• Tue
  • Dec 23, 2014
  • Updated: 6:13am
PUBLISHED : Thursday, 14 November, 2013, 6:47pm
UPDATED : Friday, 15 November, 2013, 3:42am

Legislators must reject funding for RTHK's HK$6.1b new headquarters

Albert Cheng says added services and inflation cannot possibly account for the nearly quadrupling of the estimated construction costs


Ir. Albert Cheng is the founder of Digital Broadcasting Corporation Hong Kong Limited, a current affairs commentator and columnist. He was formerly a direct elected Hong Kong SAR Legislative Councillor. Mr Cheng was voted by Time Magazine in 1997 as one of "the 25 most influential people in new Hong Kong" and selected by Business Week in 1998 as one of "the 50 stars of Asia".  

Christopher Chung Shu-kun, the foul-mouthed legislator and member of the pro-establishment Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, exposed his crassness on Tuesday at a Legislative Council session to discuss the construction costs of the new RTHK headquarters.

When Chung realised the project would cost up to HK$6.1 billion, he immediately used the occasion to mock Ricky Wong Wai-kay, founder of Hong Kong Television Network (HKTV), for seeking to launch a television station with a personal net worth of "mere tens of billions". Chung used extremely rude words to ridicule Wong for overestimating his financial capacity.

Chung's outburst was not really surprising and did not divert attention from the important issue at hand - the overspending of the government-run broadcaster.

The planned cost of the infrastructure alone has shot up from the estimated HK$1.6 billion four years ago to the present HK$6.1 billion. And this is just the hardware and does not include the software such as human resources and operational expenses.

Public entities are often not as well run as private enterprises, but no matter how you look at the possible cost of building a new RTHK headquarters, which is supposed to provide radio and television services, the HK$6.1 billion price tag is totally unreasonable.

One of the excuses provided by RTHK was that when it projected the cost at HK$1.6 billion in 2009, it didn't include provisions for digital broadcasting, three new television channels and a media asset management service.

But if you look at the set-up of digital broadcaster DBC, which has seven digital channels, its basic infrastructural investment only amounted to HK$100 million, while the planned costs of HKTV's television city was only HK$600 million.

The planned RTHK headquarters will yield approximately 300,000 sq ft of space. Even if we assume construction spending will be extravagant, at HK$3,000 per sq ft, it shouldn't exceed HK$1 billion.

Even though the proposal will include a data centre, the adjusted cost is still excessive.

The planned data centre of Google in Tseung Kwan O is expected to cost about HK$2.4 billion. So if you add up the costs of a data centre, and offices for television and digital services, the total cost should come to somewhere about HK$4 billion.

Let's look at the costs of other television stations. In the early 2000s when TVB set up a new headquarters in Tseung Kwan O, with five free channels, the cost came to HK$1.6 billion. Adding the digital facilities, the bill came to HK$2.2 billion. Phoenix TV's Beijing headquarters, which handles all national production work on the mainland, cost less than HK$1 billion. It all goes to show that no matter how we calculate the cost, it shouldn't come to HK$6.1 billion.

On top of this, there is still the annual operating costs of around HK$600 million, the cost of a news centre, and digital broadcasting, as well as the additional manpower to cope with all these needs.

Both the pan-democrats and the pro-government camps questioned the astronomical construction costs, but so far no one has objected to the project outright. The reason is obvious - no one wants to make enemies of the government media, plus the money will come from the public coffers. It's nothing but a show.

HKTV sought to invest billions to run 30 channels. All production work would have been done locally. Yet, the promising television project still failed to get government approval. Government-run RTHK, with only seven radio channels, digital broadcasting that still has no independent production, and television programmes that are not run round the clock, has the temerity to ask for HK$6.1 billion merely for the building of its headquarters and has seemingly already got the green light from the administration. All this points to one fact - the station will almost certainly turn into a media tool used by the government.

As public representatives, lawmakers should act as gatekeepers and reject the funding request. It's simple: the project isn't good value and it's a waste of public funds.

The scandal-plagued station has to figure out its role and position in the market as it struggles on with low staff morale, an unfair pay structure, disorganised management and a low standard of programming. With all these problems, the station has no right to demand public support for its operation in such an extravagant manner.

As I have always advocated, the only way forward for RTHK is for it to become a genuine public broadcaster to lend a voice to the public, especially the underprivileged.

And, first and foremost, Legco members must not support the RTHK expansion.

Albert Cheng King-hon is a political commentator and a co-founder of DBC. taipan@albertcheng.hk


For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive



This article is now closed to comments

RTHK radio does a good job and at least has one dedicated English language station with live on air presenters unlike AM864 with its robo-jock their only to comply with licensing requirements. I don't think we can compare the quality of RTHK's output with commercial broadcasters. Being commercial they offer programs interrupted by commercials and I find this rather distasteful and crass. My day starts with RTHK Radio 3 Hong Kong today, then Money for Nothing and Back chat before tuning into BBC domestic radio from the UK. I don't object to the price tag, as I treasure the output of Radio 3 here and would certainly not listen to any low end commercial claptrap.
Dai Muff
Hmm. Mr Cheng long seems to have been under the impression that HE should be Hong Kong's public broadcaster, or at least the head of it, so he is hardly a disinterested voice here. And the initial budget for the new RTHK building dates back more than a decade, not four years. Delay projects and prices go up. As with the WKCD. The only people who do not realise this are the legislators largely responsible for the delays. And his last two sentences are unrelated if not contradictory.
Another shameless abuse of taxpayers money. Thank you Tai Pan for exposing. I want to know who is responsible for this fiasco and I want our publicly funded legislators to do what we pay them to do. i.e. grill these people in a public forum.
Dai Muff
RTHK is hardly invisible. Particularly to Chinese TV viewers and radio listeners. And RTHK would have been using Broadcasting House for 60 years by the time the new Broadcasting House opens. Assume the same shelf life and that works out to $15 per year per HK resident. Seems to me anyone who cared about open broadcasting in HK would not find that onerous, as RTHK is regularly voted the most trusted local news source in these days of "harmonisation"..
John Adams
How and where do I find these RTHK TV channels?
I'm aware that RTHK has some radio channels ( but who listens to radio these days?)
The only things I have ever seen by RTHK on TV are occasional half-hour programs - usually interviews - screened on TVB or ATV.
The less we talk of 'Mr. Tree root' the better.
The 6.1 billion-dollar tag is ridiculous and lawmakers need to scrutinise the application carefully. Did someone in government **** up and delayed everything resulting in the mammoth increases? The Audit Commission is reliable and can check on these things though it will be a case of 'shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted'.
Legislators should of course do their bit but Tai Pan why dont you try to be elected to the Legco again?
Come on people...a WORLD CITY like Hong Kong needs to have a palatial PUBLIC television HQ to show how INTERNATIONAL it is...something HK's "leaders" can show off to the next CCP honcho when he does his 24 hr typhoon blow by visit to the city (perhaps to do some personal banking).
Plus, with massive atriums, coffee shops, a few boutiques and maybe a restaurant, the television HQ will one day pay for itself?
At about HKD 900 for every single person in Hong Kong, that indeed seems rather steep for a new building to house an all but invisible public broadcaster.
as yes Oxy UrAnus the world's most lethal snake, the inland Taipan (Oxyuranus microlepidotus)
This local version always seeking to give his own DBC company a plug + CX no longer provides him free junkets
Meanwhile - Salary- Legco President $174,900
President’s Deputy + House Committee Chairman $131,180
Member not serving on EXCO $87,450
Legco Medical allowance $30,450 + end-of-term gratuity equivalent to 15% of the remuneration that a Member receives during the Legco term
+ Office , travelling + entertainment, IT, winding up office
However such Legco member impoverishment pales against:
Chief secretary salary HK$357,300 + driver + entertainment allowance + official mansion , Financial oaf HK$345,215 + + , Justice secretary HK$333,540 ++
Ministers HK$322,260 ++ , Undersecretaries HK$225,582 ++


SCMP.com Account