefore, we tabulate every use of the service's programming equipment and resources. For example, we prearrange use of the studio and its staff in order to cut down on unnecessary expenses.
RSS