On June 16, the legislature’s Education and Culture Committee decided to eliminate Article 14, Section 1 of the Radio and Television Act (廣播電視法), abolishing the Act Governing the Broadcasting Development Fund (廣播電視事業發展基金條例). This in turn might mean the liquidation of the Broadcasting Development Fund (BDF). While some may consider this a minor issue, the legislature has taken a first step in the right direction.
A decision must be made on the BDF, and although the Cabinet has yet to turn its attention to the issue, there is no reason why the legislature shouldn’t take the initiative.
This must be followed by a second and even more important step, which is related to one of the reasons for doing away with the act. The legislature says the BDF has fulfilled its mission and no longer acts according to the original purpose of the law. The truth is, however, that since its establishment more than 20 years ago, the fund has never been able to fulfill its mission. This is the reason the legislature should go further.
In the 1980s, the original three TV channels and the Broadcasting Corporation of China (BCC) monopolized almost all radio and TV resources. As long as the government released some of the profits from this monopoly and produced some high-quality programming, it could retain these communication channels.
But too many unprofessional considerations went into the production of programs sponsored by the BDF and every TV station was forced to broadcast the shows, forcing the bulk of viewers to tune in to pirate TV stations.
As a consequence, the old three stations suffered and satellite TV reaped the benefits. For instance, TVBS began broadcasting a 9pm political talk show because at that time, the old three stations were broadcasting the programming they were told to broadcast, rather than what the public wanted to see.
This is why the fund has been unable to fulfill the mission it is legally charged with. In comparison, Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) is highly trusted by the Hong Kong public and still broadcasts its programs on Hong Kong’s TV stations. Its programming has a large audience and is well appreciated. Although Taiwan uses a similar model, its achievements are shamefully limited. With a budget of about NT$1 billion (US$33 million), RTHK only produces 15 hours of programming per week, but it is broadcast by local cable TV stations that enjoy an 80 percent market share. In addition, RTHK has an annual budget of more than NT$1 billion to produce programming for seven radio channels.
Like Hong Kong, Taiwan should provide the public with credible and quality radio and TV programming that will attract a large audience on a daily basis. At the same time, we are faced with an opportunity, or maybe a challenge: If cross-strait talks were also to include TV, then if China’s CCTV channel 4 or 9, or other channels, could be broadcast on a fixed frequency and had to be carried on local Taiwanese TV, what programs would Taiwan choose for Chinese TV to carry?
Whether to compensate for the neglected TV and radio rights of the public over the past 20 years or to welcome the prospect of cross-strait TV and film exchanges, we need a larger production center for producing TV and radio programming, and at the same time we must ensure that programming produced by that center is effectively broadcast. From this perspective, the legislature’s abolishing the legal basis for the BDF can be seen as a seed which may sprout and create opportunities for an even larger fund for producing TV programs.
The next problem we have to face is who has the power and the responsibility and is best qualified to nurture this new baby? Cable TV or commercial terrestrial TV? The Taiwan Broadcasting System or the Satellite Television Broadcasting Association? Or some kind of alliance between these organizations after they have been revised? Such technical issues are not hard to solve. Whether the legislature comes up with a solution after researching it, or if it urges the Cabinet to complete the task, it’s all for good for the public and cross-strait TV culture exchanges.
Feng Chien-san is a professor of journalism at National Cheng Chi University.
TRANSLATED BY ANNA STIGGELBOUT AND TED YANG
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Victory in conflict requires mastery of two “balances”: First, the balance of power, and second, the balance of error, or making sure that you do not make the most mistakes, thus helping your enemy’s victory. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made a decisive and potentially fatal error by making an enemy of the Jewish Nation, centered today in the State of Israel but historically one of the great civilizations extending back at least 3,000 years. Mind you, no Israeli leader has ever publicly declared that “China is our enemy,” but on October 28, 2025, self-described Chinese People’s Armed Police (PAP) propaganda
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS