Strangling Public Television Took Only Three Hands

Strangling Public Television Took Only Three Hands
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
August 22, 2012

Summary: Lung Ying-tai's "dream team" for the directors and supervisors of the Taiwan Public Television Service (PTS) fell victim to the PTS review board. During two rounds of voting only three directors and two supervisors were approved. Several highly-respected figures from the cultural world were rejected. But Lung Ying-tai need not be distraught. This setback is a setback for everyone. The board of directors of PTS is not the only entity undergoing a difficult birth. Taiwan's democracy, which is seeking to better itself, is also experiencing a difficult birth.

Full Text below:

Lung Ying-tai's "dream team" for the directors and supervisors of the Taiwan Public Television Service (PTS) fell victim to the PTS review board. During two rounds of voting only three directors and two supervisors were approved. Several highly-respected figures from the cultural world were rejected. But Lung Ying-tai need not be distraught. This setback is a setback for everyone. The board of directors of PTS is not the only entity undergoing a difficult birth. Taiwan's democracy, which is seeking to better itself, is also experiencing a difficult birth.

Everyone applauded the dream team. Alas, Lung's nominees fell victim to the review board. Why? One. The review board cares nothing about public perception. Either that, or it is out of touch with public opinion. Two. The three-fourths supermajority required for review board approval is an unreasonably high threshold. Three. The ruling and opposition parties were engaged in a battle of wills. The review board was subjected to excessive political pressure. Lung Ying-tai was also too naive in her political calculations.

A high three-quarters supermajority threshold was adopted for PTS director and supervisor nominations. The argument was that PTS was a "public media" belonging everyone. Therefore it required "high standards." But these provisions were all flash and no substance. For years they prevented the PTS board of directors from functioning properly. They made it impossible to form a board at all. In June, Lung Ying-tai proposed a list of over 20 nominees. By July, 10 candidates had already withdrawn their candidacies. Mainly they felt the review process was unreasonable. They had no desire to butt their heads against a wall. Who knew that even the brave souls who stayed on would also be rejected.

Leave aside the question of how high a threshold is reasonable for the moment. The existing threshold is like a slaughterhouse. It was the product of a candidate review process based on proportional representation. The review board currently has 15 members. Its membership is based on the proportion of seats each party holds in the legislature. The KMT has eight members. The DPP has five. The TSU and PFP each have one. A three-quarters supermajority requires at least 12 votes. Conversely, the slightest pressure can lead to two nay votes and one abstention. This is enough to decimate an entire dream team.

Put simply, the current review board for PTS directors and supervisors reflects the proportion of each party's seats in the legislature. The ratio between Blue and Green is 9:6. In this case, the majority is too small to ensure the outcome. But the minority is large enough to be a spoiler. On the surface these members have academic or professional backgrounds. But they differ sharply in political coloration. They may make decisions based on political considerations. Three members are enough to bring the process to a grinding halt. Tsai Shih-ping angrily resigned from the review board. He could not countenance a minority doing whatever it wanted in the system.

Let us look further ahead. The high threshold enables a minority on the board to sabotage the nomination process. The review board reflects each party's share of seats in the legislature. The result, inexplicably, has been to transform it into a system for spoils sharing. Taiwan is currently backwards. The area in which it is the most lacking, is politics. Proportional representation reflecting political party affiliation merely replicates the same politicized guidance and review process that exists in other government agencies. It merely stifles their vitality. The makeup of the National Communications Commission (NCC) originally reflected proportional representation according to political party affiliaiton. But the approach was found to be unworkable. Several years ago the law was amended and the system discarded. PTS operations have been bogged down for years. Must bad laws prevent needed reforms?

Three hands are enough to strangle PTS. The PTS directors and supervisors review process has underscored the grievous defects in the system. It must be reformed. The arrogance of some review board members who passed judgment on the character of the nominees was something to behold. They showed no respect whatsoever to these valuable members of society. Have these review board members ever considered why they occupy their positions? Do they have any respect for PTS or the public? Did anyone consent to their abuse of power?

Such wonderful nominees. Such an awful review process outcome. This was a huge setback for Lung Ying-tai. It was also a huge setback for the Green Camp, with whom Lung made a secret quid pro quo arrangement. Lung agreed to allow Chen Yu-hsiu to become chairman of the board. This led to tension, concern, and resistance within the ruling KMT. She soon found herself alone in her struggle. In the end, she could only beat an ignominious retreat. She was subjected to a crash course in realpolitik. The candidates were rejected for reasons unrelated to merit. They were rejected because the review process was irrational, and because party thugs were looking after their own interests. The candidates rejected are not the ones who should feel ashamed. Those indifferent to the truth are the ones who should feel ashamed. Those who care only about Blue or Green party affiliation are the ones who should feel ashamed.

The nomination process for the fifth PTS Board of Directors has dragged on for over 600 days. The problem will not be remedied overnight. The high threshold for PTS directors and supervisors nominations must be changed. The seats must no longer be allocated according to the proportion of seats held by each political party in the legislature. The review board must no longer consist of political yes-men. The people are indifferent to Blue or Green. They merely want PTS to work. They merely want well made shows. What happened was no the work of the devil. Three hands were all it took to destroy our common dream.

三隻手，就足以掐死整個公視
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.08.22 01:47 am

龍應台的公視董監事「夢幻名單」，在審查會慘遭屠殺，兩輪投票僅三名董事、兩名監事過關，不少社會形象良好的文化人均中箭落馬。但龍應台不必扼腕，這個挫折其實是屬於大家的；難產的也不只是公視董事會，而是台灣追求提升的民主精神。

各界叫好的名單卻在審查會遭到毒手，原因包括：第一，審查委員不在乎民眾觀感，或根本與民意脫節；第二，要獲四分之三同意票才能過關的高門檻，顯不合理；第三，朝野政黨的角力與拔河，使審查會摻入太多政治考量。當然，這也包括了龍應台對政治估計的太過天真。

當初規定公視董監事要採四分之三的高門檻，是以公視為全民所有的「公共媒體」為由，因此需要採取「高標準」。然而，這項華而不實的規定，卻也造成了公視董事會長年無法正常運作、甚至根本無法組成的問題。龍應台六月提出廿多人的名單後，到七月就有十名候選人主動退出，主要就是認為審查機制不合理，不願去碰壁。沒想到，英勇留下來的人，最後還是紛紛在此墜馬。

門檻要多高才算合理，暫且不談；但讓這個門檻變得像集體屠宰場的，卻是依政黨比例提名產生的「審查委員」。目前十五名審查委員，依各政黨在國會的席次比例，國民黨推薦者有八人，民進黨推薦五人，台聯一人，親民黨一人；要過四分之三的門檻，至少需獲十二張贊成票。反過來看，只要稍加運作，二張反對票加一張空白票，即可以讓一組「夢幻人馬」全軍覆沒。

簡單地說，目前公視董監事審查委員的結構，是複製了國會的席次比例，藍和綠是九與六之比；在此情況下，多數的一方不足操控局面，反而少數的一方更便於使力。儘管這些委員表面上都具有學術或其他專業背景，但個人政治色彩差異極大，只要陷入政治思考，三人即可左右大局達成杯葛的目的。當天，蔡詩萍憤而退出審查會，就是不滿少數人可以在這個機制中予取予求。

進一步看，荒謬的，不只是高門檻保障了「少數暴力」，審查委員由各黨依席次比例推派，同樣是個莫名所以的分贓制度。試想，目前台灣最落後、最缺乏效能的，就是政治部門；而「政黨比例推薦制」就形同在不同機構上層複製政治指導和審查機構，豈非在扼殺這些機構的生命力？當初國家通訊傳播委員會（ＮＣＣ）委員的產生也是採取政黨比例推薦制，但發現根本行不通之後，數年前即已修法改掉；而公視的運作深陷泥沼多年，難道還要被惡法莠制箝制到不得翻身？

三隻手，即足以掐死整個公視，從這次公視董監事的審查會上已一目了然。這是制度的可怕缺陷，非改不可。且看一些審查委員在會中對被提名人品頭論足的神氣，再看他們對社會人才整批否決的毫不珍惜，這些人有沒有想過自己為什麼坐在那裡？心中有沒有公視或公眾？他們又經過誰的同意可以這樣濫用手中的權力？

漂亮的名單得到這樣難看的審查結果，對龍應台而言，當然是一次大挫敗。包括其間傳出她與綠營暗中交換條件，同意讓陳郁秀出任董事長，引起了執政黨方面的緊張、關切、甚至阻撓，導致她的漂亮出擊變成孤軍奮戰，終以淒然收兵收場，這是她的一堂政治震撼教育。至於那些中箭落馬的候選人，其實是敗在「非戰之罪」，輸給不合理的制度和師心自用的政黨打手；該覺得丟臉不是落選人，可恥的是那些不問青紅皂白、只問藍綠的審查委員。

難產超過六百天的第五屆公視董事會，一時三刻內不可能奢望它霍然痊癒。如果董監事的高門檻不改，如果繼續依政黨比例制分配審查委員，如果審查委員執意要當政治的應聲蟲，全體民眾不分藍綠都別想看到一個健全的公視，更別奢望看到精采的節目。別以為那裡藏著什麼大惡魔，三隻手就足以摧毀大家的夢想，就如我們日昨所見。