Our Public Television Service is not Your Public Television Service

Our Public Television Service is not Your Public Television Service
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 24, 2013

Summary: We do not need the wisdom of Solomon. Most people can see the truth with their own eyes. Two factions are fighting over the Public Television Service (PTS), but neither cares whether the infant lives or dies. The facts are inescapable. PTS is being smothered in the struggle. It is on the verge of suffocation. Yet neither party is willing to let go. No one is even waiting for a King Solomon to come forth and uphold justice.

Full text below:

We do not need the wisdom of Solomon. Most people can see the truth with their own eyes. Two factions are fighting over the Public Television Service (PTS), but neither cares whether the infant lives or dies. The facts are inescapable. PTS is being smothered in the struggle. It is on the verge of suffocation. Yet neither party is willing to let go. No one is even waiting for a King Solomon to come forth and uphold justice.

The selection process for the Public Television Service Board of Directors has dragged on for over two years. Why? Because two ersatz mothers are fighting over who will be on it. Both claim to love the infant more than the other. Both claim to be more qualified to care for it than the other. Both find excuses to stonewall and complain. Neither hesitates to suffocate the infant in order to express their love. This sort of "love" makes one's skin crawl. Besides, the Public Television Service is the property of the people as a whole. It is ours. It does not belong to either would be mother. It definitely does not belong to them.

The PTS farce is a case of wrangling over non-existent "ownership." The means have become the ends. That makes the wrangling even more morbid. The Blue and Green factions ignore the raison d'etre for the Public Television Service channel. Just what has the Public Television Service provided the public with at the government's expense? They don't bother to aks. What goes on in the tall and majestic PTS headquarters building? They don't care. All their attention is focuses on keeping people they dislike off the board. This has prevented PTS from resuming normal operations. This has delayed the selection of a PTS board of directors by over seven hundred days. Are the Public Television Service Committee Members so politically backwards? Does this wrangling mean Taiwan does not deserve public television?

President Ma was re-elected less than a year ago. Yet the DPP has twice tried to have him impeached. The stillborn Public Television Service Board of Directors is a microscosm of the political battlefield that is today's Taiwan. The annual budget for the Public Television Service is merely 10 billion NT. Its ratings are a measly 0.2%. Yet the ruling and opposition parties persist in fighting over over this, tooth and nail. They have dragged the two camps' communication experts into the battle. PTS is a small scale public institution. Can a reasonable democratic solution be found to the problem? Taiwan has undergone three decades of democratization. Has it really all been for naught?

Consider the problem at the systemic level. No agreement has been reached regarding the Public Television Service Board of Directors, for two reasons. One. The three-fourths majority threshold for the approval is commissioners is too high. Two. The requirement that commissioners represent political parties, based on proportional representation, is unreasonable. Consider the former. based on the ruling and opposition party composition in the legislature. If the threshold were changed to a simple majority, it might be more reasonable. Why? Because the threshold to impeach a president is a mere two-thirds super majority. Currently a mere three nay votes can bring the entire selection process to a grinding halt. The high threshold merely enables a minority to engage in obstructionism.

Consider the latter problem. Observers disagree about how to improve the process for selecting commissioners. But all agree about one thing. Nominations by political parties based on proportional representation should be abolished. Nominations by political parties based on proportional representation was intended to best reflect public opinion. Who knew it would merely replicate ruling vs. opposition party rivalry inside the commission? Who knew that politics would trump professionalism? The same problem raised its ugly head inside the National Communications Commission (NCC). It too, led to a stillborn commission. Seven years ago, the ruling and opposition parties agreed to modify the Organic Law. It was changed to nomination by the Premier. Legislators were granted the right of approval. The threshold was set at a simple majority. The system of proportional representation was abandoned. NCC reform should become the template for Public Television Service reform.

PTS as a TV channel receives less than one billion NT in annual funding. It is nothing like the NCC, which has decision-making powers. Its directors are nominated by the Minister of Culture. Therefore having the legislature approve their nominations strikes us as overkill. Lung Ying-tai advocates having the Ministry of Culture preside over commissioners who would elect the board directors. Either that, or it should add another step to ensure balance. For example, some balance should be required regarding the political coloration of board nominees. This should be taken into account.

In any event, the process of selecting the Public Television Service Board of Directors has dragged on for over seven hundred days. It cannot be delayed any longer. The goal must be a normally functioning PTS for the public. The solution can be two-pronged. The first prong is ruling and opposition party consultation along the NCC model, leading to an amending of the law, the abandonment of nominations by political parties based on proportional representation, the lowering of the threshold for approval, and a reduction in the number of directors. The second prong is to listen to suggestions from media reform groups. Allow the dozen or so new directors to take office now. End the farcical fourth session of the board, which has been prolonged for over two years. Allow PTS operations to get back on track. This should be the authorities' top priority.

It matters not whether we have a King Solomon. The public on Taiwan must be aware. Two ersatz political mothers are fighting over a TV channel that belongs to the people as a whole. It is our infant. Do not allow them to trample it under foot. Commercialism is rampant. Content has been vulgarized. How should social resources be invested to enhance public television growth and visibility? Contemplating these questions beats sitting by as this intolerable farce drags on.

我們的公視，不是你們的公視
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.01.24

不需要「所羅門王」再世，一般人憑肉眼都看得出來，正在爭奪公視的兩派人馬到底有沒有誰更在乎這個嬰兒的生死。擺在眼前的事實是，公視已被雙方掐到快要窒息，但爭奪者沒有一方願意鬆手；甚至，大家也沒等到所羅門王出來主持正義。

公視董事會之所以難產超過兩年，是因為有兩個「假母親」都搶著要它；她們都宣稱自己有更大的愛心，更有資格擁有這個嬰兒，並以此為由不斷杯葛、不斷控訴。用這種不惜扼殺的方式來表達自己的愛，這種「愛」，令人毛骨悚然。更何況，公視是全民共同擁有，是「我們的」；它也不屬於哪位母親，更絕對不是「你們的」。

公視的荒謬劇，除纏鬥於不存在的「所有權」之爭，更病態到抱著「手段」當「目的」的地步。藍綠兩派不顧公視的成立初衷，不問公視花費政府預算究竟提供了民眾什麼樣的節目，不關心那座美輪美奐大樓裡的一切運作；卻將全部用心放在阻止自己不喜歡的人進入董事會，阻擋公視恢復正常運作。耗時七百多天，公視還走不完董事會誕生的程序，公視審查委員這樣的「民主素養」，難道真說明台灣不配擁有公共電視？

比起馬總統連任不到一年已遭民進黨兩次發動罷免，公視董事會的難產，不過是台灣政治硝煙的一隅縮影。但更惡劣的是，公視一年經費不過十多億元，收視率約僅百分之零點二，竟值得朝野如此不惜血本地廝殺，同時還把各自陣營的傳播學者都拖下渾水。如果連這麼小的公共機構都無法找到合理的民主手段解決問題，台灣二三十年的民主進程，豈非是白走一遭？

從制度上看，公視董事會難產主要的癥結有二：一是須經四分之三審委同意的門檻太高，二是審查委員由政黨依比例推薦的設計不合理。前者，從朝野國會結構看，若修改成二分之一的多數同意，應屬合理。理由是，即連罷免總統，門檻要求也不過是三分之二同意；而目前公視的審查卻只要有三票反對，即可杯葛全局。高門檻其實只保障了少數暴力。

後者，關於審查會員的產生方式應如何改進，外界各有不同的思考，但一致的主張都認為應廢除政黨比例推薦制。當初之所以有政黨比例推薦的設計，是以為如此最能反映比例民意；孰料，現實上卻造成審查會赤裸裸複製朝野的惡鬥，以政治凌駕專業。同樣的問題，當年也出現在國家通訊傳播委員會（ＮＣＣ），導致難產；而ＮＣＣ七年前在朝野同意下修改組織法，改為院長提名、立委行使同意權，門檻則設在二分之一，拋棄了政黨比例制。ＮＣＣ的改革，應可作為公視改革的範本。

不同的是，公視不過是個年度經費十幾億的電視台，又不像ＮＣＣ那樣擁有決策權或行政權；且其董事只是由文化部長提名，因此若要送交立委審查，似乎過嫌大動干戈。那麼，如龍應台主張的，改由文化部組織遴選委員來推舉董事；或者如何在其中增加一層平衡機制，例如要求董事提名人的色彩平衡，則都應加以考慮。

無論如何，難產七百多天的公視董事會，不能再漫無方向地延宕下去，一切需朝「還民眾一個正常運作的公視」為目標前進。解決之道，可以兩路並進：一是由朝野協商比照ＮＣＣ模式進行修法，拋棄政黨比例制的審查委員，降低同意門檻，同時降低董事人數；二是聽取媒改團體的建言，讓已產生的十多名第五屆新任董事先行就任，結束第四屆董事會延任兩年多的荒謬戲碼。使公視回歸運作常軌，是當局第一要務。

不管有沒有所羅門王，台灣民眾都要意識到：這兩個政治假母親爭奪不休的，其實是人民共同擁有的電視頻道；我們的嬰兒，不容他們如此蹂躪。更進一步說，在商業氾濫及內容低俗化的趨勢下，我們要如何擴大社會資源的投注，以充實公視的成長空間及能見度，都比消極在那裡坐觀這齣拖棚歹戲重要得多。