Freedom of the Press at Risk in Taiwan
Freedom of the Press at Risk in Taiwan
by I-cheng LOH,
HUANG-FU Ho-wang,
and CHANG Tso-ching *
Taiwan has been described as a budding democracy where people enjoy a high living standard with commensurate personal liberties. The facts, however, speak otherwise. Freedom of the press as it is understood elsewhere is being eroded rapidly here in Taiwan under a regime that has paid lip service to press freedom, but acted exactly in the other direction since it took office more than four years ago.
The government of President CHEN Shui-bian, who is also chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), has mastered the art of muzzling those media that criticize its high-handed rule, while extending control imperceptibly over all print and electronic media. The methods employed by DPP are far more subtle but doubly effective than those employed by the former Kuomintang (KMT) government, often accused of being authoritarian in the old days. And as the DPP learns how to apply these hidden controls that are unobtrusive to the outside world, they constitute an even more dangerous threat to the future of freedom and democracy in Taiwan.
The Paris-based Reporters sans Frontières, in its annual rating on freedom of the press of countries around the world, downgraded Taiwan from No. 35 in 2002 to No. 61 in 2003, lagging behind Romania, Mali and Peru. Its 2004 annual report wrote of cases of harassment and obstruction that took place in Taiwan during the past year.
Invisible Hand over Radio & TV
When it was the opposition party before 2000, the DPP advocated that the government, political parties and the military should all “get their hands off” broadcasting and television stations. In December 2003, the Legislative Yuan (Parliament), with the support of all major parties including the KMT, amended the “Broadcasting and Television Act(BTA)” to include this DPP campaign plank into its provisions.
That seemed at first glance to be a step in the right direction. But few noticed the hidden loophole: the BTA said nothing about government or publicly owned electronic media.
In point of fact, therefore, the amended BTA gave the DPP government de facto and direct control over four of the five VHF networks in Taiwan. These are the TTV (Taiwan Television Enterprise Ltd., oldest network with the Taiwan provincial government as majority stockholder), CTS (Chinese Television System, with the Ministries of National Defense (MND) and Education (MOE) as major stockholders), PTS (Public Television Service, whose board is appointed by the government and relies heavily on government subsidies), and Formosa TV (privately owned by supporters of the Taiwan independence movement, the DPP’s ultimate goal).
The fifth network, CTV (China Television Co. Ltd.) is owned by the KMT’s Hua Hsia Investment Holding Company (Hua Hsia). The KMT is trying to relinquish its media ownership by selling its Hwa Hsia stock holding. Yet, it is facing bureaucratic harassment from the Government Information Office (GIO), the cabinet-level agency in charge of regulating all media. CTV’s broadcast license is coming up for renewal, and GIO threatens to annul its permit. Observers saw it as an obvious move to intimidate CTV management, with the side effect of depressing the price of its stock, traded openly on the Taiwan Stock Exchange.
The same tactic is being applied to another Hua Hsia subsidiary, the BCC (Broadcasting Corporation of China), oldest radio network in Taiwan with the largest listening audience across the island. The KMT, complying with the revised BTA, has offered to sell Hua Hsia and all its subsidiaries, which include also the Central Daily News, China Daily News and a movie company, to anybody who may be interested. Domestic buyers, however, are hesitant to bid lest they should get in the way of the DPP government.
The sole prospective foreign buyer, Sycamore Ventures, a subsidiary of Citibank International, is being blocked by GIO which cites the law’s provision prohibiting foreigners from owning or operating electronic media in the country. The seller’s attorneys argued that the change of ownership involves only the holding company, while the management and staff of both CTV and BCC would remain untouched, protected by a 3-year non-interference agreement. But GIO is not buying.
The DPP government also controls at least two other TV channels, Taiwan Macroview TV for overseas audiences and Hakka TV for domestic Hakka speakers, both of whose operating costs come from the government budget.
Of even greater influence, however, are the many government-owned radio networks that reach into every corner of the globe: Central Broadcasting System (aimed principally at mainland China, and its subsidiary Radio Taiwan International, for international broadcasts), Police Radio Station (whose news and road reports are tuned in by every taxicab in Taiwan), Voice of Han Broadcasting Network (MND owned, prescribed hearing for all Defense establishments), Fu Shin Broadcasting Station (backed by Military Intelligence Agency), National Educational Radio (owned by MOE), and Fishermen’s Radio Station（owned by Council of Agriculture）.
The board chairmen and presidents of all these TV and radio stations are appointed or removed at will by the DPP administration. Nowhere else in the world does an elected government have such overwhelming control over what the entire population will see or hear 24 hours every day of the year. While this was a carry-over from the previous era, the KMT administration chose media executives on the basis of experience or merit, but DPP cared only about their political allegiance.
The GIO announced recently a complete shake-up and redistribution of AM and FM radio bands. The stated purpose is to “legitimize” a total of 203 “underground”, i.e., unlicensed radio stations. These stations, with minimal power output and low operating overhead, were boisterous supporters of the DPP during the March 2004 election campaign. To reward them, the government intends to waive the requirement for new applicants, who must present complicated formal applications together with cash bond and detailed operating plan, as well as to wait through prolonged screening periods, as prescribed by law.
It was reported that they would immediately be assigned the frequency spectrum between 88.5 and 91 MHz after this general amnesty, said to be arranged through the good offices of ex-President LEE Teng-hui. LEE had left the KMT after 2000 to become CHEN Shui-bian’s political ally, and founded the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), further to the left of DPP in the political spectrum between eventual reunification and eventual independence. As spiritual leader of TSU, LEE stood firmly behind CHEN in the 2004 presidential election last March, and promised to root for the DPP again in the forthcoming Parliamentary elections.
The real reason for GIO’s hasty action is that Parliament will be reelected early in December, and the DPP needs the political support of these illegal radio stations, which enjoy considerable influence in central and southern Taiwan. If the GIO carried out its promise, this would seriously contravene the principle that all applicants should be treated equally before the law. It also would mean that while existing radio and TV stations have always paid sales and income taxes as well as BDF assessments (see next page), these underground radio stations which paid not a cent in the past would suddenly be able to compete against them on an unequal basis.
Financial Pressure as Tool
One common problem facing Taiwan’s media today is simply that there are too many of everything. No other country of comparable size – 23 million people crowded into 36,000 square kilometers – can afford to have some 70 Chinese language newspapers plus 3 more in English, not to mention Asian Wall Street Journal and International Herald Tribune, both of which are printed and distributed locally.
Likewise, no other country in the world has 5 VHF TV networks, some 100 cable TV stations that go into 80% of all households, almost 400 AM and FM radio stations including illegal ones, and 4,500 magazines, all clawing for the same advertising pie. That pie has stayed more or less the same in size as Taiwan’s growth rate suffered its first down year when DPP won the presidency in 2000, slowly recovering to 3 per cent in the last three years. The go-go days when Taiwan registered economic growth rates of more than 10 per cent year after year are gone forever.
Through its control of most major banks that are owned by the government, the DPP has found it easy to browbeat media owners to toe its line when they come hat in hand, asking for loans either to meet urgent needs, for expansion, or to roll over old debts. This financial restraint works far more effectively than any political pressure, and has the added advantage of being totally invisible as well as difficult to trace.
One example was the case of Ms. Sisy CHEN, a lady legislator with no party affiliation. She started her political career as DPP’s director of propaganda before leaving the party in disgust. She hosted her own TV talk show “Sisy’s News”, which became very popular and led to her election to Parliament in her own right. As her program began to get under the skin of DPP, it was first canceled abruptly by one cable station (Star TV’s Chinese channel), then again dropped like a hot potato by another (CTI cable TV), both of which came under subtle pressure from unknown sources. Popular outrage over these incidents enabled her to move her show to CTV. Sure enough, it has now added to CTV’s troubles with GIO.
The DPP also uses other tools to manipulate the media, three of them are worth mentioning here. The first such tool is a non-profit foundation. GIO controls directly the Broadcasting Development Fund (BDF), whose original endowment came from government budget, while operating costs come from assessments levied on after-tax earnings of all legitimate radio and TV stations. The BDF, officially described as “a foundation owned by all the people”, has since the year 2000 become an obedient arm of the government for subsidizing radio and TV station owners, and handing out prizes to those staff who openly or even unknowingly support the DPP’s political agenda.
Then there is the Taiwan Advertisers’ Association (TAA), founded in 2000 by a group of 33 businesses. While a few foreign enterprises such as MacDonald are also members of this exclusive club, most Taiwanese members of TAA have donated heavily to DPP’s war chest in every recent election. The chairman of TAA is Luis KO, who owns the bakery and confectionary chain I-Mei, a household name brand in Taiwan. KAO now wears another hat as national policy advisor to President CHEN.
On TAA’s board sits such personalities as Daniel TSAI, chairman of Fubon Financial Holding Company; LIN Chen-yi, chairman of Macoto Bank; HO-CHEN tan, chairman of Chunghwa Telecom (Taiwan’s equivalent to AT&T before the break-up), who served as Taipei City’s commissioner of transport under then mayor CHEN Shui-bian and later as first deputy minister of transport and communications when his old boss became president; and Thomas WU, chairman of Taishin Financial Holding Company. The combined financial clout of these men are without parallel in Taiwan today.
In its founding declaration, TAA pledged to “assist in the search for harmony and peace”, and declared that it would work with media enterprises to “encourage quality media programs and correct news reporting” (emphasis added). How is that lofty goal to be achieved? TAA vowed that it would “urge and closely watch all media to rid themselves of such news reporting and program presentation of a sensational nature as: … news that feature sex and violence, and reporting that create conflict and adversary relationships” (emphasis added). The implied threat is crystal clear: if you don’t behave, we’ll pull out our ads.
The third tool is even more controversial. Curious is the only appropriate word to describe activities of the so-called Media-Watcher Alliance of Listeners and Viewers (MWA), which came into being on 1 October 2003, when the 2004 presidential campaign began to heat up. It is nominally an alliance of 27 civic groups, all of which are on record as supporters of the DPP and President CHEN. As its opening salvo, MWA called on the public to boycott a TTV program called “Flagship Variety Show”, which it considered to be too vulgar and unworthy of viewing. But that was only testing the waters.
In April 2004, MWA went all out criticizing two all-news cable channels, the CTI TV and Era News TV. Ostensibly, MWA’s reason for boycotting these two channels was that their live broadcast of ballot-counting on election night of March 20 proved to be “inaccurate” until official figures came out around 8 p.m. The real reason, reported by other media, was that these two stations were considered to have given too much air time reporting on continuous mass demonstrations, that lasted for days and nights non-stop in front of the Presidential Plaza after the controversial presidential election of March 20. (Details of it are covered in another NPF pamphlet entitled “Bulletgate”.) MWA, on its part, denied that that was the case.
Alternating Carrot and Stick
When it was the opposition party before 2000, the DPP advocated that the government, political parties and the military should all “get their hands off” broadcasting and television stations. In December 2003, the Legislative Yuan (Parliament), with the support of all major parties including the KMT, amended the “Broadcasting and Television Act(BTA)” to include this DPP campaign plank into its provisions.
That seemed at first glance to be a step in the right direction. But few noticed the hidden loophole: the BTA said nothing about government or publicly owned electronic media.
In point of fact, therefore, the amended BTA gave the DPP government de facto and direct control over four of the five VHF networks in Taiwan. These are the TTV (Taiwan Television Enterprise Ltd., oldest network with the Taiwan provincial government as majority stockholder), CTS (Chinese Television System, with the Ministries of National Defense (MND) and Education (MOE) as major stockholders), PTS (Public Television Service, whose board is appointed by the government and relies heavily on government subsidies), and Formosa TV (privately owned by supporters of the Taiwan independence movement, the DPP’s ultimate goal).
The fifth network, CTV (China Television Co. Ltd.) is owned by the KMT’s Hua Hsia Investment Holding Company (Hua Hsia). The KMT is trying to relinquish its media ownership by selling its Hwa Hsia stock holding. Yet, it is facing bureaucratic harassment from the Government Information Office (GIO), the cabinet-level agency in charge of regulating all media. CTV’s broadcast license is coming up for renewal, and GIO threatens to annul its permit. Observers saw it as an obvious move to intimidate CTV management, with the side effect of depressing the price of its stock, traded openly on the Taiwan Stock Exchange.
The same tactic is being applied to another Hua Hsia subsidiary, the BCC (Broadcasting Corporation of China), oldest radio network in Taiwan with the largest listening audience across the island. The KMT, complying with the revised BTA, has offered to sell Hua Hsia and all its subsidiaries, which include also the Central Daily News, China Daily News and a movie company, to anybody who may be interested. Domestic buyers, however, are hesitant to bid lest they should get in the way of the DPP government.
The sole prospective foreign buyer, Sycamore Ventures, a subsidiary of Citibank International, is being blocked by GIO which cites the law’s provision prohibiting foreigners from owning or operating electronic media in the country. The seller’s attorneys argued that the change of ownership involves only the holding company, while the management and staff of both CTV and BCC would remain untouched, protected by a 3-year non-interference agreement. But GIO is not buying.
The DPP government also controls at least two other TV channels, Taiwan Macroview TV for overseas audiences and Hakka TV for domestic Hakka speakers, both of whose operating costs come from the government budget.
Of even greater influence, however, are the many government-owned radio networks that reach into every corner of the globe: Central Broadcasting System (aimed principally at mainland China, and its subsidiary Radio Taiwan International, for international broadcasts), Police Radio Station (whose news and road reports are tuned in by every taxicab in Taiwan), Voice of Han Broadcasting Network (MND owned, prescribed hearing for all Defense establishments), Fu Shin Broadcasting Station (backed by Military Intelligence Agency), National Educational Radio (owned by MOE), and Fishermen’s Radio Station（owned by Council of Agriculture）.
The board chairmen and presidents of all these TV and radio stations are appointed or removed at will by the DPP administration. Nowhere else in the world does an elected government have such overwhelming control over what the entire population will see or hear 24 hours every day of the year. While this was a carry-over from the previous era, the KMT administration chose media executives on the basis of experience or merit, but DPP cared only about their political allegiance.
The GIO announced recently a complete shake-up and redistribution of AM and FM radio bands. The stated purpose is to “legitimize” a total of 203 “underground”, i.e., unlicensed radio stations. These stations, with minimal power output and low operating overhead, were boisterous supporters of the DPP during the March 2004 election campaign. To reward them, the government intends to waive the requirement for new applicants, who must present complicated formal applications together with cash bond and detailed operating plan, as well as to wait through prolonged screening periods, as prescribed by law.
It was reported that they would immediately be assigned the frequency spectrum between 88.5 and 91 MHz after this general amnesty, said to be arranged through the good offices of ex-President LEE Teng-hui. LEE had left the KMT after 2000 to become CHEN Shui-bian’s political ally, and founded the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), further to the left of DPP in the political spectrum between eventual reunification and eventual independence. As spiritual leader of TSU, LEE stood firmly behind CHEN in the 2004 presidential election last March, and promised to root for the DPP again in the forthcoming Parliamentary elections.
The real reason for GIO’s hasty action is that Parliament will be reelected early in December, and the DPP needs the political support of these illegal radio stations, which enjoy considerable influence in central and southern Taiwan. If the GIO carried out its promise, this would seriously contravene the principle that all applicants should be treated equally before the law. It also would mean that while existing radio and TV stations have always paid sales and income taxes as well as BDF assessments (see next page), these underground radio stations which paid not a cent in the past would suddenly be able to compete against them on an unequal basis.
Financial Pressure as Tool
One common problem facing Taiwan’s media today is simply that there are too many of everything. No other country of comparable size – 23 million people crowded into 36,000 square kilometers – can afford to have some 70 Chinese language newspapers plus 3 more in English, not to mention Asian Wall Street Journal and International Herald Tribune, both of which are printed and distributed locally.
Likewise, no other country in the world has 5 VHF TV networks, some 100 cable TV stations that go into 80% of all households, almost 400 AM and FM radio stations including illegal ones, and 4,500 magazines, all clawing for the same advertising pie. That pie has stayed more or less the same in size as Taiwan’s growth rate suffered its first down year when DPP won the presidency in 2000, slowly recovering to 3 per cent in the last three years. The go-go days when Taiwan registered economic growth rates of more than 10 per cent year after year are gone forever.
Through its control of most major banks that are owned by the government, the DPP has found it easy to browbeat media owners to toe its line when they come hat in hand, asking for loans either to meet urgent needs, for expansion, or to roll over old debts. This financial restraint works far more effectively than any political pressure, and has the added advantage of being totally invisible as well as difficult to trace.
One example was the case of Ms. Sisy CHEN, a lady legislator with no party affiliation. She started her political career as DPP’s director of propaganda before leaving the party in disgust. She hosted her own TV talk show “Sisy’s News”, which became very popular and led to her election to Parliament in her own right. As her program began to get under the skin of DPP, it was first canceled abruptly by one cable station (Star TV’s Chinese channel), then again dropped like a hot potato by another (CTI cable TV), both of which came under subtle pressure from unknown sources. Popular outrage over these incidents enabled her to move her show to CTV. Sure enough, it has now added to CTV’s troubles with GIO.
The DPP also uses other tools to manipulate the media, three of them are worth mentioning here. The first such tool is a non-profit foundation. GIO controls directly the Broadcasting Development Fund (BDF), whose original endowment came from government budget, while operating costs come from assessments levied on after-tax earnings of all legitimate radio and TV stations. The BDF, officially described as “a foundation owned by all the people”, has since the year 2000 become an obedient arm of the government for subsidizing radio and TV station owners, and handing out prizes to those staff who openly or even unknowingly support the DPP’s political agenda.
Then there is the Taiwan Advertisers’ Association (TAA), founded in 2000 by a group of 33 businesses. While a few foreign enterprises such as MacDonald are also members of this exclusive club, most Taiwanese members of TAA have donated heavily to DPP’s war chest in every recent election. The chairman of TAA is Luis KO, who owns the bakery and confectionary chain I-Mei, a household name brand in Taiwan. KAO now wears another hat as national policy advisor to President CHEN.
On TAA’s board sits such personalities as Daniel TSAI, chairman of Fubon Financial Holding Company; LIN Chen-yi, chairman of Macoto Bank; HO-CHEN tan, chairman of Chunghwa Telecom (Taiwan’s equivalent to AT&T before the break-up), who served as Taipei City’s commissioner of transport under then mayor CHEN Shui-bian and later as first deputy minister of transport and communications when his old boss became president; and Thomas WU, chairman of Taishin Financial Holding Company. The combined financial clout of these men are without parallel in Taiwan today.
In its founding declaration, TAA pledged to “assist in the search for harmony and peace”, and declared that it would work with media enterprises to “encourage quality media programs and correct news reporting” (emphasis added). How is that lofty goal to be achieved? TAA vowed that it would “urge and closely watch all media to rid themselves of such news reporting and program presentation of a sensational nature as: … news that feature sex and violence, and reporting that create conflict and adversary relationships” (emphasis added). The implied threat is crystal clear: if you don’t behave, we’ll pull out our ads.
The third tool is even more controversial. Curious is the only appropriate word to describe activities of the so-called Media-Watcher Alliance of Listeners and Viewers (MWA), which came into being on 1 October 2003, when the 2004 presidential campaign began to heat up. It is nominally an alliance of 27 civic groups, all of which are on record as supporters of the DPP and President CHEN. As its opening salvo, MWA called on the public to boycott a TTV program called “Flagship Variety Show”, which it considered to be too vulgar and unworthy of viewing. But that was only testing the waters.
In April 2004, MWA went all out criticizing two all-news cable channels, the CTI TV and Era News TV. Ostensibly, MWA’s reason for boycotting these two channels was that their live broadcast of ballot-counting on election night of March 20 proved to be “inaccurate” until official figures came out around 8 p.m. The real reason, reported by other media, was that these two stations were considered to have given too much air time reporting on continuous mass demonstrations, that lasted for days and nights non-stop in front of the Presidential Plaza after the controversial presidential election of March 20. (Details of it are covered in another NPF pamphlet entitled “Bulletgate”.) MWA, on its part, denied that that was the case.
Alternating Carrot and Stick
One of MWA’s executive board members just happens to be Ms. Connie Lin, who wears another hat as executive director of BDF, appointed by GIO. She became famous when she said “freedom of the press cannot be limitless”, quoted by the weekly newsmagazine The Journalist in its issue No. 895 of April 29, 2004. Neither previous experience nor academic background prepared her for the BDF position. Her only distinguished achievement seemed to be that during the 2004 campaign, she had acted as M.C. in mass rallies in which she introduced President CHEN to cheering audiences.
Another MWA board member, Ms. YU Mei-nu, acted as Vice President Annette Lü’s attorney when the Veep sued The Journalist, its president WANG Chien-chuang, and managing editor YANG Chao, for libel in December 2000. What puzzled many at the time was that in its 13 years of publication, The Journalist had generally been critical of the KMT and supportive of the DPP. It was also the first time ever in Taiwan’s history that an incumbent vice president had sued a periodical for defamation.
The Taipei District Court found the magazine guilty, and ordered it to run half-page ads and buy half-an-hour’s air time in a total of 40 leading newspapers, TV and radio stations, to publicize the judgment and to “restore the reputation” of the plaintiff. The aggregate cost to The Journalist and these two men would have come to NT$ 215,000,000 (about US$7,128,000), many times more than their combined total worth.
The magazine appealed twice to the High Court, which wound up upholding the guilty verdict on April 29, 2004, but reduced the penalty to running half-page ads in only four newspapers. That would cost a total of NT$ 1.9 million (about US$ 57,000), exclusive of court expenses and lawyers’ fees. Since the judgment is final, no more appeal is available.
President CHEN himself in late 2002 also threatened to sue The China Times for libel when the newspaper quoted a woman as saying that she had made a donation of NT$ 4,500,000 (US$ 138,000) by check to CHEN’s mayoral campaign in 1998. No sooner than the presidential office made known this threat, The China Times printed a retraction and apology on its front page the next morning. The presidential spokesman expressed satisfaction, and the case was closed. No government agency bothered to investigate the woman’s allegation any further.
At the time, President CHEN even retained an attorney, Ms. Lindy L.Y Chern, who was preparing to file suit. She happened to be chairperson of the Foundation for the Advancement of Media Excellence （FAME）, set up by supporters of DPP. The Chinese name of the foundation actually means “Foundation to Prevent and Combat Media Abuse”, very different from the official translation in English.
Under Ms. CHERN and executive director LU Shih-xiang, it had drawn up elaborate plans to monitor news reporting of six major dailies in Taiwan, down to space allocated to stories appearing on pages 1 to 4, and publish its findings every two months, in conjunction with TAA. That plan was quietly dropped only after it was severely criticized by opposition lawmakers.
The alternative use of carrot and stick is the DPP’s hallmark, since even the KMT administration, which was criticized by some as authoritarian when it was in power, had never sued a newspaper. The other cases were well known and have been cited by foreign media as indications of Taiwan’s slipping record on freedom of the press. They were also detailed by New York-based Freedom House in its annual surveys.
To name a few: the indictment of reporter HUNG Che-cheng（for alleged breach of military secret in July 2000; the search of editorial office of China Times Express, as well as the home of its reporter on grounds of national security; and the search of the editorial office and printing plant of weekly magazine Next, owned by the Apple Daily Group of Hongkong, and seizure of 160,000 copies of that week’s edition. The Committee to Protect Journalists, based in New York, had protested to President CHEN about the seizure in April 2002.
Appointment of Media Brass
Taiwan’s major wire service, the Central News Agency, as well as the Central Broadcasting Station that specializes in beaming toward mainland China, used to be KMT enterprises. They were nationalized during the democratization process in l996 and 1998, when KMT was in power. Since their operating budgets rely heavily on government subsidy, they have now been turned into DPP mouthpieces. Their chairmen and presidents are nominated by GIO before routinely elected by their boards. Their managing editorship and other key positions have become exclusive hunting ground of those who support the government. Ideological correctness has become the criteria for promotion rather than professional ability.
This tendency is even more blatant when it comes to TV executives. The board chairman of TTV is LAI Kuo-chou, ex-President LEE Teng-hui’s son-in-law, who hung on to his job despite the fact that TTV has been losing money five years in a row under his stewardship. LEE’s symbiotic relationship with President CHEN Shui-bian ensures that LAI would not be in danger of looking for another job in the near future.
In July 2004, a public uproar arose when Ms. CHIANG Hsia became the new president of CTS. Her fame was due entirely to a commercial digital video disk entitled “The Extraordinary DVD” appearing before the end of 2003, containing innuendos and barbed attacks upon the KMT/PFP (People First Party﹐therefore) ticket, challenging CHEN for the presidency.
The law requires that any entertainment type DVD sold publicly should first be registered with GIO, and names of the producer and the distributor must be printed on its label. There was no indication whatsoever on this DVD. GIO at first threatened to ban its sale, but took no action. Because of its clearly libelous and even saucy content, thousands of copies were sold under the counter, which created quite a stir during crucial months of the campaign.
Only after the election did it become known that Ms. CHIANG was the behind-the-scenes producer of that mischievous DVD. It came out also that she had been a frequent guest on the presidential plane used by CHEN on his campaign tours. She readily admitted that she was being rewarded for her hatchet job, describing it as “political reward”.
Within a month, the man in charge of CTS’s news department quit his job in spite of the fact that CTS news enjoyed the highest rating among all evening TV news programs. She then broke with all tradition and gave the 8 p.m. “golden” time slot, usually filled by popular variety shows or drama series, to a “grass roots type” political commentator known for his virulent pro-DPP and anti-KMT/PFP slant. That show has become the butt of many jokes and anecdotes in media circles and has been rated poorly compared to drama it replaced. Thus, political correctness seems to have taken primacy over profit-making or objectivity as the guiding principle in the management of the electronic media.
Strategy of “Product Placement Marketing”
Taiwan’s central and local governments are permitted to spend public funds on advertising to acquaint the population with new administrative measures. Under the KMT administration, the money was used in running public notices in newspapers, billboards in airports, and TV spots to remind people of such things as launch of inoculation campaigns or deadline for license changes, or just to promote tourism. Each central government agency or local government manages its own advertising campaign, without interference from above.
The DPP saw fit to change this practice when it took over the government. On March 14, 2002, GIO Director-General Arthur IAPannounced his idea of centralized spending of such advertising budgets, as well as the concept of “product placement marketing”, i.e., allowing media organizations to mix the government’s advertising message into news reports or program contents, without labeling them as paid messages. He claimed that such packaging would make the government’s policies more “readily acceptable” to the public.
IAP’s idea was not only revolutionary. It runs directly contrary to the principle that news and program contents should be unbiased, objective and honest, and that they should never be mixed up with advertising. Disregarding public protest, GIO went ahead anyway. The combined advertising budget of various agencies under the central government was more than one billion New Taiwan dollars (about US$30 million) a year. If those of public enterprises and government banks are included, the total approaches NT$ 6 billion (US$ 180 million). Together they constitute a giant carrot that works much better than the stick.
Any reader or viewer needs only to flip through Taiwan’s daily newspapers or turn on the TV to see how the DPP government’s hidden messages have infiltrated many media outlets, which are supposed to be watchdogs of the government instead of its lapdogs. In May 2004, IAP was promoted to secretary-general of the Executive Yuan (cabinet) presumably for his ingenious contribution to the governing party.
“Reforming” the Media?
As in other countries, there are organizations in Taiwan that are supposed to guard the sanctity of the media. The National Press Council should have protested against the DPP administration’s carrot and stick policy toward the media, but it is a paper tiger without tooth. The Association of Journalists as well as Society of Newspaper Publishers have also kept quiet, waiting for someone else to point out the alarming trend of events.
It is true that people in Taiwan are still free to criticize the government without fear of retribution. What worries many scholars and journalists is that the fourth estate in Taiwan has, with some noticeable exceptions, fallen prey to the DPP government’s sophisticated and highly effective methods of control to serve its own political ends. This problem may not be limited to Taiwan; conceivably it could be found in other developed and developing countries. There is no doubt, however, that it should receive the attention of organizations worldwide which value freedom of the press as the foundation for all other freedoms.
In his inaugural address on May 20, 2004, President Chen singled out the media as one of the sectors that urgently needed “to be reformed”. If he is serious about this pledge, we would be deeply, deeply concerned about the future of freedom of the press in Taiwan, given the trends described above.
Another MWA board member, Ms. YU Mei-nu, acted as Vice President Annette Lü’s attorney when the Veep sued The Journalist, its president WANG Chien-chuang, and managing editor YANG Chao, for libel in December 2000. What puzzled many at the time was that in its 13 years of publication, The Journalist had generally been critical of the KMT and supportive of the DPP. It was also the first time ever in Taiwan’s history that an incumbent vice president had sued a periodical for defamation.
The Taipei District Court found the magazine guilty, and ordered it to run half-page ads and buy half-an-hour’s air time in a total of 40 leading newspapers, TV and radio stations, to publicize the judgment and to “restore the reputation” of the plaintiff. The aggregate cost to The Journalist and these two men would have come to NT$ 215,000,000 (about US$7,128,000), many times more than their combined total worth.
The magazine appealed twice to the High Court, which wound up upholding the guilty verdict on April 29, 2004, but reduced the penalty to running half-page ads in only four newspapers. That would cost a total of NT$ 1.9 million (about US$ 57,000), exclusive of court expenses and lawyers’ fees. Since the judgment is final, no more appeal is available.
President CHEN himself in late 2002 also threatened to sue The China Times for libel when the newspaper quoted a woman as saying that she had made a donation of NT$ 4,500,000 (US$ 138,000) by check to CHEN’s mayoral campaign in 1998. No sooner than the presidential office made known this threat, The China Times printed a retraction and apology on its front page the next morning. The presidential spokesman expressed satisfaction, and the case was closed. No government agency bothered to investigate the woman’s allegation any further.
At the time, President CHEN even retained an attorney, Ms. Lindy L.Y Chern, who was preparing to file suit. She happened to be chairperson of the Foundation for the Advancement of Media Excellence （FAME）, set up by supporters of DPP. The Chinese name of the foundation actually means “Foundation to Prevent and Combat Media Abuse”, very different from the official translation in English.
Under Ms. CHERN and executive director LU Shih-xiang, it had drawn up elaborate plans to monitor news reporting of six major dailies in Taiwan, down to space allocated to stories appearing on pages 1 to 4, and publish its findings every two months, in conjunction with TAA. That plan was quietly dropped only after it was severely criticized by opposition lawmakers.
The alternative use of carrot and stick is the DPP’s hallmark, since even the KMT administration, which was criticized by some as authoritarian when it was in power, had never sued a newspaper. The other cases were well known and have been cited by foreign media as indications of Taiwan’s slipping record on freedom of the press. They were also detailed by New York-based Freedom House in its annual surveys.
To name a few: the indictment of reporter HUNG Che-cheng（for alleged breach of military secret in July 2000; the search of editorial office of China Times Express, as well as the home of its reporter on grounds of national security; and the search of the editorial office and printing plant of weekly magazine Next, owned by the Apple Daily Group of Hongkong, and seizure of 160,000 copies of that week’s edition. The Committee to Protect Journalists, based in New York, had protested to President CHEN about the seizure in April 2002.
Appointment of Media Brass
Taiwan’s major wire service, the Central News Agency, as well as the Central Broadcasting Station that specializes in beaming toward mainland China, used to be KMT enterprises. They were nationalized during the democratization process in l996 and 1998, when KMT was in power. Since their operating budgets rely heavily on government subsidy, they have now been turned into DPP mouthpieces. Their chairmen and presidents are nominated by GIO before routinely elected by their boards. Their managing editorship and other key positions have become exclusive hunting ground of those who support the government. Ideological correctness has become the criteria for promotion rather than professional ability.
This tendency is even more blatant when it comes to TV executives. The board chairman of TTV is LAI Kuo-chou, ex-President LEE Teng-hui’s son-in-law, who hung on to his job despite the fact that TTV has been losing money five years in a row under his stewardship. LEE’s symbiotic relationship with President CHEN Shui-bian ensures that LAI would not be in danger of looking for another job in the near future.
In July 2004, a public uproar arose when Ms. CHIANG Hsia became the new president of CTS. Her fame was due entirely to a commercial digital video disk entitled “The Extraordinary DVD” appearing before the end of 2003, containing innuendos and barbed attacks upon the KMT/PFP (People First Party﹐therefore) ticket, challenging CHEN for the presidency.
The law requires that any entertainment type DVD sold publicly should first be registered with GIO, and names of the producer and the distributor must be printed on its label. There was no indication whatsoever on this DVD. GIO at first threatened to ban its sale, but took no action. Because of its clearly libelous and even saucy content, thousands of copies were sold under the counter, which created quite a stir during crucial months of the campaign.
Only after the election did it become known that Ms. CHIANG was the behind-the-scenes producer of that mischievous DVD. It came out also that she had been a frequent guest on the presidential plane used by CHEN on his campaign tours. She readily admitted that she was being rewarded for her hatchet job, describing it as “political reward”.
Within a month, the man in charge of CTS’s news department quit his job in spite of the fact that CTS news enjoyed the highest rating among all evening TV news programs. She then broke with all tradition and gave the 8 p.m. “golden” time slot, usually filled by popular variety shows or drama series, to a “grass roots type” political commentator known for his virulent pro-DPP and anti-KMT/PFP slant. That show has become the butt of many jokes and anecdotes in media circles and has been rated poorly compared to drama it replaced. Thus, political correctness seems to have taken primacy over profit-making or objectivity as the guiding principle in the management of the electronic media.
Strategy of “Product Placement Marketing”
Taiwan’s central and local governments are permitted to spend public funds on advertising to acquaint the population with new administrative measures. Under the KMT administration, the money was used in running public notices in newspapers, billboards in airports, and TV spots to remind people of such things as launch of inoculation campaigns or deadline for license changes, or just to promote tourism. Each central government agency or local government manages its own advertising campaign, without interference from above.
The DPP saw fit to change this practice when it took over the government. On March 14, 2002, GIO Director-General Arthur IAPannounced his idea of centralized spending of such advertising budgets, as well as the concept of “product placement marketing”, i.e., allowing media organizations to mix the government’s advertising message into news reports or program contents, without labeling them as paid messages. He claimed that such packaging would make the government’s policies more “readily acceptable” to the public.
IAP’s idea was not only revolutionary. It runs directly contrary to the principle that news and program contents should be unbiased, objective and honest, and that they should never be mixed up with advertising. Disregarding public protest, GIO went ahead anyway. The combined advertising budget of various agencies under the central government was more than one billion New Taiwan dollars (about US$30 million) a year. If those of public enterprises and government banks are included, the total approaches NT$ 6 billion (US$ 180 million). Together they constitute a giant carrot that works much better than the stick.
Any reader or viewer needs only to flip through Taiwan’s daily newspapers or turn on the TV to see how the DPP government’s hidden messages have infiltrated many media outlets, which are supposed to be watchdogs of the government instead of its lapdogs. In May 2004, IAP was promoted to secretary-general of the Executive Yuan (cabinet) presumably for his ingenious contribution to the governing party.
“Reforming” the Media?
As in other countries, there are organizations in Taiwan that are supposed to guard the sanctity of the media. The National Press Council should have protested against the DPP administration’s carrot and stick policy toward the media, but it is a paper tiger without tooth. The Association of Journalists as well as Society of Newspaper Publishers have also kept quiet, waiting for someone else to point out the alarming trend of events.
It is true that people in Taiwan are still free to criticize the government without fear of retribution. What worries many scholars and journalists is that the fourth estate in Taiwan has, with some noticeable exceptions, fallen prey to the DPP government’s sophisticated and highly effective methods of control to serve its own political ends. This problem may not be limited to Taiwan; conceivably it could be found in other developed and developing countries. There is no doubt, however, that it should receive the attention of organizations worldwide which value freedom of the press as the foundation for all other freedoms.
In his inaugural address on May 20, 2004, President Chen singled out the media as one of the sectors that urgently needed “to be reformed”. If he is serious about this pledge, we would be deeply, deeply concerned about the future of freedom of the press in Taiwan, given the trends described above.
____________________________________________________________________
This study is commissioned by the National Policy Foundation (NPF), Taipei, www.npf.org.tw. The authors are: I-cheng LOH (MS in journalism, Columbia Univ., 1955), columnist and retired diplomat; HUANG-FU Ho-wang (MS in journalism, Univ. of West Virginia), professor of journalism, Chu Hai Univ., Hong Kong, former president of the Association for Education in Mass Communications, Republic of China; and CHANG Tso-ching (BA in journalism, National Chengchi Univ.), former president of United Daily News, Taipei. Questions and/or comment may be directed to andyhu@npf.org.tw.
This study is commissioned by the National Policy Foundation (NPF), Taipei, www.npf.org.tw. The authors are: I-cheng LOH (MS in journalism, Columbia Univ., 1955), columnist and retired diplomat; HUANG-FU Ho-wang (MS in journalism, Univ. of West Virginia), professor of journalism, Chu Hai Univ., Hong Kong, former president of the Association for Education in Mass Communications, Republic of China; and CHANG Tso-ching (BA in journalism, National Chengchi Univ.), former president of United Daily News, Taipei. Questions and/or comment may be directed to andyhu@npf.org.tw.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chinese Version:
陷入險境的台灣新聞自由
陸以正、皇甫河旺、張作錦[1]
一般認為，台灣已經是個民主國家，享有很高的生活水準，與相當多的個人自由。但是事實卻並非如此。譬如，新聞自由在口惠而實不至的民進黨上台四年後，正急速地受到侵蝕。
身兼黨主席與總統身份的陳水扁先生，非常善於箝制批判政府的媒體。他會不著痕跡地把管制的手伸入平面與電子媒體中。民進黨所採用的方法，比過去被飽受批評的國民黨威權政府時期更為細緻，成效也更大。民進黨懂得運用暗中控制的方式，使外界不易發覺。他們對台灣自由與民主所構成的威脅，比過去國民黨政府時期來的更為嚴重。
總部在巴黎的「無疆界記者組織」在年度報告中，對於台灣新聞自由的評比，從2002年的第35名倒退到2003年的第61名，落後於東歐的羅馬尼亞、非洲的馬利、南美洲的祕魯等國家。在2004年報中，更提到台灣在過去一年裡，許多記者、新聞媒體遭到政府的搜索與控告。
伸進廣電媒體的黑手
民進黨在2000年上台執政以前，高喊黨政軍退出廣電媒體。在2003年12月，立法院的所有主要政黨，包括國民黨，共同通過「廣播電視法」修正案，將民進黨競選時的政綱列入條文。
這在乍看之下，似乎是在正確的方向邁進。但是很少人注意到其中隱藏的漏洞：修正後的廣電法對於政府或公共擁有的電子媒體的管理隻字未提。
實際的狀況是，修正後的廣電法讓民進黨可以實際並且直接控制五家無線電視台中的四家，這些包括台視（台灣最早的無線頻道，台灣省政府是最大股東）、華視（國防部和教育部是主要股東）、公視（董事會的成員由政府指定，預算主要是依賴政府的補助）以及民視（由支持台獨運動者擁有，而台獨則是民進黨的終極目標）。
第五個無線頻道（中視），是由國民黨的華夏控股公司所擁有。國民黨準備出售華夏公司，放棄對於媒體的持有。但是卻遭到新聞局官方的騷擾。中視的廣電執照即將面臨換照，新聞局威脅要取消許可。明眼人都可以看出這是明顯在威脅中視的經營階層，造成的副作用就是使得中視的股票下跌。
同樣的策略運用在其他的華夏子公司，如台灣最早也是聽眾最多的頻道—中國廣播公司身上。國民黨依照修正後的廣電法，準備賣掉華夏及其所有的子公司，包括中央日報、中華日報以及中影，給任何有興趣的人。國內的買家對於是否出價十分猶豫，他們深怕受民進黨政府採取一些不利的動作。
目前唯一可能的國外買主，花旗銀行的子公司—亞太梧桐公司，卻被新聞局公開警告。新聞局表示依「廣電法」規定，外國人不得擁有或經營國內的電子媒體。而國民黨方面的律師則認為，擁有權的變更僅包括控股公司，中視和中廣的經營階層與員工仍然受到三年簽約的保障。但新聞局漠視這樣的事實。
民進黨政府至少還控制其他兩個電視頻道，包括為海外觀眾服務的「宏觀電視」和國內以客語發聲的「客家電視台」，兩者的經營費用都是來自於政府的預算。
然而，發揮更大影響力的，是政府擁有的許多廣播頻道，可以傳達到各個角落，包括「中央廣播電台」（主要對象是中國大陸及國外）。「警察廣播電台」（在台灣許多計程車收聽的電台），「漢聲廣播電台」（國防部擁有，所有國防單位規定收聽），「復興廣播電台」（主管機關是情報局），「教育電台」（教育部擁有），以及「漁業廣播電台」（農委會擁有）。
上述這些公營的電視台、廣播電台，董事長都是由民進黨政府任命或免職。世界上沒有其他國家，一個民選政府可以對人民一天24小時所聽、所看的媒體控制力這麼大。這些雖然號稱是延續過去的情況，但是國民黨政府當年對於媒體管理者的任命主要仍然根據其本身的經驗或功績。現在民進黨卻只重視管理者的政治忠誠。
新聞局最近宣佈要重新調整無線廣播頻譜AM、FM的分配，宣稱目的是為了使得203個地下電台合法化。這些地下電台只擁有低功率的發射能力，發聲的涵蓋範圍不大，但在2004年三月的總統大選中大多為民進黨的狂熱支持者。因此，民進黨政府為了回報他們，打算讓它們迅速合法化，減免他們必須填寫的複雜表格，以及巨額資金證明和詳細營運計劃等繁複的申請程序。
據報導，在這次頻寬重新分配中，他們可以立即獲得FM88.5到91兆赫茲的頻寬，是透過前總統李登輝的安排。李登輝在2000年之後離開國民黨，變為陳水扁的政治盟友，並主導「台灣團結聯盟」的成立。作為台聯的精神領袖與陳水扁的盟友，李登輝在2004年3月總統大選時，鼎力支持陳水扁，並承諾對於緊接而來的年底立委選舉會再度力挺民進黨。
事實上，新聞局迅速動作的真正原因，是因為十二月上旬立法院即將全面改選，民進黨需要這些地下電台業者的政治支持，因為這些電台在台灣中、南部擁有相當大的影響力。如果新聞局確實執行這些承諾，這對於所有申請者而言，是嚴重違反法律之前人人平等的原則。現存合法的廣播、電視台，一直在繳交營業稅、所得稅以及依法規定繳納的廣電基金，而這些地下電台卻可以分文未繳，享有不平等的競爭優勢特權。
以財務壓力作為工具
台灣媒體今天所碰到的另一個共同問題就是數量太多，競爭過於激烈。世界上沒有其他國家像台灣一樣，僅有三萬六千平方公里、二千三百萬人口，卻擁有70家中文報紙以及至少3家英文報紙，本地印行和發送的《亞洲華爾街日報》、《國際先鋒論壇報》尚不在內。
同樣的，世界上沒有其他國家擁有五個無線頻道，100家以上的有線電視頻道（80﹪的家庭擁有），包括地下電台在內，將近400個AM和FM廣播電台，4500份雜誌，而這些全都在搶同一塊的廣告大餅。這塊大餅近年來，每年只能維持相似的大小，民進黨2000年上台後，翌年台灣出現首次經濟負成長，過去三年多，僅以緩慢的3﹪左右的經濟成長率恢復。台灣過去經濟成長二位數字的輝煌時代已經一去不回。
民進黨政府發現只要透過對主要銀行的掌控，就可以輕易達到恫嚇媒體，要它們乖乖聽話的辦法。那就是當媒體需要貸款或是緊急需要用錢的時候，政府操控銀行放款或是展延舊的借款，就可以達到其操控媒體的目的。這種財務上的掌控，遠比任何政治壓力來得有效，而且額外的好處是，幾乎不會留下任何操弄的痕跡。
一個明顯的例子，就是無黨籍立委陳文茜的節目。陳文茜曾擔任民進黨的文宣部主任，後來因不滿民進黨的作為而離開。她主持一個電視台談話性節目：「文茜小妹大」，非常受到歡迎。她後來參選立法委員選舉，並當選。當她的節目惹惱了民進黨政府後，就被「衛視中文台」停播，後來本來要轉到「中天頻道」，也因如燙手山芋般，未能成行。這兩個電台據說都有來自不方便透露的政治壓力。大眾對此事件的憤怒，使得此節目最後轉移到中視。當然，這也增加了新聞局要找中視麻煩的理由。
民進黨政府也使用其他方法操弄媒體，有三個是值得在此說明。第一個是以非營利的基金會。新聞局直接掌控「廣播電視事業發展基金會」（「廣電基金」），其原始捐贈基金是來自政府預算，而營運費用則是來自依法規定所有合法電視、電台稅後盈餘依比例的繳納。「廣電基金」名義上是「所有公民所擁有的基金會」，可是在2000年民進黨上台後，就成為掌控廣電媒體經營者的重要工具，而且作為公開或暗地力挺民進黨的支持者之獎勵。
其次，就是所謂的「台灣廣告主協會」，在2000年由33家企業公司成立。這個封閉性的組織成員，除了少數外資企業（如麥當勞），都是國內企業，而且都是在最近每場選戰中，對民進黨資助頗多的企業主。台灣廣告主協會的主席是高志明，擁有義美食品公司，該公司在台灣是一個家喻戶曉的品牌。高現在也是總統府的國策顧問。
此外，廣告主協會的理事成員還包括富邦金控董事長蔡明忠；誠泰銀行董事長林誠一；中華電信董事長賀陳旦（在電信業開放前，相當於台灣的AT&T），陳水扁擔任台北市長時，曾任台北市交通局局長，當陳選上總統時，擔任交通部次長；台新金控董事長吳東亮。這些人聯合起來在台灣的財力，在台灣無出其右。
在該會的成立宣言中，廣告主協會表示：「協助追求社會和諧與和平」，而且宣稱將會與媒體企業共同合作「鼓勵優質的媒體節目及正面的新聞報導」（粗體自加）。這樣崇高的目標如何達成？台灣廣告主協會宣稱「我們將督促媒體去除譁眾取寵的—暴力色情新聞、誇大不實報導、傷風敗俗節目、衝突對立傳播。」（粗體自加）這隱含的威脅十分清楚：如果你不遵守，我們將抽廣告。
第三種方式更具爭議性。在2003年10月1日總統大選正如火如荼時，成立的「閱聽人監督媒體聯盟」（「閱盟」）更是令人匪夷所思。就形式上，它是由27個公民團體組成。但所有成員都是民進黨和陳總統的支持者。它公開的第一炮是要求抵制台視的「綜藝旗艦」，指責其太過粗俗，不值得觀看。但這只是初探風向。
2004年4月，「閱盟」露出真面目。它批評兩個新聞頻道，中天和年代，名義上是總統選舉開票過程中報導不實，實質卻是批評這兩家電視台對泛藍群眾自三月二十日至三月二十七日的抗爭所報導的比例過高，要求改變。當然，「閱盟」否認是這樣的理由。
胡蘿蔔與棒子的交互運用
閱盟的執行委員林育卉恰巧同時也是新聞局指派的廣電基金會執行長。她因為曾說過「新聞自由不可以無限上綱」而著名，她本身沒有任何傑出經歷或學歷讓她可以擔任廣電基金會執行長的位置。她唯一傑出的成就是在2004總統大選時，在群眾大會時扮演司儀的角色，介紹陳總統給鼓掌的民眾。
另一個閱盟的理事成員，尤美女，曾擔任呂秀蓮副總統控告《新新聞》王健壯社長和楊照總編輯的律師。許多人困惑，出版十三年的《新新聞》，是以批判國民黨和支持民進黨起家。這是首次台灣歷史上首次有在位的副總統控告一個周刊毀謗。
台北地方法院判決《新新聞》有罪，應於報紙、電視及廣播共四十家媒體，分別刊登及琅讀「澄清聲明」、判決書全文，使原告「恢復名譽」。此一廣告費用據估計約高達新台幣兩億一千五百萬元，是他們的財產好多倍。
《新新聞》向高等法院上訴，高等法院仍判決呂秀蓮勝訴，但僅需將道歉聲明及判決書主文、理由，刊登於四家報紙頭版半版一天，估計約新台幣190萬元左右，這不包括庭費和律師費。最後，最高法院維持二審判決，全案定讞。
陳水扁他自己在2002年底，也揚言控告《中國時報》誹謗。當報紙引述一位蘇惠珍女士說她在1998年陳水扁競選市長時，進行政治捐獻，給了一張新台幣450萬元的支票，總統府辦公室發出這樣的威脅。《中國時報》翌日在頭版立刻刊出道歉啟事。總統府發言人對此表示滿意，事情才暫告一段落。沒有任何的政府機關膽敢再去進一步去調查蘇女所言是否屬實。
在此同時，陳水扁總統甚至已經聘請陳玲玉律師，準備提出訴訟。她恰巧是由民進黨支持者成立的「防治新聞公害基金會」的理事長。這個基金會英文名稱是「促進媒體卓越」（Advancement of Media Excellence ），而中文則是將「新聞」視作「公害」。
在陳玲玉及執行長盧世祥的策劃下，該會曾做過非常詳細的計劃，準備針對國內六家主要報紙進行監看計劃，並聯合「台灣廣告主協會」，每兩個月公佈報告。這個計劃最後無疾而終。主要因為在野黨立法委員強力反對，新聞局才取消了這個委託計劃。
棒子與胡蘿蔔的交互運用是民進黨最擅長的方法。過去縱使國民黨政府被批評為是威權政體，但是從來沒有控告過報紙。其他許多案例都曾被國外媒體揭露。這也是導致台灣新聞自由排名倒退的原因。在「自由之家」國際組織的年度報告中，都有詳細的描述。
再舉一些例子。控告洪哲政案（被控在2000年7月洩漏軍事機密）；以國家安全為名，搜索《中時晚報》編輯室，和報導的記者家中；同時也搜索《壹周刊》編輯室和印刷廠，並沒收十六萬份已印好的雜誌。總部在紐約的「保護記者協會」，在2002年4月曾對此次搜索、沒收事件，寫信向陳水扁總統抗議。
任命媒體高層
中華民國對於大陸地區進行廣播工作的中央通訊社以及中央廣播電台過去是在中國國民黨掌控之下。但這兩家私有企業已經分別在1996年及1998年民主化的過程中成為國家新聞機構。政黨輪替後，正因為它們的預算絕大部分是依靠政府補助，它們現在已經成為民進黨政府的宣傳機構。這兩個單位的負責人是由新聞局先提名後，再讓董事會認可接受；而且負責把關的總編輯和相關的重要職位也變成那些支持民進黨的人士爭相競逐的對象。專業能力已經不再重要。政治正確才是拔擢升遷的主要考量。
如果我們把焦點轉到電視台負責人的任命的話，這種以政治正確優先的現象就更為誇張刺眼。比如說台視董事長賴國洲，乃是李前總統的女婿，雖然台視在他的掌控之下已經連續五年虧損，但他仍然保有該一職位。至少，李登輝與陳水扁的共生關係應可確保賴國洲短時間內不需要另覓他職。
2004年7月，當江霞成為華視新任總經理的時候，輿論頓時大嘩。她的知名度主要是來自2003年底坊間所流傳的「非常光碟」一事。那份光碟的內容充斥著對國親總統大選候選人的諷刺與惡意中傷。
依據中華民國的法律規定，任何公開販售的娛樂性光碟必須事先向新聞局註冊，光碟的製作人和經銷商的名字也必須印在商標上。但是，非常光碟卻完全違反此一規定。新聞局一開始曾揚言要禁止非常光碟的銷售，但是卻沒有採取任何行動。因為該光碟明顯地散佈誹謗和無理的內容，保守預估可能有數以千計的光碟片在非法情況下銷入市場，而這在選前的關鍵期間造成了相當的震撼。
然而，直到總統大選以後，社會大眾才明白江霞就是這份惡作劇非常光碟的幕後製作人，同時，大家也才知道江霞也常在競選期間搭乘陳水扁用來打選戰的總統專機。江霞也承認她所獲得的這份新工作是「政治酬庸」。
雖然華視的晚間新聞在各家電視台激烈競爭中享有最高的收視率。但是，在江霞入主華視不到一個月的時間內，該台新聞部的主管就決定辭職。緊接著，江霞又打破傳統，把一向是放在晚間八點檔黃金時段的綜藝娛樂性節目，改成由一個強烈支持民進黨且對國親兩黨充滿敵意觀點的草根性人物所主持的談話性節目。這個談話性節目已經成為媒體圈笑談的最新對象。它的收視率比它所取代的綜藝節目要低了很多。因此，對綠色媒體新貴而言，政治正確似乎比創造利潤或公正客觀更為重要。
「置入性行銷」策略
台灣的中央與地方政府依法可以花費公帑製播廣告，以宣揚新的行政措施。在國民黨執政時期，這筆經費用於報紙、機場看板、電視廣告中，以提醒人民施打疫苗、更換證照或僅做推廣觀光事業之用。中央或地方政府可在不受上級單位的干預下，自主地管理廣告活動。
民進黨接掌政權時，就想改變這樣的情況。在2003年3月14日，新聞局長葉國興提出將廣告預算集中支應，即「罝入性行銷」概念：也就是允許媒體在新聞報導或一般節目內容中，隱藏著政府所欲廣為周知的訊息，而不僅為一般人理解的普通廣告。他宣稱這樣的包裝手法將使政府政策「更易為人民所接受」。
葉的想法不單具革命性，它更直接違背了新聞與節目內容應中立、客觀、誠實、與不摻雜廣告之原則。但新聞局不顧輿論指責，仍執意要做。這筆綜合中央政府與其下各單位的廣告預算一年即超過10億新台幣(約美金3仟萬元)，若將公營事業與政府銀行的廣告預算一併計入，總金額將高達60億新台幣(約美金1億8仟萬元)。它們構築了比棒子誘人的巨大胡蘿蔔。
任何人只需稍微瀏覽台灣的報紙或打開電視，便知民進黨政府是如何無孔不入地藉由媒體傳遞其訊息。媒體不再是監督政府的看門狗，而變成是政府的搖尾狗。2004年5月，葉國興升任行政院政務委員，一般推測正是因為他對執政黨的媒體控制有重大貢獻所致。
「改革」媒體？
就如同其他國家一樣，在台灣也有許多組織是在捍衛媒體的神聖性。「新聞評議會」就曾抗議過民進黨政府對媒體的胡羅蔔與棒子的做法，但是它只是一隻沒有牙齒的紙老虎。「記者協會」與「報業工會」依然保持緘默，等待別人指出新聞自由受到威脅的嚴重性。
當然，台灣人民仍然有自由去批判政府，而且不會擔心受到報復。但是令許多學者與記者擔心的是，在台灣的「第四權」，除了少數扁政府刻意彰顯的例外，絕大部分已經陷入民進黨為其政治目的，而佈下的細膩而高度有效的天羅地網之中。相信這個問題，不僅只有在台灣發生，在其他已開發或發展中國家也會有類似的情況。毫無疑問的，這應該受到全世界重視新聞自由之國際組織的重視。陳總統在2004年5月20日的就職演說中，特別提到媒體是眾多急需改革部門中的一個。如果他此番宣示是認真的，基於前述扁政府掌控媒體的趨勢，我們深深地為台灣新聞自由的未來而感到憂心。
[1]這份報告是由國家政策研究基金會委託，作者是陸以正（哥倫比亞大學新聞學碩士，1955），專欄作家與退休外交官；皇甫河旺（西維吉尼亞新聞學碩士），香港珠海大學新聞系教授，「中華民國大眾傳播教育協會」前理事長；張作錦（政治大學新聞學士），《聯合報》前社長。任何問題或批評請寄至andyhu@npf.org.tw
陸以正、皇甫河旺、張作錦[1]
一般認為，台灣已經是個民主國家，享有很高的生活水準，與相當多的個人自由。但是事實卻並非如此。譬如，新聞自由在口惠而實不至的民進黨上台四年後，正急速地受到侵蝕。
身兼黨主席與總統身份的陳水扁先生，非常善於箝制批判政府的媒體。他會不著痕跡地把管制的手伸入平面與電子媒體中。民進黨所採用的方法，比過去被飽受批評的國民黨威權政府時期更為細緻，成效也更大。民進黨懂得運用暗中控制的方式，使外界不易發覺。他們對台灣自由與民主所構成的威脅，比過去國民黨政府時期來的更為嚴重。
總部在巴黎的「無疆界記者組織」在年度報告中，對於台灣新聞自由的評比，從2002年的第35名倒退到2003年的第61名，落後於東歐的羅馬尼亞、非洲的馬利、南美洲的祕魯等國家。在2004年報中，更提到台灣在過去一年裡，許多記者、新聞媒體遭到政府的搜索與控告。
伸進廣電媒體的黑手
民進黨在2000年上台執政以前，高喊黨政軍退出廣電媒體。在2003年12月，立法院的所有主要政黨，包括國民黨，共同通過「廣播電視法」修正案，將民進黨競選時的政綱列入條文。
這在乍看之下，似乎是在正確的方向邁進。但是很少人注意到其中隱藏的漏洞：修正後的廣電法對於政府或公共擁有的電子媒體的管理隻字未提。
實際的狀況是，修正後的廣電法讓民進黨可以實際並且直接控制五家無線電視台中的四家，這些包括台視（台灣最早的無線頻道，台灣省政府是最大股東）、華視（國防部和教育部是主要股東）、公視（董事會的成員由政府指定，預算主要是依賴政府的補助）以及民視（由支持台獨運動者擁有，而台獨則是民進黨的終極目標）。
第五個無線頻道（中視），是由國民黨的華夏控股公司所擁有。國民黨準備出售華夏公司，放棄對於媒體的持有。但是卻遭到新聞局官方的騷擾。中視的廣電執照即將面臨換照，新聞局威脅要取消許可。明眼人都可以看出這是明顯在威脅中視的經營階層，造成的副作用就是使得中視的股票下跌。
同樣的策略運用在其他的華夏子公司，如台灣最早也是聽眾最多的頻道—中國廣播公司身上。國民黨依照修正後的廣電法，準備賣掉華夏及其所有的子公司，包括中央日報、中華日報以及中影，給任何有興趣的人。國內的買家對於是否出價十分猶豫，他們深怕受民進黨政府採取一些不利的動作。
目前唯一可能的國外買主，花旗銀行的子公司—亞太梧桐公司，卻被新聞局公開警告。新聞局表示依「廣電法」規定，外國人不得擁有或經營國內的電子媒體。而國民黨方面的律師則認為，擁有權的變更僅包括控股公司，中視和中廣的經營階層與員工仍然受到三年簽約的保障。但新聞局漠視這樣的事實。
民進黨政府至少還控制其他兩個電視頻道，包括為海外觀眾服務的「宏觀電視」和國內以客語發聲的「客家電視台」，兩者的經營費用都是來自於政府的預算。
然而，發揮更大影響力的，是政府擁有的許多廣播頻道，可以傳達到各個角落，包括「中央廣播電台」（主要對象是中國大陸及國外）。「警察廣播電台」（在台灣許多計程車收聽的電台），「漢聲廣播電台」（國防部擁有，所有國防單位規定收聽），「復興廣播電台」（主管機關是情報局），「教育電台」（教育部擁有），以及「漁業廣播電台」（農委會擁有）。
上述這些公營的電視台、廣播電台，董事長都是由民進黨政府任命或免職。世界上沒有其他國家，一個民選政府可以對人民一天24小時所聽、所看的媒體控制力這麼大。這些雖然號稱是延續過去的情況，但是國民黨政府當年對於媒體管理者的任命主要仍然根據其本身的經驗或功績。現在民進黨卻只重視管理者的政治忠誠。
新聞局最近宣佈要重新調整無線廣播頻譜AM、FM的分配，宣稱目的是為了使得203個地下電台合法化。這些地下電台只擁有低功率的發射能力，發聲的涵蓋範圍不大，但在2004年三月的總統大選中大多為民進黨的狂熱支持者。因此，民進黨政府為了回報他們，打算讓它們迅速合法化，減免他們必須填寫的複雜表格，以及巨額資金證明和詳細營運計劃等繁複的申請程序。
據報導，在這次頻寬重新分配中，他們可以立即獲得FM88.5到91兆赫茲的頻寬，是透過前總統李登輝的安排。李登輝在2000年之後離開國民黨，變為陳水扁的政治盟友，並主導「台灣團結聯盟」的成立。作為台聯的精神領袖與陳水扁的盟友，李登輝在2004年3月總統大選時，鼎力支持陳水扁，並承諾對於緊接而來的年底立委選舉會再度力挺民進黨。
事實上，新聞局迅速動作的真正原因，是因為十二月上旬立法院即將全面改選，民進黨需要這些地下電台業者的政治支持，因為這些電台在台灣中、南部擁有相當大的影響力。如果新聞局確實執行這些承諾，這對於所有申請者而言，是嚴重違反法律之前人人平等的原則。現存合法的廣播、電視台，一直在繳交營業稅、所得稅以及依法規定繳納的廣電基金，而這些地下電台卻可以分文未繳，享有不平等的競爭優勢特權。
以財務壓力作為工具
台灣媒體今天所碰到的另一個共同問題就是數量太多，競爭過於激烈。世界上沒有其他國家像台灣一樣，僅有三萬六千平方公里、二千三百萬人口，卻擁有70家中文報紙以及至少3家英文報紙，本地印行和發送的《亞洲華爾街日報》、《國際先鋒論壇報》尚不在內。
同樣的，世界上沒有其他國家擁有五個無線頻道，100家以上的有線電視頻道（80﹪的家庭擁有），包括地下電台在內，將近400個AM和FM廣播電台，4500份雜誌，而這些全都在搶同一塊的廣告大餅。這塊大餅近年來，每年只能維持相似的大小，民進黨2000年上台後，翌年台灣出現首次經濟負成長，過去三年多，僅以緩慢的3﹪左右的經濟成長率恢復。台灣過去經濟成長二位數字的輝煌時代已經一去不回。
民進黨政府發現只要透過對主要銀行的掌控，就可以輕易達到恫嚇媒體，要它們乖乖聽話的辦法。那就是當媒體需要貸款或是緊急需要用錢的時候，政府操控銀行放款或是展延舊的借款，就可以達到其操控媒體的目的。這種財務上的掌控，遠比任何政治壓力來得有效，而且額外的好處是，幾乎不會留下任何操弄的痕跡。
一個明顯的例子，就是無黨籍立委陳文茜的節目。陳文茜曾擔任民進黨的文宣部主任，後來因不滿民進黨的作為而離開。她主持一個電視台談話性節目：「文茜小妹大」，非常受到歡迎。她後來參選立法委員選舉，並當選。當她的節目惹惱了民進黨政府後，就被「衛視中文台」停播，後來本來要轉到「中天頻道」，也因如燙手山芋般，未能成行。這兩個電台據說都有來自不方便透露的政治壓力。大眾對此事件的憤怒，使得此節目最後轉移到中視。當然，這也增加了新聞局要找中視麻煩的理由。
民進黨政府也使用其他方法操弄媒體，有三個是值得在此說明。第一個是以非營利的基金會。新聞局直接掌控「廣播電視事業發展基金會」（「廣電基金」），其原始捐贈基金是來自政府預算，而營運費用則是來自依法規定所有合法電視、電台稅後盈餘依比例的繳納。「廣電基金」名義上是「所有公民所擁有的基金會」，可是在2000年民進黨上台後，就成為掌控廣電媒體經營者的重要工具，而且作為公開或暗地力挺民進黨的支持者之獎勵。
其次，就是所謂的「台灣廣告主協會」，在2000年由33家企業公司成立。這個封閉性的組織成員，除了少數外資企業（如麥當勞），都是國內企業，而且都是在最近每場選戰中，對民進黨資助頗多的企業主。台灣廣告主協會的主席是高志明，擁有義美食品公司，該公司在台灣是一個家喻戶曉的品牌。高現在也是總統府的國策顧問。
此外，廣告主協會的理事成員還包括富邦金控董事長蔡明忠；誠泰銀行董事長林誠一；中華電信董事長賀陳旦（在電信業開放前，相當於台灣的AT&T），陳水扁擔任台北市長時，曾任台北市交通局局長，當陳選上總統時，擔任交通部次長；台新金控董事長吳東亮。這些人聯合起來在台灣的財力，在台灣無出其右。
在該會的成立宣言中，廣告主協會表示：「協助追求社會和諧與和平」，而且宣稱將會與媒體企業共同合作「鼓勵優質的媒體節目及正面的新聞報導」（粗體自加）。這樣崇高的目標如何達成？台灣廣告主協會宣稱「我們將督促媒體去除譁眾取寵的—暴力色情新聞、誇大不實報導、傷風敗俗節目、衝突對立傳播。」（粗體自加）這隱含的威脅十分清楚：如果你不遵守，我們將抽廣告。
第三種方式更具爭議性。在2003年10月1日總統大選正如火如荼時，成立的「閱聽人監督媒體聯盟」（「閱盟」）更是令人匪夷所思。就形式上，它是由27個公民團體組成。但所有成員都是民進黨和陳總統的支持者。它公開的第一炮是要求抵制台視的「綜藝旗艦」，指責其太過粗俗，不值得觀看。但這只是初探風向。
2004年4月，「閱盟」露出真面目。它批評兩個新聞頻道，中天和年代，名義上是總統選舉開票過程中報導不實，實質卻是批評這兩家電視台對泛藍群眾自三月二十日至三月二十七日的抗爭所報導的比例過高，要求改變。當然，「閱盟」否認是這樣的理由。
胡蘿蔔與棒子的交互運用
閱盟的執行委員林育卉恰巧同時也是新聞局指派的廣電基金會執行長。她因為曾說過「新聞自由不可以無限上綱」而著名，她本身沒有任何傑出經歷或學歷讓她可以擔任廣電基金會執行長的位置。她唯一傑出的成就是在2004總統大選時，在群眾大會時扮演司儀的角色，介紹陳總統給鼓掌的民眾。
另一個閱盟的理事成員，尤美女，曾擔任呂秀蓮副總統控告《新新聞》王健壯社長和楊照總編輯的律師。許多人困惑，出版十三年的《新新聞》，是以批判國民黨和支持民進黨起家。這是首次台灣歷史上首次有在位的副總統控告一個周刊毀謗。
台北地方法院判決《新新聞》有罪，應於報紙、電視及廣播共四十家媒體，分別刊登及琅讀「澄清聲明」、判決書全文，使原告「恢復名譽」。此一廣告費用據估計約高達新台幣兩億一千五百萬元，是他們的財產好多倍。
《新新聞》向高等法院上訴，高等法院仍判決呂秀蓮勝訴，但僅需將道歉聲明及判決書主文、理由，刊登於四家報紙頭版半版一天，估計約新台幣190萬元左右，這不包括庭費和律師費。最後，最高法院維持二審判決，全案定讞。
陳水扁他自己在2002年底，也揚言控告《中國時報》誹謗。當報紙引述一位蘇惠珍女士說她在1998年陳水扁競選市長時，進行政治捐獻，給了一張新台幣450萬元的支票，總統府辦公室發出這樣的威脅。《中國時報》翌日在頭版立刻刊出道歉啟事。總統府發言人對此表示滿意，事情才暫告一段落。沒有任何的政府機關膽敢再去進一步去調查蘇女所言是否屬實。
在此同時，陳水扁總統甚至已經聘請陳玲玉律師，準備提出訴訟。她恰巧是由民進黨支持者成立的「防治新聞公害基金會」的理事長。這個基金會英文名稱是「促進媒體卓越」（Advancement of Media Excellence ），而中文則是將「新聞」視作「公害」。
在陳玲玉及執行長盧世祥的策劃下，該會曾做過非常詳細的計劃，準備針對國內六家主要報紙進行監看計劃，並聯合「台灣廣告主協會」，每兩個月公佈報告。這個計劃最後無疾而終。主要因為在野黨立法委員強力反對，新聞局才取消了這個委託計劃。
棒子與胡蘿蔔的交互運用是民進黨最擅長的方法。過去縱使國民黨政府被批評為是威權政體，但是從來沒有控告過報紙。其他許多案例都曾被國外媒體揭露。這也是導致台灣新聞自由排名倒退的原因。在「自由之家」國際組織的年度報告中，都有詳細的描述。
再舉一些例子。控告洪哲政案（被控在2000年7月洩漏軍事機密）；以國家安全為名，搜索《中時晚報》編輯室，和報導的記者家中；同時也搜索《壹周刊》編輯室和印刷廠，並沒收十六萬份已印好的雜誌。總部在紐約的「保護記者協會」，在2002年4月曾對此次搜索、沒收事件，寫信向陳水扁總統抗議。
任命媒體高層
中華民國對於大陸地區進行廣播工作的中央通訊社以及中央廣播電台過去是在中國國民黨掌控之下。但這兩家私有企業已經分別在1996年及1998年民主化的過程中成為國家新聞機構。政黨輪替後，正因為它們的預算絕大部分是依靠政府補助，它們現在已經成為民進黨政府的宣傳機構。這兩個單位的負責人是由新聞局先提名後，再讓董事會認可接受；而且負責把關的總編輯和相關的重要職位也變成那些支持民進黨的人士爭相競逐的對象。專業能力已經不再重要。政治正確才是拔擢升遷的主要考量。
如果我們把焦點轉到電視台負責人的任命的話，這種以政治正確優先的現象就更為誇張刺眼。比如說台視董事長賴國洲，乃是李前總統的女婿，雖然台視在他的掌控之下已經連續五年虧損，但他仍然保有該一職位。至少，李登輝與陳水扁的共生關係應可確保賴國洲短時間內不需要另覓他職。
2004年7月，當江霞成為華視新任總經理的時候，輿論頓時大嘩。她的知名度主要是來自2003年底坊間所流傳的「非常光碟」一事。那份光碟的內容充斥著對國親總統大選候選人的諷刺與惡意中傷。
依據中華民國的法律規定，任何公開販售的娛樂性光碟必須事先向新聞局註冊，光碟的製作人和經銷商的名字也必須印在商標上。但是，非常光碟卻完全違反此一規定。新聞局一開始曾揚言要禁止非常光碟的銷售，但是卻沒有採取任何行動。因為該光碟明顯地散佈誹謗和無理的內容，保守預估可能有數以千計的光碟片在非法情況下銷入市場，而這在選前的關鍵期間造成了相當的震撼。
然而，直到總統大選以後，社會大眾才明白江霞就是這份惡作劇非常光碟的幕後製作人，同時，大家也才知道江霞也常在競選期間搭乘陳水扁用來打選戰的總統專機。江霞也承認她所獲得的這份新工作是「政治酬庸」。
雖然華視的晚間新聞在各家電視台激烈競爭中享有最高的收視率。但是，在江霞入主華視不到一個月的時間內，該台新聞部的主管就決定辭職。緊接著，江霞又打破傳統，把一向是放在晚間八點檔黃金時段的綜藝娛樂性節目，改成由一個強烈支持民進黨且對國親兩黨充滿敵意觀點的草根性人物所主持的談話性節目。這個談話性節目已經成為媒體圈笑談的最新對象。它的收視率比它所取代的綜藝節目要低了很多。因此，對綠色媒體新貴而言，政治正確似乎比創造利潤或公正客觀更為重要。
「置入性行銷」策略
台灣的中央與地方政府依法可以花費公帑製播廣告，以宣揚新的行政措施。在國民黨執政時期，這筆經費用於報紙、機場看板、電視廣告中，以提醒人民施打疫苗、更換證照或僅做推廣觀光事業之用。中央或地方政府可在不受上級單位的干預下，自主地管理廣告活動。
民進黨接掌政權時，就想改變這樣的情況。在2003年3月14日，新聞局長葉國興提出將廣告預算集中支應，即「罝入性行銷」概念：也就是允許媒體在新聞報導或一般節目內容中，隱藏著政府所欲廣為周知的訊息，而不僅為一般人理解的普通廣告。他宣稱這樣的包裝手法將使政府政策「更易為人民所接受」。
葉的想法不單具革命性，它更直接違背了新聞與節目內容應中立、客觀、誠實、與不摻雜廣告之原則。但新聞局不顧輿論指責，仍執意要做。這筆綜合中央政府與其下各單位的廣告預算一年即超過10億新台幣(約美金3仟萬元)，若將公營事業與政府銀行的廣告預算一併計入，總金額將高達60億新台幣(約美金1億8仟萬元)。它們構築了比棒子誘人的巨大胡蘿蔔。
任何人只需稍微瀏覽台灣的報紙或打開電視，便知民進黨政府是如何無孔不入地藉由媒體傳遞其訊息。媒體不再是監督政府的看門狗，而變成是政府的搖尾狗。2004年5月，葉國興升任行政院政務委員，一般推測正是因為他對執政黨的媒體控制有重大貢獻所致。
「改革」媒體？
就如同其他國家一樣，在台灣也有許多組織是在捍衛媒體的神聖性。「新聞評議會」就曾抗議過民進黨政府對媒體的胡羅蔔與棒子的做法，但是它只是一隻沒有牙齒的紙老虎。「記者協會」與「報業工會」依然保持緘默，等待別人指出新聞自由受到威脅的嚴重性。
當然，台灣人民仍然有自由去批判政府，而且不會擔心受到報復。但是令許多學者與記者擔心的是，在台灣的「第四權」，除了少數扁政府刻意彰顯的例外，絕大部分已經陷入民進黨為其政治目的，而佈下的細膩而高度有效的天羅地網之中。相信這個問題，不僅只有在台灣發生，在其他已開發或發展中國家也會有類似的情況。毫無疑問的，這應該受到全世界重視新聞自由之國際組織的重視。陳總統在2004年5月20日的就職演說中，特別提到媒體是眾多急需改革部門中的一個。如果他此番宣示是認真的，基於前述扁政府掌控媒體的趨勢，我們深深地為台灣新聞自由的未來而感到憂心。
[1]這份報告是由國家政策研究基金會委託，作者是陸以正（哥倫比亞大學新聞學碩士，1955），專欄作家與退休外交官；皇甫河旺（西維吉尼亞新聞學碩士），香港珠海大學新聞系教授，「中華民國大眾傳播教育協會」前理事長；張作錦（政治大學新聞學士），《聯合報》前社長。任何問題或批評請寄至andyhu@npf.org.tw
posted by meongs at 8:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home