The current list of people nominated by the premier to serve as members of the National Communications Commission (NCC, 國家通訊傳播委員會) has drawn much controversy surrounding their backgrounds, characters and integrity, as well as potential conflicts of interest. Even more questionable is that none of the candidates is concerned with media democracy and the rights of viewers and listeners. Can it be that Premier Sean Chen (陳冲) does not really care about safeguarding the media, freedom and democracy? Or could it be that — through the eyes of the Cabinet — that the NCC, which is in charge of national media policy development, is nothing more than a stooge to media corporations to assist the development of media businesses?
The National Communications Commission Organization Act (國家通訊傳播委員會組織法) lists the purposes for which the commission was established, and these aims include: enforcing the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech; promoting the sound development of communications; preserving the independence of the media; ensuring fair and effective competition in the communications market; protecting consumers’ interests and respecting the rights of the disadvantaged; and promoting the balanced development of cultural pluralism. Of these six aims, only two have to do with the development of media businesses; the other four are concerned with culture and the quality of communications in relation to freedom, democracy and the audience’s rights and interests. However, among the current list of nominees, apart from two legal academics, all the others have connections to media businesses.
Among the first set of people who served as commissioners after the commission was set up were Lin Tung-tai (林東泰), who is a specialist in political communications and public opinion, and Liu Yu-li (劉幼俐), who is an expert on policy, law and new communications technologies. Among the second-term commissioners, Bonnie Peng (彭芸) is a specialist in international and political communications and Chung Chi-hui (鍾起惠) is an expert on the quality of radio and television media and the rights of readers and listeners. All four are highly reputable experts in media and communications and have written a great deal about their respective fields. Their expertise and accomplishments complemented those of other commissioners who specialize in economics, business and law, ensuring that the commission is able to carry out its full functions.
Compare that with the current list of nominees. Howard Shyr (石世豪) is a doctor of law specializing in administrative law and related subjects; Peng Shin-yi (彭心儀) specializes in technology law; Yu Hsiao-cheng (虞孝成) has worked in information technology and related businesses; and Chen Yuan-ling (陳元玲) has a media business background. There are also three commissioners who will continue in their posts for another two years. They are Chang Shi-chung (張時中), Wei Shyue-win (魏學文) and Liu Chorng-jian (劉崇堅), whose backgrounds are in information technology, communications technology and the telecommunications industry respectively. Not one of these continuing and prospective commissioners is concerned with media democracy or specializes in communications culture or the rights of readers and listeners. The list of nominees and the composition of the NCC show that the Cabinet’s view of the value of the media is confined to a business mindset which overlooks the fact that the media are a cornerstone of democratic and cultural values. The Cabinet’s choice of appointees also narrows the role of NCC commissioners and weakens the democratic function of the media in a free society.
We would like to ask the premier which of these commissioners is an expert in media independence, cultural pluralism or the rights of the disadvantaged. Does he think these are all unimportant aspects? Is developing media businesses all that Taiwan needs to do to safeguard the public’s viewing and listening rights? Is there no need for the commission to concern itself with the issue of whether these big media businesses are using official public agencies for private benefit, stifling plurality of opinion and trampling on media independence and the rights of the disadvantaged?
The Cabinet should thoroughly review its current choice of nominees and present a new list of people in keeping with the founding purposes of the NCC. The commission, which plays a decisive role in defining how the media will develop, should do more than just assist the development of media businesses and promote digital convergence. It should also uphold and enhance media independence to promote freedom of expression, the rights of the disadvantaged and cultural pluralism.
Flora Chang is a professor at National Taiwan University’s Graduate Institute of Journalism; Chen Ping-hung is a professor at National Taiwan Normal University’s Graduate Institute of Mass Communication; Kuang Chung-hsiang is an associate professor at National Chung Cheng University’s Department of Communication.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
RSS