RTHK program “Pentaprism” received a warning from the Communications Authority (CA) regarding four episodes which were aired between September and November last year: The terrorists attack on Aug. 31, Tsuen Wan shooting on Oct. 1, the Oct. 7 incident and Sai Wan Ho shooting on Nov. 11, in which guest hosts were from Amnesty International, Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, H.K. Buildings Management and Security Workers General Union and Civil Human Rights Front. The CA said the shows have failed to give Hong Kong Police Force a chance to respond. Even though they are programs of personal opinion, but there should be opinions from different aspects. Therefore it ruled the complaint to be justified. Many people find it not being a big deal, as denouncing RTHK has been going on intensively for some time and this case is just one of the many.

But this incident targeting “Pentaprism” is even more absurd and has fully reflected the Hong Kong government’s executive-led system, which was running like clockwork, has been replaced by politics-led. According to the media which has quoted from a veteran staff from RTHK – Television Section, he believed the complainants of all four episodes are the police, as RTHK received complaints from them back in April this year and the content was identical. Apparently, RTHK has already stopped broadcasting the program before receiving the ruling. “Pentaprism” became the third long-running program that has been terminated since “Headliner” and “Police Report.”

This is a program that comments on current affairs, not a news report or a phone in. Apart from its Chinese name being changed, the program’s positioning has not changed much, and I had been invited as guest host. So what does “comment” mean? It means providing a personal point of view and analysis based on news events that have happened. Whether the commentary is just depends on whether deviates far from the truth or the information is inaccurate; I have never heard of any commentary program needing to allow those being criticized to respond. This is common sense. The procedures of the program being produced, is that the commentator would turn in the script in advance to the producer – me for example, handed in my draft the night before filming. The production would then review whether all the quoted information is correct. If there is any problem, editing would be made on the morning of the filming. The production would never interfere with the opinion of the commentator. Surely that is also common sense?

How does one balance the different opinions in society? RTHK has always been meticulous: Fung Wai-wah from Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union was invited today, then it would be Ho Hon-Kuen from the pro-Beijing’s Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers tomorrow; Ip Kwok-him talks about national security law today, it would be Alan Leong’s turn tomorrow. How RTHK keeps the balance of opinion is in accordance with CA’s requirement is to invite commentators with different opinions representing both sides, but to interrupt Ip Kwok-him’s analysis of the merits of the national security law for Hong Kong’s development after five minutes with Benny Tai’s interview declaring his objection on national security law; this is called balance, but just idiotic. CA’s ruling is preposterous because it does not even reflect any common sense. It shows that in order to perform its tasks of political rectification" it has given up the effective procedural fairness long employed within Hong Kong.

The good governance of Hong Kong in the past was not because of any democracy or human rights, as even before 1997 it was under an autocratic government, but because the civilized British rule was under civil service system which included internal monitoring, check and balance, and common sense, coupled with set procedures, were used to handle things. Therefore in the eyes of the public, everything was done “systematically”. This “conservatism” was the basis of Hong Kong’s success and the executor was the Administrative Officer (AO). When a British AO is replaced by a Leninist cadre, politics overrides all regardless of how illogical the argument is or even against common sense, then it is the beginning of a systemic collapse.

The CA is a statutory body and its aim is for the relatively independent agency to deal with the sensitive issue of media management. From the government’s side, Permanent Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (CEDB) is the Vice Chairperson; the current Chairperson is Winnie Tam Wan-chi, who is under the administration of Edward Yau, the Secretary for CEDB. Edward Yau, a politician who once was an AO in the British-Hong Kong government, is now ruining Hong Kong’s system for his own political career and personal gains. What Chris Patten once observed, that “(Hong Kong) could be given away bit by bit by some people in Hong Kong”, was so very true!

(Lau Sai Leung is a political commentator based in Hong Kong and a former full-time member of the HKSAR Central Policy Unit.)

Click here for Chinese version

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play