In a letter to Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) staff, Director of Broadcasting Chu Pui-hing called for calm among colleagues. Yet the staff union said the head’s letter could not dispel concerns and instead “called to arms” in view of the commencement of work of a government accountant and auditor at RTHK – union will request meetings with the two about their concerns.
The RTHK question has been complicated enough even before the Audit Commission slammed its non-compliance. It is argued by some RTHK defenders that the move of Audit Commission is part of the “conspiracy” to harm RTHK’s reputation among the public at a particularly sensitive moment, in view of nine-month review launched by the government in January 2006. Some lawmakers and academics further repeated the call for de-linking the RTHK from the government in order to fulfil its role as a public service broadcaster.
On the other side, the government invokes that there is no linkage, let alone conspiracy, behind the sensitive moves and what it called for is strengthened governance of a government department. The Secretary for Commerce and Information Technology, Joseph Wong, was adamant at the query if freedom of expression and staff morale would be adversely affected by sending in senior officials to RTHK, “There is no question absolutely of freedom of speech and absolutely no question of editorial independence. Let’s get this very clear. We are talking about problems in the governance, in the management and resource management of RTHK, which is a Government department.”
But is the concern about government conspiracy to topple the RTHK management really the right question to ask? My bet is absolutely not. The question is definitely beyond freedom of expression and editorial independence. And should the Audit Commission’s probe of RTHK’s use of public money be seen as a totally separate event from the current review of public service broadcasting in Hong Kong? Neither. The centrality of the question is whether the public in Hong Kong cherishes the current mode of PSB, that is, RTHK as a sole yet very limited public service broadcaster or do they aspire for something different? How the public accountability of the current and even the future RTHK can be enhanced.
The difficulty reviewed by the Audit Report is whether accountability and compliance to the government (actually, taxpayers) contradicts with or even undermines the RTHK’s accountability and responsiveness to the public, a major set of stakeholder in public service broadcasting. However, as a veteran journalist who has worked in both private and public broadcasters, my experience is that accountability to government and the wider public can be and should be co-existent. Let examples speak for themselves. Regarding compensating drivers with overtime payments for purchasing newspapers to prepare for morning current-affairs programme, alternative arrangements such as reorganizing driver rosters or commissioning staff of the related programme to buy newspapers are abundant for the management’s perusal. The guiding principle is not only to comply with departmental guidelines in financial control, but also an augmented vigilance in handling public money.
This is not to deny that there are indeed areas where compliance to government regulations is uneasy partner with the role of a media organization. In fact the structure of RTHK is strange – a media organization in a straitjacket of government department. That is why RTHK as a government department is viewed as the least sustainable model as a public service broadcaster. However, as long as it is part of the government and a large number of staff are civil servants, flexibility has to be sought within limits.
The Audit Report stated that prevalence of irregularities in any government department was not conducive to strong public governance. This has been linked to much disputed saying by the Chief Executive about “a strong and decisive government”. Yet subject to the Audit’s concerns to critical reasoning, at stake is an impression that the sole public service broadcaster cannot even set its own house in order. This will definitely impact on the talk of RTHK’s future. Look at the much cited case of BBC. Its recent review resulted in a White Paper published by the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The White Paper accepted the Charter Review’s conclusion that:
“The more publicly accountable the BBC appears to be, the greater will be the public preparedness to allow it discretion in its purpose and remit as well as to accept the licence fee as an appropriate form of funding.”
How do the wider public assess the values of public service broadcasting? If their voices and views really count, the RTHK cannot escape to answer questions of public accountability and governance. And expectation of a governance outcome of a corporatised organization is no less demanding than that of a government department. Management basics teach that public sector governance can only be achieved by an integral strengthening of internal conformance and accountability, planning and performance monitoring and external conformance and accountability. Review and evaluation of governance arrangements is also frequent. When Audit critics call for de-linking the RTHK from the government, let’s try as well to devise how to improve and reinvent the public governance and accountability arrangements of RTHK. Otherwise, the public will ask, “Is RTHK really ready for charting a new path for public service broadcasting in Hong Kong?”
