A friend living in the US once asked why the Taiwanese government spends so much money on paid advertising every year.
I couldn't immediately think of an answer to give him, so he provided one himself.
"There would be no need to waste government funds on media space and time if government officials were professionals capable of facing the media to explain and defend their policies," he argued.
The heart of the problem is, in other words, that Taiwanese officials lack professionalism and are incapable of defending their policies in person.
I was reminded of this exchange after the Financial Supervisory Commission's (FSC) takeover of the The Chinese Bank (
FSC Chairman Shih Jun-ji (
From the perspective of professional public relations management, the FSC's approach followed government policy principles, and the fact that the chairman personally came out to explain what was happening met the requirements of the media that wanted access to leading officials.
From this perspective, Shih is an uncommonly responsible government leader.
He differed from past leaders who instead have wasted government funds on media time and space to avoid blame because they were afraid of meeting the media to address public doubts over unclear decision making.
From this perspective, the FSC's behavior during this period has been commendable.
My friend told me that when the US was hit by mad cow disease, leaders of US government health agencies immediately called press conferences to answer questions personally and in a knowledgeable and professional manner.
Then, for several weeks after, press conferences were held continuously by officials to explain possible problems and how to prevent those problems from arising.
Anyone who wanted to know more could get first hand information from government officials via the media.
He said he had never seen the health authorities buy advertising time and space, and that this instead helped calm the public and avoid any possible panic.
But what do our ministers do when something major happens?
Do they or their public relations officers go to the media to explain the details to the general public or is their only thought to buy media time and space instead of meeting the press to explain and protect their policies?
Statistics show that the central government has spent well over NT$1 billion (US$30 million) on media time and space over the past few years.
Because advertising has been declining, many media outlets have given up on their responsibility to monitor the government in order to compete for its advertising dollar. This has turned the government into the country's biggest advertiser.
Preposterous as this may sound, it serves to highlight the lack of professionalism and responsibility among government officials.
As long as incapable government officials use taxpayers' money to line the pockets of media organizations, the media will feel indebted and neglect its duty to monitor the government.
The big loser is the public.
This is why it is such bad practice for the government to buy media time and space.
If the financial turmoil set off by the run on The Chinese Bank (
Chen Ping-hung is a professor at the Graduate Institute of Mass Communications, National Taiwan Normal University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
RSS