In a nation where all public sectors have been thoroughly politicized, citizens always tend to see so-called "independent" commissions as cure-alls. The same is true when it comes to the media reform issue, which the government and opposition have been arguing over bitterly.
\nEver since the National Communications Commission (NCC) was given its name, there have been those who have been dissatisfied with the performance of the institutions currently in charge of broadcasting and telecommunications. In the commission, they have found an outlet for their unrealistic imaginations. They include people with ulterior motives, who deliberately use the NCC as an excuse to oppose reform.
\nIt seems that substantive reform is unnecessary, so long as we emulate the US and come up with a Taiwanese version of the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Then, the thinking goes, all the evils absent in the US but so apparent here -- such as party-government-army unity and monopoly, will instantly disappear from Taiwan. At the very least, this will change the direction of public opinion, and move political parties' focus away from essential reform, leaving us to scrape along and postpone the changes we are waiting for.
\nI deeply believe that the majority of Taiwanese have been eagerly looking forward to the establishment of the NCC. Although the belief that a political miracle will happen all by itself is a bit naive, it is helpful for changing the status quo. However, the actions of a minority of irresponsible media and politicians with ulterior motives bring unrealistic and empty hopes. That in turn leads to a wait-and-see attitude, which restricts the current reform consensus that has been so hard to achieve.
\nIn fact, if closely scrutinized, the high hopes for the future operations of the NCC are nothing but a mirage -- and the resulting disappointment and complaints will deepen the public's apathy towards politics. We must clearly recognize the feasibility and limitations of the various proposals in order to be able to avoid booty-sharing between political parties and other unreasonable demands that would destroy the functions that the NCC should possess.
\nFirst of all, the NCC will be responsible for the telecommunications, broadcasting and information sectors, and its status will be that of a second-level ministerial commission. Organizationally, however, it will not fall under the jurisdiction of the Executive Yuan, which makes it unique. Apart from legally stipulated supervisory and control powers, the NCC will therefore lack both the convenient mutual assistance that comes from the administrative unity of ministries and commissions, and the mutual support and assistance between members of the Cabinet team.
\nSecond, the NCC's "independent" status will not be maintained through a balance between different political parties. Rather, the commission -- which will be made up of experts -- will transcend party politics through depoliticized organizational design and thorough controls and principles separating management from operations. It will thereby escape the influence of the success or failure of individual operators, and focus on technology, market and efficiency policies. Excessive political expectations and too many political missions will only cause the NCC to become engulfed in party struggles which will consume the commission's credibility.
\nThird, NCC members will come from relevant specialized fields, with technical members mainly coming from the Directorate General of Communications (
During the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum’s third leadership summit on Aug. 31, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun said that the US wants to partner with the other members of the Quadrilaterial Security Dialogue — Australia, India and Japan — to establish an organization similar to NATO, to “respond to ... any potential challenge from China.” He said that the US’ purpose is to work with these nations and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to “create a critical mass around the shared values and interest of those parties,” and possibly attract more countries to establish an alliance comparable to
On August 24, 2020, the US Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, made an important statement: “The Pentagon is Prepared for China.” Going forward, how might the Department of Defense team up with Taiwan to make itself even more prepared? No American wants to deter the next war by a paper-thin margin, and no one appreciates the value of strategic overmatch more than the war planners at the Pentagon. When the stakes are this high, you can bet they want to be super ready. In recent months, we have witnessed a veritable flood of high-level statements from US government leaders on
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new