Would panel be RTHK's overlord?

通通識英文E04
明報
2009-09-24
Editorial

明報英語網「三語社評」
english.mingpao.com/critic.htm THE government has rejected the Committee on Review of Public Service Broadcasting's recommendation that Hong Kong should have an independent, statutory public service broadcaster. It has decided that RTHK should remain a government department and continue to provide public public--sector broadcasting services. However, the government will appoint a board of advisers to advise the Director of Broadcasting. Would the board of advisers be RTHK's overlord overlord? Would it curtail RTHK's editorial ? independence and freedom of speech? That is a concern.
About RTHK's future, the biggest concern is not whether it will move into a new Broadcasting House or whether it will have digital channels but what should be done to ensure that the broadcaster (a government department) will remain independent instead of becoming the government's mouthpiece.
We understand that the board of advisers would not be a statutory body. The Chief Executive would appoint its members, and RTHK would not be subordinate to it. An advisory body, it would have no executive powers and play no part in RTHK's day day--to to--day management. However, the Director of Broadcasting would be required to submit RTHK's annual plans to it for its perusal and discussion. As far as we know, RTHK is the only government department that would have to submit its annual plans to a non non--statutory advisory body. No other government department has to do a similar thing.
The government has yet to decide how the board of advisers should be composed and how it should interact with RTHK. It will consult the public about these issues. However, Rita Lau has unmistakably said that, if the board and RTHK differ over a matter, the Director of Broadcasting will have to make an explanation after he has decided on it. Does that mean the board may hold the Director of Broadcasting accountable and the Director of Broadcasting would be answerable to the board? The government needs to clarify this point.
Apparently, the relationship between the board of advisers and RTHK would be very special. Why has the government come up with this idea? The government has only said the board of advisers will be accountable to the public. That would not dispel suspicions that it intends to control RTHK through the board of advisers. The new body would concern itself with RTHK's affairs. However, it would not be to blame for any problems that may arise at RTHK. Such a board of advisers would be like an overlord that gives orders behind the scenes. Would that curtail RTHK's editorial independence and freedom of speech? That is worth close attention.
If the government had adopted the Committee on Review of Public Service Broadcasting's recommendation about developing public service broadcasting, RTHK would have come out of its predicament, and there would have been systemic safeguards of the freedom of expression. Hong Kong would then have made progress. There are no signs that Hong Kong has progressed in protecting the freedom of expression. Furthermore, the government's decision to set up a board of advisers has aroused worries that Hong Kong may suffer a setback. We hope the government will give deep thoughts to the boards' functions. It must not make it a sword hanging over RTHK. It must not allow it to threaten its editorial independence or freedom of speech. It would of course be best for the government to reverse its decision to set it up. If it does so, no overlord will meddle in RTHK's affairs.
明報社評
2009.09.23
顧委會將成為香港電台的「太上皇」？
政府否決公共廣播服務檢討委員會（下稱廣檢會）成立獨立法定機構提供公營廣播服務的建議，繼續由香港電台以政府部門身分，提供公共廣播服務；但是政府成立一個顧問委員會，向廣播處長提供意見。顧委會會否成為「太上皇」的角色，削弱港台的編輯自主和言論自由空間，值得關注。
不過， 港台前景備受關注之處，主要不在蓋大樓和製作數碼廣播，而是在於港台作為政府的部門，如何確保其獨立性，而非淪為政府宣傳喉舌的問題。
據介紹，顧委會並非法定機構，成員由行政長官委任，與港台並無從屬關係。顧委會雖然只是諮詢組織，不參與日常管理工作，並無執行權力，但是港台的年度工作計劃要提交給顧委會，由顧委會商討研議。據知，政府部門年度工作計劃要提交給並非法定的諮詢組織，港台是孤例，其他部門都沒有類似情。
另外，顧委會的組織和與港台之間的運作、互動等未有定案，政府將會諮詢公意見，但是劉吳惠蘭明確表示， 若顧委會與港台就一些事項有不同意見，廣播處長作出決定之後，要提出解釋。這種情，是否等於顧委會可以向廣播處長問責，而廣播處長要向顧委會負責，需要政府澄清。
從這些片段，有關顧委會與港台的關係，確實十分特別。為何有這樣的設計，現在當局僅以顧委會需要向公交代為由，肯定未能消除政府藉顧委會管制港台的疑慮。因為按政府的設計， 在港台的體制之內多了一個顧委會，它有過問港台事務之權，若港台出了狀，卻毋須負上任何責任。這樣的顧委會，類如在幕後指手劃腳的「太上皇」，會否衝擊港台的編輯自主，壓縮港台的言論自由空間，值得密切關注。
本來，就廣檢會的建議，政府若落實推動公營廣播服務，不但解決了港台的困境，並且從體制上保障了言論自由，這是香港的進步； 現在政府的決定，有象顯示在保言論自由空間方面，不但未見進步，反而因為顧委會的出現，使人有倒退之憂。我們希望政府再三深思，就賦予顧委會的職能，不能使之成為懸在港台頭上的一把刀，威脅港台的編輯自主和言論自由。當然，最好是撤回設立顧問委員會的決定，使「太上皇」根本就沒有「干政」的空間