Lately, the two most popular mass media personalities, apart from the popular TV host Hou Pei-tsen (侯佩岑), have been Chiang Hsia (江霞), newly-appointed general manager of the state-run Chinese Television Systems (CTS), and Government Information Office (GIO) Director-General Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍). While the popularity of Hou, who is liked by men and loved by women, is a matter of individual preference, the popularity of Chiang and Lin involves public interest.
Chiang's appointment is a source of trouble for the government's supporters and a matter of joy for its detractors. Mass media scholars, hoping that President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) government would resolve the issue of the three old TV-stations' decades-long monopoly are feeling both ill at ease and angry, while those who want to perpetuate the special privileges that come with a monopoly rejoice -- if someone tries to get rid of them, they can now cry out "green terror" and "political persecution."
When Lin, who was transferred from being the Cabinet's spin doctor to becoming director-general of the GIO, took up his new post, he was immediately faced with the problem of extending the broadcasting licenses for China Television Company (CTV) and the Broadcasting Corporation of China (BCC). The two media corporations were taught a lesson, which naturally was interpreted as being aimed at the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
From a power perspective, the dissatisfaction with Chiang and Lin all makes sense -- why should they come out on top? Or, turning it around, why should we be the victims? The reason is that they are holding the power, and others have reason to believe that they are abusing that power. In particular, Chiang has admitted that her appointment was a "political reward," and her views of the TV-station's development do not sit at all well with a development towards establishing an independent public service corporation. As the blue camp is launching an all-out attack at Chiang, it is very difficult for the green camp to come to her rescue.
The problems of extending licenses and turning stations into independent public service corporations that Lin faces are more serious. It is an indisputable fact that CTV and the BCC for a long time have been given access to more public resources than anyone else. When the GIO requested that BCC return its license, the company could not do much else than comply; although they believed the announcement was a result of the power struggle between the green and blue camps, they also knew they didn't have a leg to stand on if they were to refuse.
And when the major CTV shareholder struck out at Lin, saying that he was causing the company's share prices to drop, the question that really should have been asked might have been, "Who was it that let CTV go public in the first place? Were the decision-makers at the time guilty of administrative or legal oversight?"
In the political power struggle, Chiang lost the first round, while Lin defeated the BCC. But that battle is not over yet. The blue camp thinks they are, after all, in opposition now, but once they are back in power, they will have learned their lesson from the current government and take it all back, lock, stock and barrel. This is a struggle for political power that is not directly connected to the public interest.
At this point we are faced with the problem of clarifying the line between public and political interests on the one hand and the political and public spheres on the other. What is even more important, however, is to realize the difference between liberalism and radical social democracy.
Liberals do not trust those holding political power. They worry that power corrupts and harms civil rights. They will not believe that the government wants to turn the media into independent public service corporations, but rather that the government wants to use them as an opportunity to weaken the opposition and monopolize power.
Radical social democrats believe that, in addition to politics, there is a public sphere that belongs to the citizenry. They believe that turning media into independent public service corporations is different from nationalization; the interests and will of society should be neither controlled nor represented by political forces.
Liberals sneer at this in the belief that it is but a myth invented by a political mob to encourage populism, and that turning media into independent public service corporations is inferior to the market mechanism.
Academics proposing that media be turned into independent public service corporations have noted the experiences of other countries in order to prove that there are successful examples of such a transformation. It is very difficult for them to make sure that these opinions reach the main group whose rights they want to protect -- the TV audience.
Lin believes that an attempt should be made to turn TV-stations into independent public service corporations, and that if it fails, at least people won't be able to say he didn't try. Academics in favor of the creation of public service corporations should push the government into organizing a public television foundation built on idealism, vision and able management. They should also encourage public participation.
If the "revolution" fails, we can join the likes of US economist Milton Friedman and let market forces supervise politics. If we do not, we have to quietly accept yet another Chiang Hsia.
Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer.
Translated by Perry Svensson
French firm DCI-DESCO in April won a bid to upgrade Taiwan’s Lafayette frigates, which has strained ties between China and France. In 1991, France sold Taiwan six Lafayette frigates and in 1992 sold it 60 Mirage 2000 fighter jets. To prevent arms sales between the nations, China negotiated an agreement with France and in 1994 in a joint statement, France promised that there would be no future arms sales to Taiwan. From China’s point of view, the DCI-DESCO deal constitutes a breach of the agreement, but the French stance is that it is not selling Taiwan new weapons, but instead providing a
Chung Yuan ChristiaN University is clearly in bed with the People’s Republic of China. This can be the only explanation why the school’s authorities have done their utmost to shield a student, who lodged a complaint against an associate professor, and then used thuggish tactics to compel the teacher to issue two separate apologies to China. The original complaint, filed by an unnamed Chinese student, was for remarks by associate professor Chao Ming-wei (招名威) during a class on the origin of COVID-19. A second complaint was filed by the same student after Chao, during an apology, stated that he was a
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in her inaugural address on May 20 firmly said: “We will not accept the Beijing authorities’ use of ‘one country, two systems’ to downgrade Taiwan and undermine the cross-strait status quo.” The Chinese government was not too happy, and later that day, an opinion piece on the Web site of China’s state broadcaster China Central Television said: “While Tsai’s first inaugural address four years ago was read by Beijing as an ‘unfinished answer sheet,’ the one she presented this time was even more below-par.” Speaking to the China Review News Agency, Shanghai Institutes for International Studies vice president
During my twenty-two years in the US Senate, I became a student of Taiwan and its history. I was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific and International Cybersecurity Policy, and have made at least 25 trips to Taiwan and have been invited as an observer to two of the nation’s presidential elections. Taiwan’s continuous economic miracle has seen the nation transition from a mixed agricultural-industrial society at the end of Japan’s 50 years of jurisdiction to today’s economic powerhouse, unmatched by most nations of the world. Just as outstanding has been Taiwan’s decades of resistance and