THE hitherto little-known CASH organisation is now making news headlines trying to justify its functions, but I think it is preposterous that 'royalties' are due for playing music in taxis, to a crowd (of more than three), not for profit (say at one's Christmas party at home) and especially in a charity show.
If CASH, as a non-government organisation, has a licence to collect money from the public, without the exchange of a product, then its accounts must be open to public scrutiny, so that the public can be assured that the money goes to the right recipients.
Furthermore, I seek the following information from CASH management: What mechanism is there to ensure that royalties collected in Hong Kong go to, say, Paul McCartney, Vladimir Ashkenazy, Danny McGill or Andy Lau? How are royalties apportioned? As far as I know, royalties collected are not artist specific; so does a little known artist collect the same royalties as a well-known artist, even though the works of the former are rarely played? If CASH thinks it has an ordinance to control most aspects of the enjoyment of music, then it should make its administration, accounts, etc, known to the public, or else what it does, at best, seems to be a licence to print money.
CHAN CHONG HENG North Point