During a question-and-answer session at the Legislative Yuan in Taipei on March 10, Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Fan Yun (范雲) asked Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) about the issue of iQiyi, China’s largest over-the-top (OTT) media service provider, which according to Fan circumvented regulations and has been operating in Taiwan without approval for years.
If there is a legal loophole, Su said he would negotiate with government agencies about amending the law.
According to Fan, the National Communications Commission (NCC) has said that it cannot regulate iQiyi’s content because it is responsible for regulating the platform, not its content.
In light of this, NCC Acting Chairman Chen Yaw-shyang (陳耀祥) said that the commission is drafting an Internet audiovisual media service act to regulate OTT providers.
Whether China-based OTT providers should be allowed to operate in Taiwan and how the government should regulate them, regardless of their origin, are different issues.
The government already has regulations for the first issue, as the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例) imposes restrictions on the activities of businesses in Taiwan that Chinese have invested in.
At a news conference on March 3 last year, Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Chiu Chui-cheng (邱垂正) made a clear statement that OTT providers are not included among the business items that Chinese enterprises are allowed to operate.
In other words, Taiwan already has a legal basis for addressing the question of whether Chinese OTT businesses should be allowed to operate in Taiwan. The real issue is how to properly implement the law to contain China-based OTT providers that are not registered in Taiwan, but operate through a Taiwanese subsidiary or other third party.
How to regulate OTT providers in general is a different issue. Many countries have researched policies over whether and how the government should regulate OTT and similar emerging-media platforms. The EU, for instance, has issued a series of policy white papers on the issue, the majority of which adopt low-intensity control. In Taiwan, the NCC’s Communications Policy white paper takes a similar direction.
Taking into consideration legislation and policies around the world, as well as Taiwan’s special circumstances, OTT regulations here need to focus on a few key aspects:
First, local content and languages must be protected.
Due to concern that foreign content streamed by foreign-based OTT providers, such as YouTube and Netflix, might compress the space for native content in the eurozone, the EU demands that a proportion of OTT catalogs be reserved for European productions in accordance with the latest version of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, which was revised in 2018.
In addition to ensuring local content is provided by OTT services, the government should also think about how to protect local productions that use the national languages designated in the Development of National Languages Act (國家語言發展法) rather than focusing on one specific language, which would further marginalize minority languages due to the lack of streaming content on new-media platforms.
Second, content diversity and freedom of expression must be protected.
There have been instances of video-streaming platforms axing programs for containing “politically incorrect” elements. In August, 2017, iQiyi unexpectedly stopped broadcasting the miniseries Days We Stared at the Sun II (他們在畢業的前一天爆炸2) after airing the first episode. The Chinese service reportedly axed it because it used the Sunflower movement as the backdrop to the story.
In May 2018, Tzu Chi Culture and Communication Foundation subsidiary Da Ai TV, which also operates its own OTT platform, pulled its historical drama Jiachang’s Heart (智子之心) after broadcasting only the first two episodes. The drama was reportedly canceled because Chinese netizens criticized it for romanticizing the Second Sino-Japanese War from 1937 to 1945.
Terminating programs due to political concerns is a business consideration, but it also severely stifles artistic freedom and freedom of expression. When drafting a special law, the government should consider how to ensure content diversity, protect freedom of speech and artistic freedom to prevent similar incidents.
Third, China’s cultural “united front” strategy and belittling of Taiwan must be prevented.
Compared with other countries, a unique threat facing Taiwan is China’s “united front” strategy and denigration using cultural means.
For instance, when Taiwanese actors and place names are in credits or scripts, they are often marked “Taiwan, China.” It is also not difficult to imagine that footage containing political symbols of the Republic of China, such as the national emblem and anthem, are deleted or silenced due to political considerations.
Similar instances can be found in Chinese cellphones. To prevent mobile devices from showing degrading references to Taiwan, such as “Taiwan, China,” in the caller’s location and warranty areas, the NCC has asked Chinese manufacturers to sign an affidavit in which they pledge to label Taiwan as a nation in the operating systems settings and built-in applications when they apply for product certification. This has had some effect.
The commission should also consider concrete preventive and enforcement measures to deal with regulations for overseas OTT providers to curb China’s cultural “united front” strategy.
The premise for such regulations is that OTT providers have been authorized to operate in Taiwan and are subject to the government’s management. However, OTT providers with illegal operations in Taiwan via an agent is also an important issue.
Feasible approaches include blocking their Internet connections and prohibiting them from renting server space, but these approaches might require legal authorization.
If the policy banning Chinese enterprises from operating or investing in OTT services remains unchanged, the government must urgently discuss the implementation of supplementary legislative measures.
Liao Shiang is a lawyer.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
When Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Xi Jinping (習近平) wakes up one morning and decides that his People’s Liberation Army (PLA) can win a war to conquer Taiwan, that is when his war will begin. To ensure that Xi never gains that confidence it is now necessary for the United States to shed any notions of “forbearance” in arms sales to Taiwan. Largely because they could guarantee military superiority on the Taiwan Strait, US administrations from Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama practiced “forbearance” — pre-emptive limitation of arms sales to Taiwan — in hopes of gaining diplomatic leverage with Beijing. President Ronald
As the US marks one month under the leadership of President Joe Biden, the conversations around Taiwan have shifted. As I discussed in a Taipei Times article (“No more talk of ‘bargaining chips,’” Jan. 30, page 8), with the end of former US president Donald Trump’s administration — and all of the unpredictability associated with it — Taiwan would not have to worry about being used as a “bargaining chip” in some sort of deal with the People’s Republic of China. The talk of Taiwan being used as a bargaining chip never subsided over those four years, but under Biden, those
The Canadian parliament on Monday passed a motion saying that China’s human rights abuses against the country’s Uighur Muslim population in Xinjiang constitute “genocide.” Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has so far avoided using the word genocide in regard to Xinjiang, but if he did, it would begin to generate solidarity among G7 nations on the issue — which is something Trudeau has called for. Former US president Donald Trump used the word genocide regarding Xinjiang before leaving office last month, and members of US President Joe Biden’s administration have been pushing for him to make the same declaration, a Reuters report
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Lin Wei-chou (林為洲) talked about “opposing the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]” in a recent Facebook post, writing that opposing the CCP is not the special reserve of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Not long after, many people within the KMT received a mysterious letter signed “Chinese Nationalist Party Central Committee” containing what looked like a declaration of opposition to, and a call to arms against, the CCP. Unexpectedly, the KMT’s Culture and Communications Committee came forward with a clarification, saying that the letter was not sent by the KMT and telling the public not to believe
RSS