The Government Information Office's (GIO) attempt to reinstate order in the broadcasting industry and bring an end to the chaos is justice delayed. It has not, however, been welcomed by the public, and some have even raised criticism, saying that their interests are being violated.
UFO Radio chairman Jaw Shaw-kong (
First of all, it will not be the current GIO director who sullies the agency's name for posterity, but rather all the GIO directors who served during Jaw's time as a loyal Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) member, among them People First Party Chairman James Soong (
Jaw was a member of the martial law system, and has never been a victim of media suppression. On the contrary, he used the KMT's media suppression methods to make himself the media's golden boy and accrue power. Now that the GIO wants to reform, and Jaw's private interests are seen as failing to hold up to public scrutiny, he immediately launches a counterattack using his old political methods. It is repulsive.
Second, support is coming from other corners. Kuan Chung-hsiang (管中祥), convener of the Campaign for Media Reform (媒體改造學社), has affirmed the GIO's current review of the operations of medium range broadcasters to see if they comply with their originally stated purpose.
"It is simply a matter of legal administration, making up for past laziness in execution," Kuan said.
It shows that Lin Chia-lung is conscientious in carrying out his duties, and that he is taking action, which is praiseworthy.
Kuan's statement, which came out after Jaw publicly criticized the review, saying that, "If we are violating the law, I guess it means all previous GIO directors were incompetent, and that, you, Lin Chia-lung, are one clever guy," effectively replied on Lin's behalf, implying it was Jaw, and not Lin who was "trying to frame someone."
Third, it is a fact that UFO Radio broadcasts are jointly broadcast by other stations. The Broadcasting and Television Law (廣電法) was revised to eliminate the clause allowing radio stations to carry out joint broadcasts. This was an attempt to follow the original spirit of the law, which doesn't allow for this, although it fails to say so explicitly. Lin asked whether it really was necessary to maintain administrative orders passed on from previous directors. This is something that should be reviewed.
Fourth, Jaw claimed that jointly broadcast programs account for less than 70 percent of what is allowed under government regulations, but he brought forward no evidence to back this up. This claim has to be checked against the facts, and does not become true just because Jaw says it is.
Fifth, and most importantly, are the eight radio stations engaging in joint broadcasts with UFO Radio violating their found-ing guidelines? It is the job of the regulating authority, the GIO, to check this. Whether or not the station agrees, the GIO can investigate. By asking "why should they be so involved?" Jaw revealed his disregard for the law. In other words, when the law interferes with his unreasonable behavior, he objects to the authorities fulfilling their legal responsibilities. That is preposterous.
Jaw's desperation is proof that the reforms are reasonable.
Chin Heng-wei is editor in chief of Contemporary Monthly.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS