People's right to know overrides confidentiality
Chief executive contender Henry Tang Ying-yen's stirring accusations that election rival Leung Chun-ying wanted to use riot police and tear gas to suppress protests staged against national security legislation in 2003, and that Leung tried to stifle freedom of speech by proposing a shorter licence duration for Commercial Radio in the same year, have fuelled extensive public debate.
I want to lay out all the available facts here. I commented in newspapers on the radio issue in 2003 when I was the host of Commercial Radio's popular talk show, Teacup in a Storm. I was also involved in the licence renewal for Commercial Radio in the same year.
In June that year, I criticised the Broadcasting Authority for trying to smother freedom of expression by issuing a warning against my show. The authority claimed that, as programme host, I had failed to take special care in the use of language that could adversely affect the reputation of others.
Senior counsel Ronny Tong Ka-wah came to my defence, saying that, under common law, the freedom to criticise top officials and political figures is guaranteed on the basis of fair comment. In other words, public figures cannot expect the same level of protection to their individual reputation as ordinary citizens, as long as the comments are based on facts. He argued that the authority had breached the established liberal practice.
His comments were echoed by the dean of the University of Hong Kong's law faculty, Johannes Chan Man-mun, a former member of the authority. Chan said the authority's obsession with allowing senior officials and public figures the 'right of reply' when being criticised was not only pointless but also dangerous.
At the time, more than 3,000 complaints were filed against the authority's verdict but it refused to reconsider the case. I criticised the authority for not having any formal procedures to deal with a public challenge to its ruling, and called for a revamp of its set-up.
In May that year, the authority had recommended to the Executive Council that Commercial Radio's licence should be renewed for another 12 years. I wrote in this paper that Exco member Leung rejected the proposal and suggested reducing the licence to three years. I said then that his intention was to use the licensing requirement to force the station to fall into line.
The station's top management and I learned about Leung's supposed intentions from a reliable source.
The licensing system is an obsolete policy left behind by the colonial government. It is incompatible with today's technological advancements as digital broadcasting has greatly altered the electronic media landscape. It has opened up the airwaves to allow more players to enter the market, provided better checks and balances among the operators, and promoted freedom of the press.
I also wrote in this newspaper then of the conspiracy theories being floated. One suggested that it was Leung's intention to pin all the blame on Tang - the minister responsible for the broadcasting portfolio - if unfair conditions were imposed on Commercial Radio, which would undermine Tang's chances as a possible contender for the chief executive post.
I stressed at the time that the licensing issue was a highly sensitive political matter and urged Tang to stand by his original plan to allow the licence to be renewed unconditionally.
The current war of words between Tang and Leung has escalated sharply with the latest allegations. Tang has been accused of breaching Exco's long-standing confidentiality rule by revealing details of its meetings.
Freedom of the press, of expression and the right of peaceful assembly are core values that Hong Kong people treasure. They concern the rights and overall welfare of a democratic society. Therefore, in this case, public interest must override the interests of the government and the rules on confidentiality.
