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
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Most countries are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with condemnations of militarism and imperialism, and commemoration of the global catastrophe wrought by the war. On the other hand, China is to hold a military parade. According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing is conducting the military parade in Tiananmen Square on Sept. 3 to “mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” However, during World War II, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had not yet been established. It
There is an old saying that if there is blood in the water, the sharks will come. In Taiwan’s case, that shark is China, circling, waiting for any sign of weakness to strike. Many thought the failed recall effort was that blood in the water, a signal for Beijing to press harder, but Taiwan’s democracy has just proven that China is mistaken. The recent recall campaign against 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, many with openly pro-Beijing leanings, failed at the ballot box. While the challenge targeted opposition lawmakers rather than President William Lai (賴清德) himself, it became an indirect
A recent critique of former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s speech in Taiwan (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” by Sasha B. Chhabra, Aug. 12, page 8) seriously misinterpreted his remarks, twisting them to fit a preconceived narrative. As a Taiwanese who witnessed his political rise and fall firsthand while living in the UK and was present for his speech in Taipei, I have a unique vantage point from which to say I think the critiques of his visit deliberately misinterpreted his words. By dwelling on his personal controversies, they obscured the real substance of his message. A clarification is needed to
RSS