The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) stands in solidarity with its affiliate, the Association of Taiwan Journalists (ATJ), and members of Taiwan’s independent media in demanding that the new owners of Taiwan’s largest media syndicate, China Times Group, make a public commitment to press freedom and media independence.

Taiwan’s media regulatory body, the National Communications Council (NCC), announced a conditional approval on May 27 of the takeover of the China Times Group by the Want Want Group, after a series of public hearings. Want Want Group is chaired by Taiwan businessman Tsai-Eng-ming, who owns a food products conglomerate largely based in China.

On June 12, the owners of the Want Want China Times Group sent legal notifications to several journalists and office-holders in media rights organisations threatening to sue them for any critical reporting of the takeover. Recipients included Media Watch chairman Kuan Chung-Hsiang (管中祥), ATJ President Chuang Feng-Chia (莊豐嘉) and Wealth magazine editor Tien Hsi-Ju (田習如).

More than 30 media reform and human rights organisations and more than 400 news media workers in Taiwan have signed a petition, “News media is not the tool of bosses”, condemning the takeover. The petition also condemns advertisements published in the group’s flagship newspaper, China Times, accusing the NCC of abuse of power. The advertisements reportedly included photos of three NCC members in a “most wanted” format.

The NCC’s decision imposed five rulings for conditions of operation of the Want Want China Times Group. These include reappointing board members of two major television stations owned by Want Want China Times Group, China Television Co (CTV) and the Chinese Nationalist Party-operated CTI; assurance of independence for the board of directors of both TV stations; separate advertising, sales and programming departments; and the establishment of an “ethics commission” and regularly published “self-discipline” reports on their respective websites.

Signatories to the ATJ-led petition voiced concern that the group’s response to critical commentary and NCC regulation indicated a lack of commitment to news media professionalism and independence. “The dignity and professional autonomy of news media employees cannot be sacrificed and news workers cannot be treated as sales personnel or given orders on what news to report or what to write,” the petition said.

"The Want Want China Times Group’s attempts to intimidate journalists, public commentators and NCC personnel call into question its attitude and commitment to freedom of expression and the value of independent voices in Taiwan,” IFJ Asia-Pacific Director Jacqueline Park said. “The group needs to recognise that the role of an independent media in a democracy is to provide a diversity of information, news and analysis, and that media business employees must be able to provide this public good without fear of intimidation and legal action.”

The IFJ joins the ATJ and petition signatories in calling on the owners of the Want Want China Times Group not to override the press freedom standards set by both the NCC and the independent reporting community in Taiwan.

For further information contact IFJ Asia-Pacific on +612 9333 0919

原文如下(含部分翻譯,我自己翻的)

----------
GOING TO THE TOP: A White House official said the US president would give every consideration to a letter appealing for support for the pro-democracy organization
By William Lowther
STAFF REPORTER , WASHINGTON
Monday, Jun 22, 2009, Page 3

A congressman has asked US President Barack Obama to become directly involved in the growing controversy over the future of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (TFD). (TFD: 台灣民主基金會)

Robert Andrews, a Democrat from New Jersey, said in a letter to the White House that the TFD’s existence and present general policy directions were very much in line with the “fundamental values of democracy and human rights which Taiwan shares with the US.”

It goes on to ask Obama to “urge” President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his administration to “let the TFD do its useful work the way it had done over the past six years.”

(信中要求歐巴馬敦促馬英九政府讓台灣民主基金會能夠一如過去六年做它該做(有用)的事.  註: TFD是2003年成立的,從2003~至此,因此為六年)

A number of other Congressmen are expected to publicly support Andrews’ letter later this week.

The White House could not confirm last night that Obama had actually read the letter, but an official said: “It’s an important and significant subject and I am sure he will give it every consideration.”

In the letter to Obama, Andrews said that he was writing “to bring an issue to your attention that is of great concern.”

He added: “Recently, news reports from Taiwan have come to our attention that the administration of Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou is planning to curtail the activities of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, reversing the Foundation’s policies of supporting democratic movements in other countries on grounds that this may offend the autocratic government of the People’s Republic of China and replacing the TFD’s personnel with people sympathetic to this accommodationalist philosophy.”

(近來的台灣新聞報導讓我們注意到馬政府打算阻擋台灣民主基金會的活動, 修改基金會支持其他國家民主活動的政策以免惹惱中國政府, 並撤換基金會人員)

The TFD was founded in 2003 and modeled on the US’ National Endowment for Democracy with the aim of promoting democracy and human rights in Asia.

“The TFD liaised with Tibetan and Chinese dissident groups as well as organizations from the Czech Republic, former East Germany, Hungary and Poland, inviting speakers to Taiwan to discuss such issues as transitional justice and human rights,” the letter said.

“In January of this year, it also invited Freedom House to Taiwan to present its annual report of freedom in the world. It also supports democracy activists in Cuba,” it said.

Andrews added that he was concerned the Ma administration was seeking accommodation with China “at the expense of freedom and democracy, not only in Taiwan itself, but also in China and Tibet.”

(他擔心馬政府不但以台灣的民主與自由為代價,也以中國與西藏的民主與自由為代價來配合中國政府)

“This would constitute another blow to Taiwan’s vibrant democracy,” he said. 

(這將嚴重打擊台灣的民主)

---------

延伸閱讀:

1)Bad rap on rights is Ma's making Tuesday, Jun 23, 2009, Page 8

特別是第一段:

The political storm brewing over an approaching personnel reshuffle at the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy was anything but inevitable.

Not long after news emerged that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) intended to make changes to the foundation’s board of directors, various organizations in Taiwan and the US began accusing Ma of interfering in the affairs of this reputable organization. One US congressman has gone so far as to call on US President Barack Obama to get involved.

updated on 6/26

2)US group pressures Ma on TFD shuffle

3)Taiwan needs TFD to stay independent

An edited version of this text appears in Chinese (繁体中文版）in the China Times (Taiwan) for June 11, 2009. This article is also published in the South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) for June 11, 2009.

Anyone who cares about law and government has to be impressed by visiting Taiwan. Its democratically elected president and legislature, spurred by the interpretations of its independent Constitutional Court, have just ended the power of the police to imprison people without affording them the full protections of the newly revised judicial process.

They have also incorporated the standards of the two major international human rights covenants into Taiwan’s domestic law. The government - in open court - is vigorously prosecuting the reportedly massive corruption of the previous administration.

The long moribund Control Yuan, whose function is to ferret out official misconduct, has come to life, and Taiwan’s lawyers’ associations and civic groups continue to press for further improvements in criminal justice. The island’s free and hyperactive media, essential to the development of the rule of law, enjoy a field day reporting all this.

Yet, surprisingly, a recent intense week in Taipei, spent mostly with legal scholars, left me a bit depressed. As usual in a healthy society, I heard many stimulating critiques of the current situation. Some friends claimed: that ex-president Chen Shui-bian, now a criminal defendant, is being unfairly confined to a miserable detention cell for many months, while others under investigation and indictment for corruption remain free; that the Kuomintang administration of President Ma Ying-jeou is zealously bringing corruption charges against politicians of the Democratic Progressive Party while ignoring the many instances of similar misconduct by KMT officials; that the judge who was ultimately put in charge of the trial of Chen and his family has repeatedly ruled arbitrarily against them; that the legislature failed to enact necessary criminal justice reforms; and so on.

These allegations are troubling, of course. Yet, when I asked my academic friends why more of them - there are a few distinguished exceptions - did not speak out, publish essays and document their concerns, all too often I heard: “What good would it do? We can’t change anything. They won’t listen. Besides, we don’t want to be controversial. People will accuse us of `being too Green’ or sympathising with corruption.” Some seem to be too busy with important research, consulting work or family responsibilities. A few hinted at hopes for government appointments that might be thwarted by controversy.

Such sentiments are understandable, especially in a busy, successful but bitterly divided political environment in which mutual trust and respect are in short supply. Yet Taiwan’s evolving democracy confronts multiple challenges and needs the benefit of all the expertise and wisdom that is available.

It will be difficult to achieve optimum solutions to many major law reform issues without the informed, objective contributions of the island’s best minds. If many of them hold back, for whatever reason, if they fail to take advantage of their hard-earned freedoms to speak out, they put their society’s precious accomplishments at risk.

If Taiwan’s law professors, legal scholars, social scientists and others with unique qualifications to promote public understanding keep silent, they actually exercise fewer freedoms than their counterparts on the repressive mainland, some of whom risk their physical safety, their careers and their family’s well-being by “speaking truth to power”.

如果台灣的法學教授、法學家、社會學家，和其他具備特殊才幹而能夠促進公眾理解之士，持續沉默下去，他們實際上行使的自由，還比處在高壓中國政權下的知識分子更少。在這些知識分子當中，部分人甚至冒著他們人身安全、個人事業和家庭幸福的危險「向掌權者說真話 （speaking truth to power）」。

As I listened to Taiwan law professors explain their aversion to the public arena, I thought of mainland friends who are paying dearly for having voiced opposition to dictatorial rule. Kidnappings, beatings, imprisonment, disbarment, loss of jobs, exile and harassment of their spouse and children plague activist academics, as well as lawyers. Yet some persist. Should Taiwan’s legal scholars sit on their hands and seal their mouths? What price private pursuits?

當我聽著台灣法學教授解釋他們對於公共領域的反感時，我想到在中國大陸的朋友，他們因為表明對獨裁統治的反對而付出了沉重的代價。被綁架、毆打、監禁、喪失律師執業資格、失去工作、遭流放、其配偶和子女被騷擾，這一切的一切折磨著直言倡議的學者和律師。然而，始終有一些人堅定不移。

    　台灣的法律學者難道應該袖手旁觀、莫不作聲？追求個人私利的代價到底有多大？

-----

6/27: a new link was added-- Lesson in Integrity for All

Chinese censors cut off Twitter, Hotmail and Flickr.