CNA continues downward spiral

CNA reported the other day that by order of the very brave and decisive President Ma Ying-jeou, the travels schedule of Chen Yunlin, president of Chinese mainland's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS), is public knowledge.

A reporter friend of mine had this to say about the report:

This is just not true at all. Despite the concern from the Presidential Office, Chen Yunlin's schedule is still being kept as top secret. Reporters on the shuttle do not know where their next stop is until the bus stops, and the scheduled stop would be canceled if protesters begin to show up. Most of journalists were so upset that there were constant verbal clashes between them and Taichung mayor Jason Hu, as well as MAC officials.

Next time, when you see a report from CNA, try to check multiple sources...

This last comment is a reference to the increasingly pro-KMT bias of CNA, RTI and other government-sponsored media outlets. This is especially unfortunate as many foreign reproters rely on English-language CNA reports as a primary source for their data.

There's also this latest CNA article, which portrays the ever benevolent, calm and Taiwan-loving Chen Yunlin as a guy out to calm the nerves of jittery Chinese investors, who are obviously very worried about the frequency of political protests in Taiwan. *rolls eyes*

And this CNA report tells us how government officials have, one by one, "clarified" each of the publics misunderstandings about the newest three agreements.

Ma feeds the fire at his feet

The pro-KMT China Times has a biting news piece on Ma's painful press conference yesterday. Translated below:

President Ma Ying-jeou's press conference, designed to dampen criticism aimed at his typhoon response, was instead full of surprising language. Examples include statements that the damage done by this typhoon has "taught a lesson" to many people [victims unable or unwilling to evacuate], and that in the future they would cooperate better. Vice Premier Chiu Cheng-hsiung (邱正雄), responding to questions of how victims could find information regarding compensation, said "The Executive Yuan website already has that information [as if victims have easy internet access]." The string of gaffs managed not to sooth public anger, but rather to inflame it once again.

At yesterday's press conference, President Ma Ying-jeou affirmed local government efforts to evacuate areas prone to heavy damage, such as Hsin-shan Village in Nantou County's Shui-li Township (南投縣水里鄉新山村), where Village Chief Lin Mei-ling (林美玲) successfully evacuated 50 villagers. "I asked her, 'How is it that you are so amazing and foresaw the mudslides?' She said she followed her training from the Water Conservation Bureau." Ma approved of the effectiveness of WCB training, which explain to everyone the extreme dangers of mudslides, and noted that Chief Lin had saved the lives of her villagers by following her training [AG: As last night's Talking Show covered, many destroyed villages were following disaster evacuation plans but it made no difference as emergency convergence areas were destroyed as well].

Afterward, Ma emphasized that he hopes to quickly establish an effective [evacuation] system; "This typhoon has taught many people a lesson, and they will cooperate more fully in the future. Human effort is the decisive factor, and effort can be made."

Responding to questions that the military had not activated enough units, Defense Minister Chen Chao-min (陳肇敏) cautiously started by saying such things as "I am Taiwanese, and Taiwan is my home." [A-Gu: This is a given for most of the public, who are probably just bewildered by and suspicious of this kind of introduction, because it seems to show Chen fears he'll be called a non-Taiwanese in a time where such accusations are not really flying around.]

When asked by the media about how citizens could get details on how to ask for compensation from the disaster, Vice Premier Chiu arrangements for shelter allowed each person to get NT$5,000 of compensation, which would be provided by the red cross over a period of three days. Those households who had suffered damage from flooding by water over 50cm high would receive NT$20,000 in compensation, which would be distributed by local governments. Should their funds be inadequate, the central government would foot the bill. "This plan was decided Monday by the Executive Yuan and announced on the website."

Vice Premier Chiu further explained that compensation for rent for those forced to move would be 30,000-50,000 per household and could be obtained immediately. "Those with any questions can contact the relevant government departments; relevant phone numbers are on the Executive Yuan website." As soon as Chiu made these remarks, media were dumbstruck, and had no choice but to ask him in response, "How are flood victims who have been stripped of all their possessions and have a flooded house going to get online to find these phone numbers?"

For the record, the last two days of Talking Show have been excellent, fact-filled shows about the government's response and its inability to present a plausible reason for its paralysis. Start watching them here (Monday) and here (Tuesday).

Let's rename PTS to KMTS.

Seriously, while their programing is still excellent and not partisan, (they are putting out this week what is probably the first show every broadcast in Taiwan with Holo Taiwanese subtitles), news like this is scary.

NCC

Looks like I got the NCC story wrong. Look here for better guidance on what happened and what the KMT plans to do about it

China Times Group blasts NCC on TV station ruling

KMT’s Tsai proposes exit bills

Round up

Three things this afternoon: First is the previously announced DPP intention to hold a referendum on the ECFA, with the first stage of signature collection to be finished by the end of July. I have been waiting for the exact wording of the referendum proposal, but even the DPP newsletter doesn't contain that information, so I can forget about finding it in the media reports. I don't think they've actually decided on the wording, which means they can't get the petition drive started yet. Brilliant.

Next, the widely despised NCC finally announced that Wantwant group cannot take over CTV and China Times as it had planned. Wantwant is not happy and will fight this. Perhaps finally, now that the NCC has angered blue politicians, the organization will be banished or significantly reformed, years after the Constitutional Court here declared the current method for choosing that body to be unconstitutional.

However, the more likely result will be mild reform that leaves the NCC responsibilities and rights more or less intact, while just changing how members are chosen. More on this topic to come, as English media has not picked it up yet.

Third, the DPP has raised a bill that would prevent Chinese government or military officials from investing in Taiwan, and lock all Chinese investors out of certain industries. The bill will be discussed during Friday's legislative session.

Good Liberty Times editorials today

Check 'em out. DPP legislator Tsai Trong-rong worries the Executive Yuan will amend regulations to allow Chinese investment in the cable market in Taiwan (which requires no Legislative approval), while Japanese Professor Tada Kei (多田惠) presents a strong case that the new KMT interpretation of the Treaty of Taipei is complete nonsense.

Kuo Kuan-ying

The People's Daily is reporting on the Kuo Kuan-ying (郭冠英) incident, and doing a surprisingly fair job of it. Forums like Phoenix have minimal discusison on the topic. I just find it interesting China would be reporting on this at all.

People's Daily = KNN

Michael Turton recently wrote on the reporting priorities of the Kuomintang News Network (KNN).

You will find a shocking coincidence if you look at three websites: the Taiwan section of the People's Daily, the organ of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party; KNN, the English propaganda site aimed at foreigners; and the Central Daily News, the KMT's Chinese-language propaganda organ.

All three are devoting their coverage almost exclusively to the Chen case (though the CDN is trying to cell the upcoming economic agreement as well).

KNN:People's Daily:

CDN:

Dissecting the Ma interview

Taipei Times leads today with an exclusive interview of Ma Ying-jeou. Everyone has different interests, and I prefer to let someone else cover the economic aspects of the interview, but I'm going to focus on some of the sovereignty issues:

Taipei Times: Do you think Taiwan is a normal country?

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九): The Taiwanese people elect their own president and legislature and govern themselves. Do you think that is normal or not normal?

Frankly, I have to agree with his answer; I'm one of those that believes Taiwan is a free and sovereign country, independent from the People's Republic of China, despite the lack of international recognition. Though that is not exactly Ma's position.

But here is where Ma's clear willingness to divorce policy from reality become more clear:

TT: Then, Mr President, do you mean you will accept the “one China” framework?

Ma: The Republic of China [ROC] Constitution was enacted in 1946 and implemented in 1947. The [PRC] was not yet established. It was not established until 1949.

There was only one China when the ROC Constitution was enacted. So the ROC Constitution was not for “two Chinas.” [emphasis mine]

So, assuming the translation is clear and that Ma did not misspeak, our president accepts that there are in fact two Chinas, the ROC and PRC, though there was only one when the constitution was written. Yet Ma insists on a One China policy that clearly contradicts the reality he just outlined.

And I think this is exactly the line the follow up question should have taken. Does the PRC exist? Is the PRC just an illegitimate bandit government illegally controlling ROC territory? What boundaries does the president think the ROC has? If the constitution of the ROC is so clearly in conflict with reality, why shouldn't it be revised? Etc. These are the questions that Ma will have only ridiculous answers to.

Instead, the interviewer directs to what I consider relatively irrelevant questions.

TT: But do you think Hu’s “one China” refers to the “ROC” or the “People’s Republic of China”?

Ma: No matter what he thinks, we think “one China” refers to the ROC. This is what we insisted in 1992 and we have never changed that position since.

I mean, come on. What do you think Hu's one China refers to? Weak.

TT: But does the explanation that “one China” refers to the ROC conform to the international reality?

Ma: If we do not interpret it this way, do you think we should say “one China” refers to the “PRC”?

Do you remember when former [US] president George W. Bush talked to Chinese President Hu Jintao on March 26 last year, Hu said over the telephone that both sides of the Taiwan Strait accept the “one China” principle but have different interpretations of “one China.” That is what we call “one China, with each side having its own interpretation.” That is the only interpretation according to our Constitution.

I say again, I don't care if we get formal recognition from other countries, so long as Taiwan is not controlled by Beijing and so long as we can have practical relations with others; but Ma's constitution-focused answers should prompt the question, "Isn't the constitution in clear contradiction with both reality and the will of the people, since neither mainland Chinese nor Taiwanese want the ROC to rule the mainland? Shouldn't the constitution be amended?"

TT: But apart from Taiwan’s allies, all countries think Beijing is the only representative of China.

Ma: If we agree with those countries, there is no room for Taiwan to survive.

I think this answer is fascinating because, assuming Ma is well intentioned and doesn't want to sell out Taiwan or see unification, this answer reveals half of what Ma thinks -- that this "One China = ROC" policy is in fact the only realistic policy Taiwan can adopt.

TT: Some say that we are too naive on the “one China” issue. It’s not a matter of confidence, but a matter of international reality.

Ma: If we refuse to sign agreements, our products will be taxed with higher tariffs in mainland and local industries will not survive. Is this less naive?

I consider the question unfocused and the answer evasive. In my mind, the questions reveals the biggest problem with the green's attacks on Ma's 'One China' policy. We can't win the argument by saying "Hu says A, but we say B, and most people believe A." Because most people in Taiwan will just say, "who cares?"

We have to say "This whole argument is absurd" and expose the true ridonkulous nature of the KMT's position instead of allowing the PRC position to enter the picture. If anyone's talking about the PRC position, it should not be about their explanation of "One China," but rather their unwavering determination to force subordination on Taiwan, like it or not.

And here is Ma's best and most convincing answer, I think. Emphasis mine:

TT: Will there be any supplementary measures to protect Taiwan’s sovereignty and national interests if the CECA is signed?

Ma: Take the agreement on cross-strait direct flights, for example: What did we lose by signing the agreement? We opened eight airports [to the flights], while mainland opened 11 airports and later upped it to 21 airports for cross-strait direct flights.

What did we lose? Did we consider it a domestic route? Or is it a special air route? Did we say that Taiwan became part of the PRC after signing the agreement? No, we never made such claims.

We should have confidence in ourselves. Communist China has its own assertions and we have ours. We cannot force it to accept our assertions at this stage and it cannot force Taiwan to accept its ideas either. As to how the international community perceives the [“one China”] issue, it depends on the stances of different countries. Some countries agree with us, and our allies won’t think Taiwan becomes part of communist China when it signs an agreement.

Those who are familiar with international relations know that major countries recognize the CCP as the only legitimate government of China when establishing diplomatic ties with communist China, but when it comes to the relations between communist China and Taiwan, those countries do not consider Taiwan a part of the PRC. There are several models adopted by different countries in this matter....

Does the US need communist China’s agreement to send someone to Taiwan? No, they don’t. So you need to understand that although these countries do not recognize us officially, they do not deny us, either. If they denied us as a country, why would they send people here and develop relations with us? The US sold weapons to Taiwan. Does the US think it is selling weapons to a ghost country?

So, again assuming Ma is anti-unification, he thinks One China is not only a necessary policy, but adopting a One China policy incurs no practical damage at all and gives Beijing no additional control at all.

Whatever the merits of Ma's argument, and whatever his secret thoughts on unification, I think we should treat this as his position -- that the One China policy is both necessary and beneficial with no negative side effects. That way we can both argue the merits of these claims and point out the absurdity of the whole "One China" formulation.

Now for the most comic answer:

TT: Does Taiwan depend on China too much economically?

Ma: It has been so since the former DPP government and our economic growth rate increased rapidly during that period of time....

So far we have not seen any attempts by communist China to force Taiwan to do things we cannot accept and we wouldn’t have to accept it if they did so.

Ha! In other words, "Yes, but what are you gonna do and what's the harm to sovereignty so far?"

News Rumble alive and well

What a great site they are. And you're welcome to check out three of their newest contrasts:

✕補貼只是政府無能的遮羞布 ♡消費券帶來一股暖流

✕嗆扁學生有勇氣 ♡嗆馬學弟不給面子

✕失業自殘不斷 ♡看毛毛蟲生信心

T-SPAN

Tim Maddog, one of the editors at Taiwan Matters and always a fast draw, emailed me about today's Taipei Times piece about the Taiwanese legislature's grudging willingness to start broadcasting itself online in a T-SPAN sort of way:

The Legislative Yuan will become more transparent as it allows the public to access its video-on-demand (VOD) system for the first time and watch open-door legislative meetings from outside the legislature starting today.

An official at the legislature’s Information Technology Department told the Taipei Times that people would be able to watch live broadcasts as the eight standing committees hold meetings, as well as plenary sessions, at ivod.ly.gov.tw without having to register personal information.

Woo hoo! Committee meetings, where all the real stuff happens (well during the half day the lazy committees actually meet). But as my grandpa always said, if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

However, meetings of the pan-blue-dominated Procedure Committee would not be available as the legislature does not currently record those meetings, the official said.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that anyone interested in watching the videos should use Internet Explorer because of compatibility issues.

Only around 800 people will be able to use the Web site simultaneously because its bandwidth remains limited, he said.

The first point is troublesome for the obvious reason that the Procedure Committee literally sets the agenda for all legislation; it is there that legislation is bottled up or put on the agenda. It is literally the most important committee to watch.

The IE situation is not surprising given Taiwan's addiction to Microsoft; but those Firefox users among us are welcome to check out IETab, a plug-in that will allow you to watch those legislative sessions from the comfort of your Firefox browsing window.

As Maddog points out to me, 800 people is a pretty pathetic bandwidth limit that for all intents and purposes would allow one group's supporters to block access if they wanted.

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Daniel Hwang (黃義交), a member of the task force, said they would negotiate with the National Communications Commission next in a bid to establish a channel similar to C-SPAN.

The legislative watchdog Citizen Congress Watch (CCW) lauded the changes.

As do I sir, as do I!

SCMP in ROC (TW)

Update via Thomas' comment: The SCMP published a clarification today. They say they have no intention of opening an online paper in Taiwan and that the Economic Daily News story was false.

Seemingly big news, but it's kind of funny a DPA article was the best source for this:

Hong Kong’s ‘South China Morning Post’ to launch in Taiwan

SCMP, which is still a very enjoyable and sizable paper, has increasingly fallen into the orbit of Beijing since the Hong Kong handover. According to insiders, phrases like "Taiwan and China" are routinely altered to "Taiwan and the mainland" in the editing process, even for editorials. If I recall correctly, in the Hong Kong edition of the paper, Taiwan gets placed under the "China" "National" section.

It is no great surprise that the articles notes the KMT itself is pledging part of the funding to help set up the paper here.

Important note though:

Since Taiwan already has three English daily newspapers and its market for English papers is saturated, the newspaper decided to focus on online operations with most content in Chinese, but some information in English.

The 106-year-old daily is the leading English newspaper in Hong Kong with some 100,000 subscribers and is known as one of the top English-language dailies in Asia.

So don't expect to read your SCPM at a Mr. Brown cafe any time soon.

Infuriating and irresponsible

Ugh.

Update: Robert Roth's link in his comment here has put the fear of Ma into me:

The National Communications Commission (NCC) yesterday approved a draft amendment to the Satellite Radio and Television Law (衛星廣播電視法).

The amendment would set stricter regulations on TV news and comments in talk show programs, which the commission said “must follow fact-checking procedures and the principles of equality.”

What makes things scary is that fact checking is the biggest part of Talking Show, the "sensational" and "bias" and "false statistics" filled show the NCC singled out yesterday.

Update: Robert Roths' latest comment second was quite well put, so I will quote it in full here:

They keep trying to make us feel better, and it just makes me more and more terrified.

“I believe all the representatives would be from organizations with legitimate authority,” she said. “Who will oversee their judgment? I think God and conscience.”
That's what I call check's and balances!

And earlier in the news article:
“The article does not target any particular program,” Lee said.
Of course, the execution of the article will.

New media bias tracking site

Socialforce.org (與媒體對抗) is a long-running, pro-Taiwanese forum and blog hosting site that has devoted itself to exposing the consistant blue-bias in the majority of local media.

Not it looks like they have a new buddy on the scene with some cross over users. News Rumble! is helping highlight the extent the bias one (or two) articles at a time.

My favorite feature so far is the strait comparison section (正直新聞), where two articles from the same media outlet or the same author reveal drastically different attitudes based on the media or authors preference or distaste for the party in power.

As you can imagine, the site is currently focused on the pre- and post-Ma victory articles in largely blue media. My favorite comparisons so far include:

TVBS pre-Ma: "wages are meager!" (薪水變薄！)
TVBS post-Ma: "making even more money [than at your job] during your unpaid forced vacations" (無薪假休了更賺)

And this horrific contrast on the importance of money and spending habits defies my commentary.

Plenty more there. Enjoy!

Not all Chinese media is controlled by the People's Daily

Phoenix media does a pretty great job so far if you ask me. Their forums are active and open, and I've seen (and posted) topics there that would be deleted immediately on the Sina equivalent. They allow bloggers to post on questions like why Taiwanese independence support is at a historic high, and they get themselves in trouble with the authorities regularly. Still, I'm surprised at how open they seem to be even on sensitive topics.

Update: I'm being reminded in comments that Phoenix is a Hong Kong media outlet. Still, it's one of the most popular forums in China and its relative openness and the lack of a crackdown is impressive in my book. There are, however, self-imposed censors who monitor the site and who are especially sensitive to links to outside material.

KMT and the media

Must read from Claudia Jean's blog on the KMT's manipulation of all media, even Green-friendly media.

Ma ventures into the Green Jungle

Following up on his recent interview with the Liberty Times, President Ma Ying-jeou will have television interviews with the two largest green-leaning television news stations, SET-TV and Formosa TV. Should be fun!

As I mentioned, I though the Liberty Times reporter conducting the interview did all right, and that Ma was weak on a few questions in particular, but the tone from the paper seemed a bit overtly hostile and the questions were not Tim Russert enough for my liking.

Meanwhile, Frank Hsieh will begin hosting a radio program.

More media madness

Yahoo! Taiwan shuts down the Mango Daily (芒果日報), a green-leaning blog which has been focusing on the student protests. The reason for the shutdown remains unclear. Lots of info at that link, though (Hat tip Maddog).

If this is a political decision, it would seem confirm that that old self-censoring mentality, which Taiwanese parents & professors still exhibit, and which Chinese media is using on a daily basis, may be creeping back into some Taiwanese media, even something as new and apolitical as Yahoo!

Business Today (今周刊) reports in issue 622 that the CEO of Wantwant Group (旺旺集團), Tsai Eng-meng/Cai Yanming (蔡衍明), hosted a dinner on the 16th for all the top executives at his newly acquired asset, the China Times Group. It was there that Tsai, who is a Hong-Kong based Chinese Taiwanese businessman with with lots of Chinese investments and a few Taiwanese investments, supposedly sent down three orders for the paper to use as guidelines: To protect President Ma with all their might, to reconcile the misunderstandings between the people on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, and to report no news dealing with unification or independence (全力擁護馬英九總統、化解兩岸人民誤會、所有新聞皆無關統獨。).

In my view, motivations for Tsai's orders (if they were given) are likely to be financial; Tsai may sense an imminent partial opening of Taiwanese media to enter China, and he may want to be on the front end of the invitation list. In any case, the group's news reports wouldn't be much different than the China Times Group has been since, say, 1950. Not so sure about this; the guy can probably open up plenty of Chinese media investments already, if he wanted to.

Police pressuring journalists

Wow.

The Association of Taiwan Journalists (ATJ) demanded yesterday that the National Police Agency (NPA) stop pressuring photojournalists to help find potential suspects in the rallies that ensued during a controversial visit made by Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yun-lin (陳雲林) earlier this month.

“The police have put the reporters in grave danger by demanding that they rat on their interviewees,” ATJ president Leon Chuang (莊豐嘉) said.

“Such requests disparage the reporters’ right to work safely,” he said.

The ATJ said many photojournalists had filed complaints saying that the police have sought their help in identifying suspects who allegedly took part in the violence.

When the reporters refused to provide the pictures, the police went directly to heads of the news outlets to pressure the reporters into giving up the photos, ATJ said...

The police yesterday said the accusation was groundless, arguing that it is customary for the police to solicit the media’s help in gathering evidence.

Taipei City Policy Bureau media contact Wang Wen-shen (王文伸) shrugged off the accusation saying: “Do you really think the police have enough power to force reporters to do anything?”

Just great.

I'm ecstatic. =/

Hong Kong media tycoon Jimmy Lai (黎智英) is negotiating to buy the China Times Group, a newspaper report said yesterday....

If the takeover were to materialize, it would make Next Media the largest media group in Taiwan with two TV stations, two magazines and four newspapers.

Lai — vowing to change the reading habits of people by promoting “serious” news reports — launched the Taiwanese versions of his Hong Kong publications Next Magazine and the Apple Daily in May 2003.

Although criticized by many as full of gossip, the Apple Daily quickly became a bestselling newspaper in Taiwan. Its daily circulation has reached 526,000 and it now threatens the market share of other dailies.

Next Magazine, with a scoop in practically every issue, has become the nation’s most popular news magazine.

The Chinese-language China Times was launched in 1950 and later expanded to become the largest media group but is now facing financial difficulties.

The group owns the China Times, the Commercial Times, the China Times Publishing Co, the China Television Co and CTI TV.