Officials reassure US about TVBS

By Charles Snyder, Jimmy Chuang and Chang Yun-ping

STAFF REPORTERS IN WASHINGTON AND TAIPEI

"We understand that Taiwan's leaders and people also place great importance on press freedom, and we hope this will continue to be guaranteed in Taiwan."－US State Department spokesman

Taiwan's foreign ministry has sent a message to the US government to allay any concerns Washington may have over President Chen Shui-bian's handling of the TVBS case, Taiwan's representative to the US, David Lee, said on Thursday.

The message basically "follows the line of what President Chen and Premier [Frank] Hsieh have said over the past few days," Lee told the Taiwan press corps in Washington at his latest monthly "tea party" press conference and reception.

In an interview with the Taipei Times afterwards, Lee declined to go into more details about the contents of the cable, which was delivered according to instructions from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA).

Some have called for local cable station TVBS to be shut down over allegations that it is in violation of media ownership laws due to the majority of its shares being owned by Hong Kong investors. But Chen promised last week that no TV station would be closed while he is president. Hsieh told a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday that the Government Information Office's investigation of TVBS had nothing to do with suppressing freedom of the press.

Lee said that he had "dutifully" informed Taiwan of US concerns over the TVBS probe, after a statement by the State Department on the issue.

A department spokesman said on Monday that Washington "places great importance on freedom of the press," adding that "we understand that Taiwan's leaders and people also place great importance on press freedom, and we hope this will continue to be guaranteed in Taiwan."

Lee also said that "at the instructions of the authorities in Taipei, I also conveyed messages from Taipei back to the United States."

US officials have not openly opposed any effort by the Chen administration to shutter TVBS over the dispute over its ownership, but have conveyed their point clearly, Lee said.

"Diplomatic exchanges are all very subtle ... If they feel they did not get the message across, then they would be blunt," he said.

"The US has a strategic interest in Taiwan. Therefore, the US is very concerned about the meaning of internal developments in Taiwan, which signifies the intensiveness of our bilateral relationship," Lee told the Taipei Times.

He avoided a direct response to rumors in Washington that the Bush administration cares so much about the TVBS issue that Bush is planning to make a statement about press freedom when he addresses the meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum later this month.

"There are two weeks to go between now and APEC," he said. "Hopefully, this issue will be settled before then. So we don't have to worry about that."

Hsieh yesterday denied a report in the local press that the US government had contacted the Cabinet regarding the TVBS issue.

"That newspaper report is not accurate, I'm afraid," Hsieh said.

"I believe that the US government will respect Taiwan's laws. In any case, the government does not require US authorization to enforce the law," the premier told the legislature in response to a question from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Huang Teh-fu.

Hsieh added that the government would not shut down any TV station without good reason.

MOFA spokesman Michel Lu yesterday confirmed to the Taipei Times that the ministry had sent the message to the US regarding the TVBS dispute.

Lu said that the message contains two points, the first being a confirmation of Chen's initial response that he would not close any TV station during his term in office and that he will continue to safeguard press freedom.

The second point, Lu said, is to "express the Government Information Office's position on the matter, which is that it constitutes a legal matter, and will be dealt with in accordance with the laws governing foreign ownerships [in local TV stations]."

Lu added that his ministry has not received any direct response from the US government about the TVBS issue.

"The only concern we've learnt of thus far is what was said in the statements issued by the State Department spokesman on Nov. 1," Lu said.

Dana Shell Smith, spokeswoman of the American Institute in Taipei, yesterday had no further comment on the issue, saying only that "our spokesman in Washington has made clear our position and we don't have anything to add."

Standing up for what already exists

By Cao Chang-qing

Last weekend, I attended the annual meeting of the Global Alliance for Democracy and Peace (GADP) in Los Angeles at the alliance's invitation and delivered a speech there. This Chinese group has 98 branches worldwide, and the meeting drew over 300 participants, including people from the pan-blue and pan-green camps. My topic was: "Democracy is the greatest common denominator between the two sides."

I pointed out that although Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Vice Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung said that Sun Yat-sen is the greatest common denominator between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, democracy is actually the real common denominator. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) does not even recognize the Republic of China (ROC), so how could it possibly respect Sun?

Besides, even if China turns into a democracy, it will not take up Sun's Three Principles of the People as the basis on which the nation is built, for Sun maintained that socialism was embodied in the Principle of Livelihood, one of the tenets of his Three Principles of the People. We have all witnessed the disaster wrought by socialism on mankind, and Sun's attempts to ally himself with Russia and the communists show the pronounced influence of communist thinking.

Since democracy is the greatest common denominator, the resolution of cross-strait disagreements lies in the termination of the CCP's authoritarian rule. Only when China enjoys democracy can the Strait remain peaceful. This is also the only way that Taiwan's goal of becoming a normal country can be realized completely.

Today, many Taiwanese people are demanding a new constitution, and whether or not this document institutes a new national title, flag and national anthem, the right to such changes is a basic right of a democratic country. When former KMT chairman Lien Chan visited Beijing to worship at the feet of that nation's dictatorial rulers, and claimed that he would join with the CCP against Taiwan, his behavior was anti-democratic and a betrayal of Taiwan.

After my speech, however, the GADP's first president, Wu Ho-i, a KMT member who resides in Washington, said that I should never have been invited to the meeting. He was unhappy with my support for Taiwan's name change and my condemnation of Lien.

But I simply responded that if a former chairman cannot be criticized, then former presidents Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo cannot be criticized as they also served as KMT chairmen. By this logic, is criticism of former Democratic Progressive Party chairmen Shih Ming-teh and Hsu Hsin-liang not allowed either?

Wu has resided in the US for many years. In his reliance on blocking the free flow of thinking by depriving people of a chance to speak, rather than trying to convince them through reasoned argument, we can clearly see the vicious consequence of the slavish mentality fostered by the KMT.

Many of the pan-blue camp's supporters are furious whenever they talk about Taiwan independence. This issue does not exist, however, because the ROC has always been an independent country. It has never belonged to the People's Republic of China.

The main question is whether the country should create a new constitution and change its name. And the only reason that this issue has arisen is that most countries in the world do not recognize the name ROC.

Indeed, when Lien and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong visited Beijing, they did not dare mention the name "ROC." Lien could not admit he was a former ROC vice president, while Soong could not boast of being a former governor of Taiwan Province. So neither man is safeguarding the ROC. One might question the meaning of safeguarding a country that neither man dares to recognize.

Although the pan-blue camp's supporters have tried to block a name change, they are opposed by the international community. All US media refer to this country as "Taiwan;" none uses the name "ROC." This suggests that foreigners have already rectified the country's name, and whatever the sentiments of Chiang Kai-shek's supporters, they cannot change the Taiwanese people's rectification of Taiwan's name.

Cao Changqing is a writer based in New York.

Freedom of the press? Or to make lots of cash?

By Weber Lai

As a result of its reporting of the Kaohsiung MRT corruption scandal, what started out as a simple issue of TVBS stock ownership has now developed into a question of freedom of the press. Even US officials have expressed hope that Taiwan will continue to protect the freedom of the press.

But is freedom of the press really under attack?

Before answering this, maybe we should ask what freedom of the press really is. Although countries around the world stress the importance of freedom of the press, no one -- including the International Press Organization and Reporters Without Borders -- has proposed a definition of "freedom of the press."

The 17th century writer John Milton, who is generally accepted as the originator of the concept, never mentioned freedom of the press, but rather proposed freedom of speech and print, since the press had not yet taken shape at the time. Although the nascent press had adopted the concept by the 18th century, a complete academic field pertaining to the freedom of the press has yet to be established.

There are significant shortcomings even in the established "fourth estate" concept. This is the reason why there are so many examples in US judicial affairs that seem to go against the idea of freedom of the press. One obvious example is the current controversy surrounding the New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

Although freedom of the press can't be clearly defined, a majority of people know that "the government should not interfere with the press." This idea is grounded in 17th century liberalism. The dictatorial rule at the time meant that private groups were relatively weak, and that was the reason why academics advocated distancing the press from government and moving toward markets in order to avoid stifling the growth of a civil society.

Today, however, media markets are highly developed and many companies have developed into huge monsters. Domestically and internationally, big corporations lead the way. In this environment, "freedom of the press" often means freedom for the media-owning minority. With profit-making as the guiding light for the media industry, it becomes difficult to avoid reliance on sensationalism in the quest for viewers and readers. Freedom of the press becomes freedom for a minority to go to any lengths to make money.

When parents support anti-TV activities because they worry about "media pollution," we cannot help but ask who this market-led freedom is for, what its significance is to civic and social development, and whether freedom of the press in this country really is under attack.

Maybe freedom of the press doesn't exist in Taiwan. These are all questions that society at large should consider.

Freedom of the press does not mean that the state cannot oversee the media. Why else would there be a need to establish a national communications commission? The state must not interfere arbitrarily with the press, nor can political forces, including the opposition, interfere in their own interests.

As Taiwan has joined the WTO, the state should guarantee that domestic media outlets are not taken over by international forces to avoid losing a platform for expressing local public opinion and disseminating cultural values. At the same time, the state must finance research into the freedoms of speech and the press to let humanism replace raw capitalism and initiate the reconstruction of media order so that everyone can enjoy these rights.

This is what the UN's World Summit on the Information Society calls for and it should be at the core of media policy.

Weber Lai is an assistant professor in the department of mass communications at Chinese Culture University.