The core of the legal aspects of the TVBS controversy are as follows. TVBS Inc owns the rights to operate the stations TVBS, TVBS-N and TVBS-G TV here in Taiwan. At present, the company's main shareholders are Bermuda TVB Investment Co, Ltd and its wholly owned subsidiary Countless Enter-tainment (Taiwan) Co, Ltd. Bermuda TVB holds 47 percent of the firm's shares, and Countless entertainment owns 53 percent, so together the two companies hold 100 percent of TVBS' shares.
Article 10 of Taiwan's Satellite and Broadcasting Law (
Further investigations show that at the beginning of the legislative process that shaped the law, the Cabinet was of the opinion that, "An appropriate introduction of foreign capital could lead to the upgrading of domestic technology, industry and skills. Furthermore, the use by foreign companies of proxies or re-investment to enter the domestic market could render regulations ineffective."
In other words, the Cabinet believed that foreign investment in satellite broadcasting should be fully deregulated, and that no restrictions should apply.
When that version was reviewed by the legislature, however, legislators believed that some restrictions should be applied. The result of negotiations was that, "Because the satellite and broadcasting industries have a major impact on the interests of society as a whole, these stipulations are made to avoid inappropriate interference, maintain media impartiality and independence, and to prevent market monopolization by foreigners."
At the third reading, minor changes were made to the text. The legislature was of the opinion that, "The satellite and broadcasting industries belong to the public. To prevent foreigners from monopolizing the market and [sacrificing] the development of the local satellite industry ... the proportion of shares that can be owned by foreigners in the satellite and broadcasting industry should be restricted. We do not agree with the Cabinet's version which says that no restrictions should be applied on foreign investment."
The result was that Article 10 was added to the law to restrict ownership by foreign investors.
The legislative history and aim of the law thus clearly shows that the phrase "directly held" in Article 10 is not meant to be understood in the most narrow sense of "direct foreign investment," but that it should include both direct and indirect foreign investment in the satellite and broadcasting industry.
If it is understood only in the most narrow sense, foreign companies would be able to use proxies or re-investment to invest in the local satellite and broadcasting industry. The article would thus be rendered ineffective, making us wonder why the legislature would add the regulation.
To sum up, Bermuda TVB Investment and its wholly owned subsidiary Countless Entertainment together own 100 percent of TVBS Inc, in obvious violation of the law. In accordance with Item 1, Article 38 of the Satellite and Broadcasting Law, the authority in charge should thus impose a fine on TVBS Inc, of between NT$200,000 (US$5,900) and NT$2 million, and notify the company to make corrections within a specified period of time.
The fine may be imposed again if the company fails to comply. Where the violation is serious -- and 100 percent foreign ownership should be considered serious -- the satellite broadcast permit may be revoked and the license of the domestic broadcasting business canceled.
Kao Tsung-liang is a lawyer.
Translated by Perry Svensson.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS