A third road for RTHK
After three hours of heated debate on Wednesday, the Legislative Council passed a motion urging the government to ensure that public-service broadcasting should respect editorial independence, and defend press freedom and freedom of speech.
The non-binding motion, sponsored by Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, of the Article 45 Concern Group, also called on officials to open up public access channels at an early date that provide diversified information and cater for the needs of minority and socially disadvantaged groups.
Ms Eu's move was meant to clarify RTHK's ambiguous roles, although she did not refer to Hong Kong's only public broadcaster by name.
The debate followed the government's setting up of a seven-member panel to review public broadcasting. Panel chairman Raymond Roy Wong, a former assistant managing director of TVB, has raised some eyebrows because of his flamboyant remarks.
Some critics fear the panel will be used to tame RTHK. But I find the move a positive step towards clearing up some of the many uncertainties in our outdated regulatory framework. Some defenders of RTHK have gone so far as to criticise the Commissioner of Audit's review of whether the station provides value for money, claiming it was another plot to undermine the broadcaster.
Yet, RTHK costs taxpayers $500 million a year, and there is no reason why it should be exempt from proper scrutiny. The public can decide whether its financing should be corporatised or should remain funded by the Treasury.
I backed Ms Eu's motion, but did not accept some views that an independent RTHK is a prerequisite for safeguarding press freedom and freedom of speech. Director of Broadcasting Chu Pui-hing, who heads RTHK, has said editorial autonomy has never been eroded. This suggests some legislators' worries are exaggerated.
It has been proposed that RTHK could enhance its editorial autonomy by being answerable to the legislature. Yet, the assembly itself is highly politicised, and such a move would hardly be conducive to the broadcaster's independence. In any case, such an arrangement would not be agreeable to RTHK staff.
Some want RTHK to be 'the voice of the people', others argue it should function as a propaganda tool. These are extreme positions, and there is a 'third road'. RTHK should help articulate community opinions, even though it is duty-bound to promote and publicise the work of the government. In addition, it should also serve minority groups.
Public broadcasters do not necessarily have to be the champion of press freedom. Commercial broadcasters, on the other hand, do not necessarily have to shy away from such a righteous cause. It all hinges on media workers' ethical standards, and how they are monitored by the public.
By the same token, I objected to the proposed amendment by Li Kwok-ying, of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, who insisted that a public broadcaster should offer 'fair, balanced and objective public-affairs programmes'.
Anyone connected with the media will know such programmes are unachievable. The best a presenter can do is base his or her subjective comments on objective facts. Freedom of speech is premised on diversity. It is only through different views that the public can arrive at collective, informed decisions.
Diversity is the key. The emergence of digital-broadcasting technology has rendered the problem of inadequate FM channels obsolete. The same bandwidths can be used to carry many more channels. Officials should no longer be dragging their feet on opening up frequencies.
Once various sectors are allowed to run their own stations, the issue of RTHK's role will be irrelevant.
Albert Cheng King-hon is a directly elected legislator
