• Fri
  • Dec 19, 2014
  • Updated: 3:26am
Public Eye
PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 20 August, 2014, 3:28am
UPDATED : Wednesday, 20 August, 2014, 3:28am

Two radio hosts fired; two very different reactions


Michael Chugani is a Hong Kong-born American citizen who has worked for many years as a journalist in Hong Kong, the USA and London. Aside from being a South China Morning Post columnist he also hosts ATV’s Newsline show, a radio show and writes for two Chinese-language publications. He has published a number of books on politics which contain English and Chinese versions.

Two radio hosts fired; two very different reactions

Remember how all hell broke loose in February when Commercial Radio sacked Li Wei-ling, who regularly used her prime-time talk show to savage the Leung Chun-ying administration? Self-proclaimed gladiators of free speech - from former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang to talk show host "Taipan" Albert Cheng King-hon - condemned the firing as a muzzling of the media without offering any proof. Pan-democratic lawmakers demanded a Legislative Council investigation. Li claimed, also without proof, that Leung had orchestrated her sacking. The Journalists Association called on Leung and Commercial Radio to prove she was not fired for political reasons. Well, another radio host, Ng Ka-lim, was sacked on Sunday night, hours after the big anti-Occupy Central march. He worked as a freelance DJ for internet radio station D100. Do you know who owns D100? Albert Cheng, the self-proclaimed defender of free speech. Do you know why Cheng fired Ng? For political reasons. D100 told Ng his political stand clashed with the station's because he was the MC at the march. But doesn't free speech allow you to have your own political stand? Only if you are Li Wei-ling, not if you are Ng Ka-lim. The funny thing is that Ng does not even take a political stand on air. He hosts a classical music show. What is even funnier is that Commercial Radio denied Li was sacked for political reasons, but Cheng actually admitted Ng was sacked for political reasons. Will the great defender of democracy Anson Chan condemn Ng's sacking as she did Li's? Ha! Will the Journalists Association, which speaks without fear of favour, come to Ng's defence as forcefully as it did Li's? Ha! Ha! Will the pan-democrats - or pan-hypocrites - demand a Legco inquiry? Hah! Hah! Hah!


Blatant double standards by city's 'pan-hypocrites'

Public Eye has to admit we are totally stumped. When mainlanders come here to join the annual July 1 march, pan-democrats hail it as fantastic that even mainlanders care about Hong Kong's democracy push. When mainlanders take part in the annual June 4 candlelight vigil, the pan-democrats praise them for caring about victims of the Tiananmen crackdown. But when mainlanders joined the anti-Occupy march on Sunday, the pan-democrats condemned that as interfering in our local affairs. Is it because the pan-democrats are pan-hypocrites?


Overpaid lawmakers have forgotten their duty

Our legislators are paid HK$87,450 a month, with a HK$16,000 allowance for entertainment and travelling, and many collect every cent. In return, they throw bananas at officials, march for democracy or butter up Beijing. They are blind to constant warnings by experts who, alarmed by rotting trees, say a tree law is urgently needed. They prefer squabbling over why Li Wei-ling was fired and why broadcasting investor Ricky Wong Wai-kay was refused a television licence. Last week, a pregnant woman died after a 10-metre tall tree fell on her in Mid-Levels. While the baby was delivered by caesarean section, alive but in critical condition, would his mother Zhang Qin, 37, be alive today if legislators had focused instead on pressing for a tree law? Her death should be on the conscience of all these overpaid clowns.


Michael Chugani is a columnist and television show host. mickchug@gmail.com



For unlimited access to:

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



This article is now closed to comments

The problem here in HK today is that anyone who speaks in favour of the pro-establishment camp would receive abusive comments. Yet those who speak in favour of the pan-democrats or say anything that oppose the government would be branded as a heroes or freedom fighters. Yet people have forgotten that freedom of expression also includes the right to associate with any political group. If someone chooses to standby pro-establishment political parties, why should he be under the fear of being discriminated? While you can have your right to participate in occupy central movement, I should have the right to participate in anti-occupy central movement. I wonder what would our Honourable law professor Benny Tai have to say about this?
John Adams
Wow Michael !
Great stuff !
Keep it up !
Great points made. Thanks, Mr Chugani.
Always right on the nail Mike!
Good points. We are more and more like Taiwan. Politics everywhere, but nobody is taking care of the common folks' interests and welfare.
Well said Michael. Love to see how those challenged: Anson Chan, Journalist Association and Pan-Democrats will respond.
Keep up the good work!
Good points, Mr Public Eyes. We need more eyes like yours! Pan-hypocrites, overpaid lawmakers, and Mr Albert Cheng, what say you?
Re the second piece: "Blatant double standards by city's 'pan-hypocrites'", surprising this disingenous comment got past the editor's desk. There are vast differences between the two situations: for the march last weekend, (1) tens of thousands of mainlanders were bussed into Hong Kong to take part in the march, (2) they were in many, many cases paid for their participation, (3) many of them had no idea what they were marching for other than perhaps "peace" and "anti-OC" (without knowing what OC was). In the case of the July 1st marches, June 4 candlelight vigils etc., there were probably a matter of tens of mainlanders attending i.e. statistically insignificant, they were not paid, they came of their own free will and they almost certainly knew what they were doing. Their attendance was also of considerable interest because of the fact that they were effectively protesting in favour of democracy, something that they would be locked up for if they tried to do it at home.
How do you get paid for this attack at Michael?
Egomaniac democrazy
full of false entitlements
if ever gets hold of power
will make the worst kind of autocrats
That’s how LiWL the shrew abused the mic then
and how her successors are working to attain the shrew’s skills




SCMP.com Account