Is there actually any point to having the National Communications Commission (NCC)?
A look at the requirements in the law that establish the need for the commission and the definitions in that law raise five major questions.
Article 1 of the National Communications Commission Organization Act (國家通訊傳播委員會組織法) says the Executive Yuan, “in a bid to enforce the Constitution’s protection of freedom of speech,” created the NCC “to uphold the philosophy of separating the political parties, government, and military from the mass media, to promote the comprehensive development of communications, to protect the media’s professionalism and independence, to effectively administer communications administration, to ensure a fair and effective competition of the communications market, to safeguard the equity and respect of consumers and minority groups, to promote a balanced development of cultural diversity, and to increase nation’s competitiveness.”
The first question, then, is whether the commission really upholds “the philosophy of separating the political parties, government, and military from the mass media.”
Just this year, the commission approved two government radio stations. The Radio and Television Act (廣播電視法) has a loophole that allows the creation of government radio stations and this clearly goes against the so-called philosophy of separating the political parties, government and military from the media.
The second question is: Does the commission actually “promote the comprehensive development of communications”?
To date, it has failed to come up with even the most basic strategy for the communications sector and neither has it offered a clear definition of what the “comprehensive development of communications” would entail.
This being the case, how does it expect to fulfill that particular promise?
To give a simple example, how does the commission view the next step for broadcast media and radio stations? At a time when the age of the connected car is just around the corner, and the radio is no longer standard equipment in cars, one would guess that the broadcasting communications sector is going to be hard hit. What exactly has the NCC come up with to address this problem?
The third question concerns the commission’s duty to “ensure a fair and effective competition of the communications market.” What has it done in this regard?
Very little.
The commission itself is only really concerned with traditional media and has little control over online media. In what way is this fair-handed?
Even now, it is promoting a draft media monopoly prevention and diversity maintenance bill, which is to regulate broadcasting, television and even print media, while utterly ignoring mainstream Internet media.
According to the law, the NCC is to supervise the entire broadcasting and communications sector. Why, then, is it limiting itself to broadcasting and television?
The fourth question is: What has the NCC done to “promote a balanced development of cultural diversity”?
First, we need to ask: “What is cultural diversity?”
The term appears in the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution, predominantly regarding the promotion of Aboriginal languages and culture. It has also been mentioned, on many occasions, in the Council of Grand Justices’ constitutional interpretations, as well as in other laws in Taiwan. Despite this, “cultural diversity” has never been clearly defined.
The NCC itself in 2007 commissioned Kuo Liang-wen (郭良文), a professor at National Chiao Tung University’s Department of Communications and Technology, to conduct a study on this very question — a study that yielded concrete results. It is only a pity that the NCC did not draft the law the study was meant to inform and the findings were never put to use.
The current draft of the media monopoly prevention and diversity maintenance bill, for example, has only four clauses related to cultural diversity, despite the term appearing in the title of the draft bill. Not only this, but the term itself is never defined.
Is the commission using the term to make itself look good, or genuinely trying to promote cultural diversity?
The fifth question is about competition: How is the NCC supposed to “increase the nation’s competitiveness”?
Would this be by advancing technological development in telecommunication and broadcasting, or by reinforcing the export of broadcasting soft power? The former is a bit beyond its ability, while it appears to be doing exactly the opposite of the latter.
Perhaps the NCC should refer again to the opening article in its own organization act and actually start doing what it was founded to do in the first place.
Weber Lai is a professor at the National Taiwan University of Arts’ department of radio and television and president of the Chinese Communication Management Society.
Translated by Paul Cooper
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
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,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which