Can Hong Kong and Taiwan become "Hong Kong BBC" without the government structure and independent operation? ｜ 01 Weekly

weekly

Author: Yi Wenjian

2020-04-06 16:27

When it comes to the reform of Radio Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Taiwan and civil society have for some time often thrown out corporate plans, believing that separation from the government structure can reduce government intervention. It is true that many public broadcasters in developed regions have followed the corporatization system and adopted the board of directors system, which has their advantages. However, it is wishful thinking that corporatization alone can be immune to political disputes.

Can the corporatization plan be separated from the government structure to enable Hong Kong and Taiwan to reduce government intervention? (Profile picture / photo by Luo Junhao)

The process of corporatization

Corporatization is a common method of reforming the government's administrative system, transforming government departments into state-owned companies and providing public services. For Hong Kong and Taiwan, the idea of ​​corporatization is logical. In the Hong Kong-British era, the Government established the "Broadcasting Review Committee" in 1984 to formulate the future direction. The future of Radio Television Hong Kong is one of them. In several recommendations, the CCB preferred to change Hong Kong and Taiwan into independent legal public broadcasters like the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Public administration scholar Zhang Bingliang once summed up several reasons for the support of the company in Hong Kong and Taiwan:

1. The BBC is a model for public broadcasting, especially in the Commonwealth region. In the past, many Hong Kong and Taiwan managements were transferred from the BBC to Hong Kong, and many employees from Hong Kong and Taiwan have gone to the BBC for further study. Apart from understanding the BBC structure, I believe that the BBC structure can be applied to Hong Kong. .

2. The management is dissatisfied that other government departments and the public regard RTHK as the mouthpiece of the government, and by corporatization strives for the public to recognize that the news and program production of RTHK is not subject to government intervention.

3. The society is worried that after the reunification, the government will restrict freedom of the press and speech, and Hong Kong and Taiwan are anxious to leave the government.

4. The proportion of civil servants in Hong Kong and Taiwan is not as good as that of other government departments, and corporatization will not disrupt the government bureaucracy.

To achieve this goal, Hong Kong and Taiwan must establish a statutory corporation, and the board of directors should be appointed by the Hong Kong Governor. The new organization has its charter and is regulated by the government as well as the commercial media. TV commercials can support part of the expenditure of the new organization. The government maintains partial funding for Hong Kong and Taiwan.

In July 1989, the Hong Kong Governor, Wei Yixin and the Executive Council supported the separation of Hong Kong and Taiwan from the government department, giving Hong Kong and Taiwan greater autonomy. For example, the board of directors decides how to use government funding and formulate employee policies. Employees can choose to remain as civil servants or hire new employees. mechanism.

However, the removal of employees and political disputes interrupted the process of corporatization between Hong Kong and Taiwan. First, the consultants entrusted by the government suggested that Hong Kong and Taiwan emphasize financial benefits, and that they do not have civil servants or guarantee a smooth transition for employees. Hong Kong and Taiwan should also lose weight. After listening, employees naturally rebounded, and the enthusiasm for reforming the structure gradually faded. Second, the “June 4th” democracy movement Afterwards, a series of actions by the British Hong Kong government touched the Chinese nerves, such as the construction of a new airport and the right of abode plan. China worried that Hong Kong and Taiwan would not be controlled by the government in the future, so it opposed the corporatization of Hong Kong and Taiwan. In the end, the government shelved the plan in 1993 and switched to signing an architectural agreement with RTHK, confirming that RTHK is a public broadcaster with editorial independence.

The mainstream practice in the world is that the government provides certain subsidies to public media, and has the right to nominate / appoint directors to play a certain monitoring role. (Profile picture)

The framework agreement clearly cannot resolve the conflict between the roles of Hong Kong and Taiwan as both government departments and public broadcasters. After the reunification, the second chief executive Donald Tsang set up a "Public Broadcasting Service Review Committee" shortly after his election. In January 2006, the local public broadcasting service was reviewed. The senior media person Huang Yingshi served as the chairman and published a report in March 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "Huang Yingshi"). report").

Comparing the "Huang Yingshi Report" with the review before the reunification, you will find that there are more similarities than differences. Similarly, the two committees agreed to establish a public broadcaster that follows the board model, turning the director of broadcasting into the chief executive of the new agency, which continues to be funded by the government to maintain editorial autonomy. The biggest difference is that the "Huang Ying Shi Report" did not touch on the fate of Hong Kong and Taiwan and the fate of employees.

The government gave the answer to the review in 2009: Hong Kong and Taiwan, while maintaining government departments, undertake a new mission of public broadcasting. That is to say, the government has not adopted the "Wong Ying Shi Report" recommendation to separate public broadcasters from the government. No matter how new the mission is, but if the structure remains the same, the conflict of roles between Hong Kong and Taiwan will always linger. What's more, the government knows that RTHK has a program advisory group to collect opinions from all walks of life. It still established the Radio Television Advisory Committee in 2010. Its duties are unclear and it is easy to add fire.

Admittedly, in order to get the most out of the political disputes from the government, Hong Kong and Taiwan need to be democratized, the supervisors must be elected by all people, and all people should make contributions. But this approach does not seem to be successful. The mainstream practice in the world is that the government provides certain subsidies to public media, and has the right to nominate / appoint directors to play a certain monitoring role.

The Government established the "Public Broadcasting Service Review Committee" in January 2006 to review local public broadcasting services. It recommended that Hong Kong and Taiwan be corporatized, but the government maintains Hong Kong and Taiwan as government departments.

The new question is coming, assuming that Hong Kong and Taiwan have evolved into "Hong Kong Public Broadcasting Corporation" (hereinafter referred to as "New Hong Kong and Taiwan") as recommended by the Huang Yingshi report. Will the establishment of the board of directors be calm since then? If it is about whether Hong Kong and Taiwan will ever be "immunized" from social and political disputes, the answer is obviously "no." Even public broadcasters under overseas democratic systems cannot escape all political disputes. But from an operational point of view, international experience shows that this will help increase its productivity, and it is also expected to improve the overall program quality. This is undoubtedly a better situation than the current situation.

The so-called better is that the roles of the government and Newport and Taiwan are more clear. Hong Kong and Taiwan can be free from government departments and devote themselves to public broadcasting services, and the board of directors and management can handle affairs in accordance with their roles. Government supervision maintains a certain distance to avoid falling into the quagmire of political interference.

As the government department, the policy bureau and the Director of Broadcasting, as well as the increase or decrease in funding, Hong Kong and Taiwan are easily interpreted as political and financial intervention, regardless of whether the event itself is right or wrong. (Profile picture / photo by Luo Junhao)

What Hong Kong can do is to refer to the experience of other parties and devise a framework that can take into account the opinions of all parties. Taiwan Public Television and the British BBC are examples that can be used for reference.

Board of Directors and Management Division

Well-known public broadcasters around the world have board of directors and a structure separate from management. The board of directors sets goals and strategies for the organization, monitors its performance and ensures compliance with the law, and is responsible to the public for the overall performance of the organization; the executive management is responsible for implementation, management and daily operations. The "Yellow Report" suggests that the roles of the board of directors and the chief executive (see table) are still of great reference value.

As the government department, the policy bureau and the Director of Broadcasting, as well as the increase or decrease in funding, Hong Kong and Taiwan are easily interpreted as political and financial intervention, regardless of whether the event itself is right or wrong. If under the company system, such as the "Headlines" storm, the management can handle disputes appropriately, the board of directors monitors whether the management decision is reasonable, the advisory committee does not need to exist, let alone the opinion, the government can leave the board and management to have The decision was made only after the case was decided, so as to reduce the controversy involved in the intervention and editing.

Continue reading: Can corporatization keep Radio Television Hong Kong away from political turmoil?

related articles︰

Three problems of Radio Television Hong Kong behind the storms of WHO and "Toutiao"

What is the real problem of Hong Kong and Taiwan?

Can RTHK live a better life after breaking up with free TV?

New crown pneumonia│Hong Kong and Taiwan unions accuse Qiu Tenghua of trampling on the issue of free press for journalists

New Crown Pneumonia │ Interview with Hong Kong and Taiwan WHO asked Taiwanese Member Qiu Tenghua to sternly repudiate: violate the principle of one China

[New Coronary Pneumonia] Interview with World Health Organization in Hong Kong and Taiwan to ask Taiwan ’s membership system to complain about provocation “unprofessional”

Hong Kong Communications Bureau quasi-free TV broadcast of Hong Kong and Taiwan programs

The above excerpt is from the 208th Hong Kong 01 Weekly Report (April 6, 2020) "Corporation can keep Hong Kong and Taiwan away from political disturbances?" ".

More weekly articles: 【01 Weekly News Page】

The "Hong Kong 01" weekly newspaper is available at major newsstands, OK convenience stores and Vango convenience stores. You can also subscribe to the weekly report here to read more in-depth reports.

RTHK Liang Jiarong 01 Weekly Media