In order to comply with the revised Broadcasting and Television Law (廣播電視法) that stipulated Dec. 26 as the deadline for the government, the military and political parties to give up ownership of television and radio stations, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Monday night announced that it had sold its controlling stakes in the Broadcasting Corp of China, China Television Co and the Central Motion Pictures Corp.
The KMT's swift disposal of its holdings deserves applause, as it honored its commitment to the deadline and showed support for the government's bid to rid media operations of "political influence." But the question of whether any Chinese or other foreign capital was involved in the purchase of the three media outlets by the China Times Group and their holding company remains unanswered -- and therefore deserves public scrutiny.
According to the Broadcasting and Television Law, terrestrial television companies must be 100-percent Taiwan-owned and operated.
With the China Times Group recently shutting down the China Times Express because of financial difficulties, some have questioned how the group had the resources to raise the NT$9 billion (US$272.73 million) needed for completion of the purchase.
With rumors circulating that the Hong Kong-based Li Ka Shing Group may have financed the purchase, the China Times Group should come forward and provide answers to questions about its dealings with the KMT.
It was interesting to see KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) came out in defense of the purchase on Tuesday and rebut charges that any Chinese capital was involved in the transaction.
Ma is not listed as an executive of the China Times Group. So how can he be so sure of its background and vouch for the credentials of the buyer, rather than letting the buyer speak for itself?
During his dismissal of the speculation, Ma said that the information was provided by "KMT Deputy Secretary-General Chang Che-chen (張哲琛) who had checked [the information]" and "the China Times Group."
How skillfully Ma phrases his words. In other words, he means that the buyer confirmed there was "no Chinese capital" involved and Chang agreed, so if anything in his statement proves to be false, Ma need not bear any responsibility. He can say that he "was merely relaying their statements."
The buyer is a venture capital company invested in by a Cayman Islands-registered holding company, which is in turn invested in and run by the China Times Group. It it hasn't done anything illegal, why is it so difficult for it to come forward, make a public statement and produce documentary evidence to show that its capital and financial structures do not contain Chinese money?
In the meantime, the Democratic Progressive Party government should closely investigate the matter.
Although who buys the KMT's media outlets is the party's internal affair, the government should be cautious and remain attentive to any matters that may have indirect bearing on the national security. It should prevent any Chinese or Hong Kong capital from finding its way into the domestic media.
For the sake of national security, no opportunities or loopholes should be left open for Trojan horses of any kind, including those disguised as "local" media.
With the Year of the Snake reaching its conclusion on Monday next week, now is an opportune moment to reflect on the past year — a year marked by institutional strain and national resilience. For Taiwan, the Year of the Snake was a composite of political friction, economic momentum, social unease and strategic consolidation. In the political sphere, it was defined less by legislative productivity and more by partisan confrontation. The mass recall movement sought to remove 31 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators following the passage of controversial bills that expanded legislative powers and imposed sweeping budget cuts. While the effort
When Hong Kong’s High Court sentenced newspaper owner Jimmy Lai (黎智英) to 20 years in prison this week, officials declared that his “heinous crimes” had long poisoned society and that his punishment represented justice restored. In their telling, Lai is the mastermind of Hong Kong’s unrest — the architect of a vast conspiracy that manipulated an otherwise contented population into defiance. They imply that removing him would lead to the return of stability. It is a politically convenient narrative — and a profoundly false one. Lai did not radicalize Hong Kong. He belonged to the same generation that fled from the Chinese
There is a story in India about a boy called Prahlad who was an ardent worshipper of Lord Narayana, whom his father considered an enemy. His son’s devotion vexed the father to the extent that he asked his sister, Holika, who could not be burned by fire, to sit with the boy in her lap and burn him to death. Prahlad knew about this evil plan, but sat in his aunt’s lap anyway. His faith won, as he remained unscathed by the fire, while his aunt was devoured by the flames. In some small way, Prahlad reminds me of Taiwan
Former Hong Kong media magnate Jimmy Lai (黎智英), who on Monday was sentenced to 20 years in jail for his role in the 2019 Hong Kong democracy movement and “colluding with foreign forces,” once called on members of the US government for support in his struggle against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Speaking to a forum at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in July 2019, Lai, speaking about the US having the moral authority over the CCP, said: “It’s like they are going to battle without any weapon, and you have the nuclear weapon. You can finish them in
RSS