The internal dispute over Public Television Service’s (PTS) board of directors has developed into a legal battle between PTS chairman Cheng Tung-liao (鄭同僚) and some of the board members, hurting PTS’ development. However, if we could use this opportunity to develop a public assessment system to evaluate the management’s performance, then internal operations and personnel changes could be carried out professionally and in the public interest.
PTS could use the crisis as a turning point to eliminate political interference and move toward independence and professionalism.
Hence, we call on Cheng and the board of directors to drop the lawsuit and publicly explain the conflict. More importantly, a fair and professional evaluation of the management team must be conducted and a decision as to who should stay must be made based on public assessment.
The problem could be resolved by amending the Public Television Act (公共電視法) following a review of the systemic shortcomings that the dispute has revealed.
As the authority in charge, the Government Information Office (GIO) should take full responsibility for the political deadlock facing the PTS board and push for a prompt legal amendment based on changes drafted by PTS.
Despite the link between PTS and politics, PTS operations do not have to be influenced by politics. By distinguishing between legal rights and responsibilities, demanding accountability from PTS’ operator and respecting the group’s autonomy from politicians, we should be able to build a system that serves the public interest rather than political parties.
In terms of the current conflict, we feel the following problems are systemic and should be addressed without delay.
First, the GIO has a responsibility to explain why it is not illegal to add more board members. Additional board members should be nominated by the Cabinet and approved by the legislature.
Officially appointed board members who have been involved in planning and management at PTS should not be held responsible for administrative errors, nor should they be deprived of their right to comment on and assess the issues affecting PTS.
Second, can the chairman of the board and top management be replaced?
The Act says that the term for board members is three years and the chairman is elected among members of the board. It also says that the general manager should be nominated by the chairman and approved by two-thirds of the board and that the general manager should be directed and monitored by the board.
As the highest supervisory unit, the board of directors has the power to re-elect the chairman and replace the general manager. However, to ensure staff stability and operational efficiency, PTS should avoid a political tug-of-war over votes. What is needed is rational discussion and assessment of who is appropriate for the management team.
Third, we must look at the procedures and legal basis for replacing the chairman of the board and top management. It is the duty of the chairman and the general manager to manage PTS, but the Act only regulates the replacement of the general manager and makes no mention of the re-election of the chairman. This is what has caused the current difficulties.
To balance their respective duties and powers and avoid political wrangling, benchmarks must be developed to assess and monitor the performance of the chairman and general manager’s team. In addition to assessing employee satisfaction with the team, PTS has put a lot of effort into establishing public assessment benchmarks in recent years. It is now crucial that PTS employ fair assessment standards to evaluate the management team and decide whether to keep the chairman and general manager.
Finally, the Cabinet and the legislature, which were responsible for exacerbating the conflict, should ask themselves whether they did anything to help PTS apart from adding board members and changing the structure of its board.
The Act must be amended if the problems mentioned here are to be solved.
Hung Chen-ling is an associate professor at National Taiwan University’s Graduate Institute of Journalism; Chad Liu is an associate professor at National Chengchi University’s Department of Journalism.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG AND DREW CAMERON
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS