Dear Sir,
I would like to reiterate what I've said during the public consultation on September 30th held in the City University for your information and consideration.
Firstly, I hold my view that your review of Public Service Broadcasting/Broadcaster (PSB) is NOT timely because the RTHK has been and is running more or less smoothly hitherto. Given her reasonable audience proportion and her basical independency from editorial censorship or pressures from the Goverment (noted Mr. CHU Pui-hing, the Director of Broadcast has reiterated a similar remark on serveral occassions), your current review simply give the public a misconception that the RTHK is subjected either to some sort of government reformation and even rectification. I thank Dr. LEUNG Tin-wai for clarifying on September 30th, 2006 that the review in question is basically independent of RTHK and your committee has NEVER intended or identified RTHK as the prospective future Public Service Broadcaster. Nevertheless, most people known to me including myself have had the impression and understanding that your review is targetted at RTHK for her prospective reform.
Secondly, HKSAR is going through her early stages of transitions under the One-Country-Two-System jurisdiction, any major government reshuffle or policy review should be done with a reasonable degree of caution and goodwill to bridge HK's link to our motherland, China. Equally important is that there are quite a lot of public reviews under way and in progress, e.g. the proposal of General Services Taxes, Public Consultation on Proposed Constituency Boundaries for the 2007 District Council Election, Consultation Document on Further Development of the Political Appointment System, etc. Indeed, there are still ongoing discussions on Helping the Disadvantaged Groups and Financing Public Health Care. Such a great recipe of consultation and discussion is really too substantive and too heavy for the general public to digest and deliberate. It follows that a speedy and hurried consultation as yours would certainly leave most valued public opinions in the dark!
Thirdly, our Chief Executive of the HKSAR will have his term due on next July and a re-nomination and election will be done pretty soon early next year. It is really difficult and unfair for any politician with the mature and futuristic mind to settle on your review recommendations within our existing CE's term. Otherwise, the next CE (no matter who he/she is) will be stripped off the volition to spell out and decide on such an important matter as the constitution and interaction with your proposed future PSB.
Fourthly, I do not agree with you that your proposed set-up and running of the future PSB is entirely independent and non-interferring with the Private Broadcasters. After all, your chairman, Mr. Raymond Wong is right to point out on September 30th that our "Cake" is really limited. In a way, you are proposing setting up a PSB by essentially public funding (i.e. government money) and whose running is free from the fear of brankruptcy or the usual commercial constraints. Such a situation would give the PSB an unfair competitive edge and advantage over the other competitors especailly noting that some of our private radio operators have already been running their business under a very heavy financial risk.
Fifthly, I suggest if any PSB is at all installed through your suggestion, the RTHK, as it is, should remain operating for a reasonable tenure (5-10 years, say). This is to facilitate a gradual transition of the existing RTHK set-up to the proposed future set-up. Also, competition by the fair and effective counterparts suits well with Sir Donald's advocation of small government in a great market economy. This also give the public a fair and balanced chance to test out your "theories" that HKSAR really need something NEW as your proposed PSB and it is to be BETTER than the existing RTHK!
Lastly but not least, should RTHK be somehow chosen or accepted as the future PSB (or her predecessor), there must be clear clarification and guideline for the other existing government departments serving as a frontline public service WHY they should or should NOT be given the same and fair chance to "go public" or corporatized because they share many similar claims of bureacratic bondage as those of our existing RTHK.
For your kind and professional attention and action, please.
Your sincerely,
Howard Lai,
Independent Observer.
星期五, 10月 13, 2006
星期五, 7月 14, 2006
港台近貎
港台作為一個公眾傳媒機構，港台在其網頁提到以下2點：
抱負：成為新媒體環境中舉足輕重的公營廣播機構
使命 : 製作多媒體節目，提供資訊、教育及娛樂； 適時與不偏不倚報道本地及國際大事與議題； 協力推動香港的多元開放文化； 提供自由表達意見的渠道； 服務普羅大眾，同時照顧少數社群的需要。
服務社會大眾一項又提到：「我們須經常進行獨立調查及舉行聽眾／觀眾評議會，蒐集大眾意見，作出回應。」
以本年6月22日之千禧年代為例，其中論題(四) 朱培慶﹕港台倘獨立收牌費可保財源；本來是個重要議題，因為朱先生剛於前一天，即6月21日在廣檢會舉行「公共廣播服務國際論壇」時，提出港台要成立一電視頻道和考慮以收費方式來支持未來的營運。本人於當日亦有出席，因當場嘉賓和議題煩多，未能一一提問，所以在22日亦在千禧論壇中留下意見，大致內容為本人對廣檢會的功能有所保留，又質疑今次檢討目的，並假設其中一主要動機是節省公帑，故建議港台以小變為宜，如要節省公帑，可把某些較少聽眾的頻道外判甚至外賣。
後來發覺我的留言不翼而飛，明顯是被港台刪去了，實感驚訝！雖然當天的主要討論為對曾蔭權治港一年的感想，但港台公司化，影響之深遠，絕不次於對曾先生的感想。這令我產生相當疑問，例如港台是否只許周官放火，對曾先生，董先生等名人政要，議論紛紛，但一燒到自己身上，就門禁重重呢？
我覺得香港目前缺乏清晰的公共廣播政策。而且不少人士認為檢討是為了「整頓」港台！這正令人擔心的，因為如果政府要整頓港台，應該不須要如此迂迴，除非我們的高官愛理不理，或者是無能處理。
由上次港台被審計署批評後，我開始感到港台真有點問題，如她們的一班記者及行政人員，即時出來「撐場」，這令我聯想起上次九鐵的「撐場」風波，當然兩件事情是各有不同，但總給人一點「以下反上」的撐場抗爭感覺。
我設立這港人日誌，希望能從另一個小眾渠道，呼籲各方好友，多留意本港近年的種種社會現象，切勿只作沉默的羔羊，否則給人家賣了豬仔，就悔之已晚，就算要補救，也必然是事倍功半呢！
抱負：成為新媒體環境中舉足輕重的公營廣播機構
使命 : 製作多媒體節目，提供資訊、教育及娛樂； 適時與不偏不倚報道本地及國際大事與議題； 協力推動香港的多元開放文化； 提供自由表達意見的渠道； 服務普羅大眾，同時照顧少數社群的需要。
服務社會大眾一項又提到：「我們須經常進行獨立調查及舉行聽眾／觀眾評議會，蒐集大眾意見，作出回應。」
以本年6月22日之千禧年代為例，其中論題(四) 朱培慶﹕港台倘獨立收牌費可保財源；本來是個重要議題，因為朱先生剛於前一天，即6月21日在廣檢會舉行「公共廣播服務國際論壇」時，提出港台要成立一電視頻道和考慮以收費方式來支持未來的營運。本人於當日亦有出席，因當場嘉賓和議題煩多，未能一一提問，所以在22日亦在千禧論壇中留下意見，大致內容為本人對廣檢會的功能有所保留，又質疑今次檢討目的，並假設其中一主要動機是節省公帑，故建議港台以小變為宜，如要節省公帑，可把某些較少聽眾的頻道外判甚至外賣。
後來發覺我的留言不翼而飛，明顯是被港台刪去了，實感驚訝！雖然當天的主要討論為對曾蔭權治港一年的感想，但港台公司化，影響之深遠，絕不次於對曾先生的感想。這令我產生相當疑問，例如港台是否只許周官放火，對曾先生，董先生等名人政要，議論紛紛，但一燒到自己身上，就門禁重重呢？
我覺得香港目前缺乏清晰的公共廣播政策。而且不少人士認為檢討是為了「整頓」港台！這正令人擔心的，因為如果政府要整頓港台，應該不須要如此迂迴，除非我們的高官愛理不理，或者是無能處理。
由上次港台被審計署批評後，我開始感到港台真有點問題，如她們的一班記者及行政人員，即時出來「撐場」，這令我聯想起上次九鐵的「撐場」風波，當然兩件事情是各有不同，但總給人一點「以下反上」的撐場抗爭感覺。
我設立這港人日誌，希望能從另一個小眾渠道，呼籲各方好友，多留意本港近年的種種社會現象，切勿只作沉默的羔羊，否則給人家賣了豬仔，就悔之已晚，就算要補救，也必然是事倍功半呢！
星期三, 7月 12, 2006
Review for Causes of Homosexuality
Extract of Part VII: CONCLUSION from “HOMOSEXUALITY: INNATE AND IMMUTABLE?” by A. Dean Byrd & Stony Olsen
Neil and Briar Whitehead state in the introduction to their book, My Genes Made Me Do It! A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation, Here is a very basic truth. There is nothing fixed or final about the homosexual orientation and its natural expression, homosexual behavior. No one has to stay homosexual or lesbian, in orientation or behavior, if he or she doesn't want to and informed support is available. No politician, church leader, church member, judge, counselor, homosexual person, friend of family of a homosexual person, needs to feel forced into a position on homosexuality based on the apparent immutability of the homosexual orientation. Homosexuality is not inborn, not genetically dictated, not immutable. Nor, for that matter, is heterosexuality or any other human behavior. In fact, our genes do not make us do anything. Whether it's homosexuality, a foul temper, bedwetting, or addition to chocolate, our genes have very little to do with it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Professor A. Dean Byrd is a clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Utah School of Medicine and an adjunct clinical professor in the Department of Family and Consumer Studies, also at the University of Utah. He is the President of the Thrasher Research Fund, as well as the Vice President of NARTH, the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, an organization of over 1500 psychologists and psychotherapists. He holds a doctoral degree in psychology from Brigham Young University and a Masters of Business Administration from the University of Phoenix. He also holds two post-doctoral degrees from the Virginia Commonwealth University and Loyola University. He has his own private practice in clinical psychology. Stony Olsen is a recent graduate of the J. Reuben Clark School of Law at Brigham Young University. There he was a Lead Article editor for the Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law, as well as a Reference Assistant for the Howard W. Hunter Law Library. Special thanks is given to Mr. Olsen for his research assistance.
(Source: HOMOSEXUALITY: INNATE AND IMMUTABLE?)
撮要簡譯：
根據 A. Dean Byrd & Stony Olsen (Byrd 為猶他大學醫學院的教授 Olsen 則為 楊柏翰大學 (Brigham Young University) 的法律書院畢業生。根據他們的學術研究和檢討﹝Review﹞，發覺某些人士所聲稱的，認為同性戀者是因為他們的某些基因所導至的一種先天傾向這一觀點，在科研上是不成立的；更好的結論是同性戀這一傾向，不是先天的，也不是由遺傳因素所決定的，亦不是不可改變的。簡單的說，人類後天的一般行為傾向﹝不單只是同性戀﹞，基本上都不是由基因來決定的。
Neil and Briar Whitehead state in the introduction to their book, My Genes Made Me Do It! A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation, Here is a very basic truth. There is nothing fixed or final about the homosexual orientation and its natural expression, homosexual behavior. No one has to stay homosexual or lesbian, in orientation or behavior, if he or she doesn't want to and informed support is available. No politician, church leader, church member, judge, counselor, homosexual person, friend of family of a homosexual person, needs to feel forced into a position on homosexuality based on the apparent immutability of the homosexual orientation. Homosexuality is not inborn, not genetically dictated, not immutable. Nor, for that matter, is heterosexuality or any other human behavior. In fact, our genes do not make us do anything. Whether it's homosexuality, a foul temper, bedwetting, or addition to chocolate, our genes have very little to do with it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Professor A. Dean Byrd is a clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Utah School of Medicine and an adjunct clinical professor in the Department of Family and Consumer Studies, also at the University of Utah. He is the President of the Thrasher Research Fund, as well as the Vice President of NARTH, the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, an organization of over 1500 psychologists and psychotherapists. He holds a doctoral degree in psychology from Brigham Young University and a Masters of Business Administration from the University of Phoenix. He also holds two post-doctoral degrees from the Virginia Commonwealth University and Loyola University. He has his own private practice in clinical psychology. Stony Olsen is a recent graduate of the J. Reuben Clark School of Law at Brigham Young University. There he was a Lead Article editor for the Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law, as well as a Reference Assistant for the Howard W. Hunter Law Library. Special thanks is given to Mr. Olsen for his research assistance.
(Source: HOMOSEXUALITY: INNATE AND IMMUTABLE?)
撮要簡譯：
根據 A. Dean Byrd & Stony Olsen (Byrd 為猶他大學醫學院的教授 Olsen 則為 楊柏翰大學 (Brigham Young University) 的法律書院畢業生。根據他們的學術研究和檢討﹝Review﹞，發覺某些人士所聲稱的，認為同性戀者是因為他們的某些基因所導至的一種先天傾向這一觀點，在科研上是不成立的；更好的結論是同性戀這一傾向，不是先天的，也不是由遺傳因素所決定的，亦不是不可改變的。簡單的說，人類後天的一般行為傾向﹝不單只是同性戀﹞，基本上都不是由基因來決定的。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
