The authority's decision to issue an official criticism of the entire Headliner programme over its coverage of Mr Tung's Policy Address, which included Lam's segment, is coming under criticism from media and human rights groups.

They are questioning the public body's power to regulate programmes that fall into the category of current affairs or news, saying it involves wider issues of media freedom.

The official sanction and debate comes at a sensitive time for RTHK. It has been accused of engaging in self-censorship since the 1997 return of Hong Kong to Chinese rule. The sidelining in 1999 of its outspoken former chief Cheung Man-yee, who was appointed the SAR's trade representative in Tokyo, also sparked controversy.

RTHK insiders say they are worried about a further erosion of their editorial independence following the expected re-election of Mr Tung as chief executive in March.

The Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor is writing to the Broadcasting Authority challenging its view that the programme was not balanced enough.

'We start from the very premise that freedom of the press and self expression are very important things,' director Law Yuk-kai said.

'They are not things that should be arbitrarily enforced or restricted. In Hong Kong, we have a system where the central system of regulation is indirectly controlled by the Government, indirectly dictated by the Government.'

He was referring to the authority as well as the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority, a government department that monitors programmes and is the executive arm of the Broadcasting Authority. The Broadcasting Authority is a body whose 11 members, including eight from the community, are appointed by the chief executive.

Among a series of warnings and reprimands issued by the Broadcasting Authority on December 13 was an 'advice' - the lowest type of sanction - given to RTHK over the controversial Headliner programme, which was screened two months earlier.

Lam aroused a storm of protest from pro-Beijing newspapers and politicians when he went on the October 13 programme following Mr Tung's Policy Address posing as a correspondent in Afghanistan.

He reported that people there were suffering hardship, even though 'the Taleban Government still worked hard to produce its last Policy Address for him to stay for another five years'. Lam, who did not refer directly to Mr Tung, dressed as a Taleban with a false beard for the segment.

Pro-Beijing politicians said it was not humorous and the public broadcaster should not make fun of the Policy Address or other important government pronouncements.

When asked for his view of the segment, Mr Tung said: 'I don't want to comment on those bad-taste productions.'

The public sent 29 complaints to the Broadcasting Authority, most saying RTHK as a government-funded body should not criticise the administration. Only four dealt with the alleged lack of balance, the authority said.

The authority's view was that the whole programme failed to 'strike a fair balance among different viewpoints' on the Policy Address. As well as a current affairs programme, it should observe the authority's guidelines on impartiality.

The authority's code of practice contains a section on impartiality and fairness, which applies to terrestrial broadcasters ATV and TVB. RTHK, which shows the Headliner programme on Saturday nights on TVB, has agreed to be subject to the code.

The authority apparently considered the show to be a 'factual programme', a category that includes news, current affairs, personal view programmes, documentaries and investigative reporting.

'Balance should be sought through the presentation, as far as possible, of principal relevant viewpoints on matters of public importance,' the code says.

The 'advice' might have been a relatively mild rebuke but it appears to have touched a raw nerve with journalists' representatives and human rights activists.

The Hong Kong Journalists' Association said last week in a statement regretting the authority's decision that it threatened to stifle the airing of satire.

Human Rights Monitor's Mr Law said the authority was unable to provide evidence of any criteria that might have been used in determining whether the programme was impartial.

'We cannot really understand the reasoning behind their decision and how they applied the code of practice,' Mr Law said.

The Taleban segment lasted just one minute and 30 seconds in the 30-minute programme, which also carried several items describing elements of the Policy Address, said RTHK spokesman Tai Keen-man.

The other items that formed what had been believed to be a balanced programme included an interview with former legislator Christine Loh Kung-wai playing the role of a student in another humorous segment highlighting three positive elements of the address, its main points and an interview with Education and Manpower Secretary Fanny Law Fan Chiu-fun, Mr Tai said.

Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority Commissioner Eddy Chan Yuk-tak said the Broadcasting Authority, which his department helps run, had 'no problem' with the Taleban segment but felt the entire programme was not balanced.

'As a regulator, we would expect different viewpoints to come out and be able to be expressed on a very important subject such as the Chief Executive's Policy Address,' Mr Chan said.

'In the United Kingdom, it would be unthinkable if there was a programme which constantly berated one political party.'

RTHK's Mr Tai said: 'There is no formal writing in black and white that [the criticism] is because of the Superman segment. The general public and we feel that it is because of Superman.'

LAM27GET