Tuesday, September 4, 2012

DPP Party Chairman Intimidates Media

DPP Party Chairman Intimidates Media
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 4, 2012


Summary: DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang is the leader of the largest opposition party on Taiwan. Su bought air time and repeatedly declared that Taiwan needs more than one voice. Su then asked everyone to rise up and oppose the Want Want China Times Group's acquisition of the China Network Systems (CNS). Su is the leader of an opposition party. When he singles out a particular media organization for repeated intimidation, that worries us. We worry that if and when the Democratic Progressive Party returns to power, Taiwan will be left with only one voice.

Full Text below:

DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang is the leader of the largest opposition party on Taiwan. Su bought air time and repeatedly declared that Taiwan needs more than one voice. But he immediately changed his tune. Su called on everyone to rise up and oppose the Want Want China Times Group's acquisition of the China Network Systems (CNS). We would like to remind Chairman Su that Taiwan already has many voices. That is the way it is now, and that is the way it will be in the future. You are the leader of an opposition party. When you single out a particular media organization for relentless intimidation, that concerns us. We worry that if and when the Democratic Progressive Party returns to power, Taiwan will be left with only one voice.

Everyone knows that society on Taiwan today is diverse. Views diverge. Concepts differ. Who can limit Taiwan to only one voice? Does any media organization have that ability? Common sense tells us this is impossible. A media monopoly on Taiwan is at thing of the past. This was the result of three decades of struggle. There is no going back.

No media organization has this ability. But a political party does. Let us speak plainly. On today's Taiwan , the only power that can eliminate other voices is a political party, either a ruling party or an opposition party that may return to power in the future. The reason is simple. Only a political party has the executive authority, judicial authority, and intelligence gathering ability needed to suppress the media. When those in power do not like what certain voices are saying, they have a variety of methods by which they can silence them.

The KMT era needs no mention. But how about the Democratic Progressive Party era? Do we remember how it dealt with those who offended them? This is a political party that grew strong by opposing censorship. But once it assumed power, it did an about face. DPP leaders disliked what TVBS said about them. The GIO accused TVBS of being "Communists." It threatened to revoke its broadcasting license and imposed a one million dollar fine. The Evening Times also expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling DPP. It published exclusives on the Chen family money-laundering case, leaked by retired National Security Bureau officials. The GIO went so far as to order prosecutors to search the Evening Times' editorial offices. This had a chilling effect on the Taiwan media. Freedom of speech on Taiwan took a giant step backward. These are all concrete examples from the era of Democratic Progressive Party rule. Can we be sure such events will not happen again in the future?

The DPP is currently out of power. It commands few political resources. But the DPP is Taiwan's largest opposition party. An election upset could suddenly make it the ruling party. Whether it is good or evil is a matter that cannot be taken lightly. It left a disturbing record of how it dealt with the media when it was the ruling party. Today it is an opposition party. Yet it is already buying air time and openly intimidating a particular media organization. If one day it seizes power, can we really expect it to treat the media with kid gloves? Can we really expect it not to target media organizations and attempt to silence them?

If an individual legislator or former leader of the opposition DPP was making such statements or taking such actions, the problem would not be so serious. The greatest cause for concern is that Su Tseng-chang is the Chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party. Yet he bought air time and targeted a particular media organization. He engaged in intimidation. He did this continuously, day after day. A political party devoted all of its energy to openly attacking a single business organization. This behavior is serious. This action is terrifying. Chairman Su expressed support for the "anti-Wang Chung" protests. His action was questionable enough. The September 1st protest march is over. Yet Chairman Su relentlessly continues his on air attacks. His attacks against a particular media organization are way out of proportion. If Chairman Su scales new heights of political power, is he likely to go easy on the media?

Taiwan must not have only one voice. Democracy on Taiwan is now more mature. It does not need Chairman Su to point this out. This has long been the shared belief of everyone on Taiwan. When the Kuomintang imposed authoritarianism, the public refused to accept a single voice. The KMT and the government exerted enormous political pressure. But this newspaper fearlessly published an exclusive on the founding of the Democratic Progressive Party. Chairman Su was present. He should remember the chilling effect. Thirty years have passed. He should remember how hard it was to get where we are today. 

Chairman Su's concerns are also our concerns. But Chairman Su's concerns are phony. They simply cannot come true. Our concerns, on the other hand, could easily come true. When Chairman Su holds forth, proclaiming that Taiwan cannot have only one voice, we become concerned. We worry that if Chairman Su becomes President Su, the only voice heard on Taiwan will be the one he wants to hear.

黨主席恫嚇媒體 最負面的民主示範
    2012-09-04
    中國時報

 民進黨黨主席蘇貞昌最近以台灣最大在野黨領袖之尊,在電台購買時段不斷呼籲台灣不能只剩一種聲音,接著語鋒一轉,召喚所有民眾一起反對旺中購併中嘉。我們想要提醒蘇主席的是,台灣本來就有許多聲音,現在如此,未來也一定如此,但當你今天以在野黨領袖的身分,一再針對單一媒體事業做出這樣的恫嚇後,我們反而真的擔心,當民進黨執政後,台灣未來恐怕真的只會剩下一種聲音。

 任誰都清楚,以今天台灣社會之多元,意見之多樣,理念之分歧,誰會有本事能讓台灣變成只有一種聲音?會是任何單一媒體嗎?不諱言說,用最簡單的常識論斷都知道根本不可能,台灣老早就走過了單一媒體壟斷言論的時代,這是台灣人在過往三十年共同打拚出來的成就,不可能,也不容許再走回頭路。

 然而,媒體做不到的事,並不意味政黨做不到。講再白一點,今天在台灣,有本事能讓多元的聲音退化到只剩一種聲音的,只有政治力量,特別是執政黨,或是未來有很大機會會執政的在野黨。理由也很簡單,所有能夠箝制媒體的行政、司法、情治等工具,全操在主政者手中,當主政者不喜歡某些聲音的時候,它是可以透過某些操作,讓這些聲音消失的。

 遙遠的黨國體制年代就不必提了,還記得民進黨執政的年代,曾怎麼對付他們所不喜歡的聲音嗎?這個昔日靠著突破言論封鎖而壯大的政黨,在獲得執政權力後,就是因為不喜歡TVBS的言論,當時的新聞局是曾大張旗鼓透過惡意抹紅、撤照威脅、百萬罰鍰等手段來對付TVBS;同樣的,也因為執政當局不滿《中時晚報》大幅報導國安局退職官員的洩密、洗錢案,竟發動大批檢調搜索《中時晚報》的編輯部。這些能讓台灣所有媒體噤若寒蟬,甚至能讓台灣言論自由大走回頭路的舉動,可都是在民進黨執政年代所發生的具體事例。試問:這些作為,在未來都絕對不會再發生嗎?

 沒錯,民進黨目前還是在野黨,並不享有太多可操作的政治資源,但民進黨可是台灣最大的在野黨,而且很可能在任何一次重大選舉中就翻轉成為執政黨,它今天的任何好惡,都不能等閒視之。更何況,它在執政的年代還有對付媒體的紀錄留存在史冊,試問,當今天還是在野之身的時候,就已經做到向電台購買時段,公開針對特定單一媒體進行抹黑、恫嚇之舉,未來一旦真的擁有執政權力,還會對這個單一媒體手軟嗎?還會不讓這個單一媒體的聲音消失嗎?

 今天如果只是在野黨的某位個別立委,或者只是卸任的政黨領袖,做出這樣的聲明或舉動,都還不算嚴重。今天最值得憂慮的是,蘇貞昌以民進黨黨主席的高度,直接在電台購買時段,針對單一媒體進行直接的威脅、恫嚇,而且是連續性的天天放送,這意味,此一舉動已經是在以整個政黨的力量,直接對付一個民間的單一企業體,這個行為不嚴重嗎?這個舉動不可怕嗎?之前為了聲援「反旺中」動員,蘇主席此舉已經非常值得非議,如今在九一遊行已經落幕之際,蘇主席的聲音卻依舊在電台持續放送,如此這般頻繁的、超比例原則的針對特定單一媒體進行攻擊,未來蘇主席如果有機會更上一層樓,他還會客氣嗎?

 台灣本來就不能只有一種聲音,這個信條在民主己臻成熟的今天,不待蘇主席做出召喚,早就已經是台灣人所共同享有的信仰與價值。在昔日國民黨威權的年代,我們就是不接受台灣只有一種聲音,才在當時無畏來自黨國的莫大政治壓力,獨家報導民進黨宣布組黨的新聞,蘇主席當時就在新聞現場,應當知曉那個年代是怎樣的肅殺氛圍,這三十年我們一路走過來,更當知曉這個成果如何的得來不易!

 不諱言的說,蘇主席的憂慮,也正是我們的憂慮。然而,蘇主席的憂慮根本不可能發生,但我們的憂慮,卻非常有可能實現。當蘇主席發聲,謂台灣不能只剩一種聲音的時候,我們卻擔心,當蘇主席有機會成為蘇總統的時候,台灣真的只剩下他喜歡聽的聲音了!
           

No comments: