眾所周知「持平，中肯和準確」的報導是新聞自由的立足點和試金石，如果有人﹝特別是學者和專業人士﹞反對以上的觀點，我會甚為驚訝！本人注意到最近廣管局強烈勸諭香港電台，就鏗鏘集[同性‧戀人]紀錄片特輯之上訴個案，促請她嚴格遵守《電視通用業務守則》和要注意持平一事，引來在各個媒體中很多批評意見，作為相關個案的上訴人，希望能在此申述一下本人對有關事件的見解，給大家參考；至於上訴的詳細原因，請參看為何我會反對[同性‧戀人]在合家歡時段播放。
包括一些知名人士如時事評論員梁文道先生和吳志森先生等，針對節目的持平性提出異議，他們質疑如要按照相關決定辦事，則每當電台拍攝老人特輯時，豈非要同時訪問青少年團體才可持平！又或說拍攝窮家子弟特輯時，豈非要同時訪問富有人家以作持平？其實，他們都是借題發揮，以混淆大眾對持平公正報導的理解，即在報導任何有爭議或涉及多方面利益的議題時，有關拍攝者有必要安排利益攸關的各方在持平和公正的基礎上表達他們的意見，否則，後果便會偏頗，並可能產生嚴重後果。
以最近百佳超市的「油魚事件」為例，若相關報導的核心是要弄清楚百佳是否有意以錯漏的標貼來隱瞞事實，甚或欺騙顧客，當然不需要同時採訪惠康或華潤等超市了；不過，如果問題是要搞清楚本港有多少超市以至魚檔有出售油魚﹝特別是把牠當成鱈魚﹞的話，那電台和報館就真的要同時四出採訪本港不同的超市和市塲了。在以上的例子裏，我們針對報導的持平性可以發問：「在報導中如採納﹝或拒用﹞某些人士的意見或資料會否影響報導的持平性，又或是否會導致偏頗呢？」若答案是「會」，我們當然要針對相關處境而作出調節﹝如透過內容或訪問的增刪)，來達至相關議論的持平和準確性，若答案是「不會」，則只要按常規辦事則可，若畫蛇添足或州官放火，只會貽笑大方！
另一實例就是2002年伊拉克被指擁有大殺傷力武器事件，大家應該還記得在美國向伊開戰前的西方媒體，差不多都是一面倒的報導美國所搜集到的「證據」，而伊拉克以至聯合國檢查員布利斯先生 (Hans Blix)的聲明和報告卻被忽略，這就是不持平或偏頗的一個實例。明顯地，當時伊拉克政府作為被告以至可能的受害者之權利是全被忽略了！若果時光能倒流，各大報社又能重新以持平、公正和準確的守則來報導相關爭議，相信今天伊拉克人民就不需要面對近乎無日無之的炸彈和恐怖事件了！當中我們是可以學到寶貴的一課，就是我們的社會需要的是持平的民意領袖而不是民意製造者！
讓我重申本人十分尊重本港同性戀者的法定權利；然而，香港是否已經全面準備好了來迎接同性婚姻合法化呢？特別是作出倉卒的立法呢？就算我們不談愛滋病的風險和根治問題，大家不難想像在同性婚姻合法化後，兒童的撫養權、離異「夫婦」的贍養費問題，中港2地因而衍生的家庭團聚問題﹝內地在可見將來大概不會承認同性婚姻﹞‧.‧‧等等，都不容忽視，還有同性婚姻對香港開埠以來的一個核心價值，即一男一女的婚姻制度可能造成的沖擊以至破壞，所導致的成社會傷害，誰能負責呢？若大家不太善忘，可記得在2001年署理保安局局長對終審法院就莊豐源居港權個案判決可能引致內地孕婦爭相來港產子的「預測」又一次落空了；相關的事實都很值得大家深思！
黎民 (BA Ref. L/M 50592/06 案件上訴人)
星期一, 2月 05, 2007
星期四, 2月 01, 2007
Impartiality, Fairness and Accuracy
I would be amazed if anybody, especially professionals and academics, would disagree that the mass media must be impartial, fair and accurate in news reporting and documentaries. I note recently that many people have criticized the Broadcasting Authority's ruling against RTHK's documentary“Gay Lovers”. As the appellant, I would like to give you an alternative analysis for reference.
Some commentators challenged the BA on the point of "impartiality". For example, Mr. LEUNG Man-to (梁文道) argued that any documentary on the elderly would then need to be balanced by a report on the youngsters as well in order to comply with BA's ruling. Similarly, Mr. NG Chi-sum (吳志森) criticized that any documentary on local poor people would then need to interview the rich as a result. Unfortunately, they have purposely confused fair reporting, i.e. let vested parties air their views with indiscriminate and impartial coverage. Otherwise, the consequence can be dire.
Take for example the selling of oil fish as cod recently by the PARKnSHOP. Since the issue is whether PARKnSHOP has mislabeled their products and done so purposely, being impartial, fair and accurate would entail letting the alleged culprit explain fully its actions and the government to state its viewpoint. If the issue is however: “How many local shops have made a similar malpractice?”, then Wellcome, CRC and even the average local fish stalls should have been accounted for by both the relevant authority and the press. The test for impartiality in the foregoing issues is: Will it affect the impartiality or create any partiality by including or excluding somebody (something) in an issue? If the answer is yes, we must make the remedy accordingly. Otherwise, there is no point to puff up the issue involved with such inclusion (or exclusion).
Another example is the allegation of Iraq possessing weapons of massive destruction in 2002. Prior to the U.S. led invasion(or whatever you may like to call it), the press in the west mainly aired the western world's biased–in hindsight–assertion. It not only deprived the most important concerned party, Iraq, of her right to a fair rebuttal, it also victimized her through partial fabrications, alas, by a supposedly enquiring press turned all-knowing! How would surveying the whole world but leaving out Iraq help us understand reality? How would the world be different if impartiality had been upheld in the press such as when the UN investigator Mr. Hans Blix's findings were much more honored? Our society can certainly benefit from impartial opinion leaders – not opinion makers!
Let me conclude that no one in Hong Kong could deny gay lovers of their legitimate rights. Nevertheless, are we ready to cope with the consequences of legalizing gay marriages hastily? Besides the risk and problems of AIDS, what about children's parental rights, family re-union across the boarder, … etc? How can we ensure that the core values of marriage between one man and one woman, enshrined in HK since its founding, be protected? Let's not forget the consequences of the CHONG Fung Yuen Case (FACV No. 26 of 2000) when Mr. Timothy Tong's earlier prediction does not work out as another example.
Howard
Some commentators challenged the BA on the point of "impartiality". For example, Mr. LEUNG Man-to (梁文道) argued that any documentary on the elderly would then need to be balanced by a report on the youngsters as well in order to comply with BA's ruling. Similarly, Mr. NG Chi-sum (吳志森) criticized that any documentary on local poor people would then need to interview the rich as a result. Unfortunately, they have purposely confused fair reporting, i.e. let vested parties air their views with indiscriminate and impartial coverage. Otherwise, the consequence can be dire.
Take for example the selling of oil fish as cod recently by the PARKnSHOP. Since the issue is whether PARKnSHOP has mislabeled their products and done so purposely, being impartial, fair and accurate would entail letting the alleged culprit explain fully its actions and the government to state its viewpoint. If the issue is however: “How many local shops have made a similar malpractice?”, then Wellcome, CRC and even the average local fish stalls should have been accounted for by both the relevant authority and the press. The test for impartiality in the foregoing issues is: Will it affect the impartiality or create any partiality by including or excluding somebody (something) in an issue? If the answer is yes, we must make the remedy accordingly. Otherwise, there is no point to puff up the issue involved with such inclusion (or exclusion).
Another example is the allegation of Iraq possessing weapons of massive destruction in 2002. Prior to the U.S. led invasion(or whatever you may like to call it), the press in the west mainly aired the western world's biased–in hindsight–assertion. It not only deprived the most important concerned party, Iraq, of her right to a fair rebuttal, it also victimized her through partial fabrications, alas, by a supposedly enquiring press turned all-knowing! How would surveying the whole world but leaving out Iraq help us understand reality? How would the world be different if impartiality had been upheld in the press such as when the UN investigator Mr. Hans Blix's findings were much more honored? Our society can certainly benefit from impartial opinion leaders – not opinion makers!
Let me conclude that no one in Hong Kong could deny gay lovers of their legitimate rights. Nevertheless, are we ready to cope with the consequences of legalizing gay marriages hastily? Besides the risk and problems of AIDS, what about children's parental rights, family re-union across the boarder, … etc? How can we ensure that the core values of marriage between one man and one woman, enshrined in HK since its founding, be protected? Let's not forget the consequences of the CHONG Fung Yuen Case (FACV No. 26 of 2000) when Mr. Timothy Tong's earlier prediction does not work out as another example.
Howard
星期一, 1月 29, 2007
每日一語：持平
持平，中肯和真確的報導一向被視為新聞自由的立足點，然而，最近就廣管局裁定香港電台「鏗鏘集」抵觸了現行的廣播條例，並向其發出強烈勸諭，要求香港電台必須嚴格遵守相關的持平要求，就引來諸多怪論，說如果要按照廣管局的標準，豈非凡拍攝老人特輯時都要同時訪問兒童和青少年才能持平嗎？又或說拍攝貧窮子弟時都要找來富有人家來平衡嗎？當然不是！
持平的意義雖然簡單，但其實際應用卻存在著一定的技術和處境性，以伊拉克被指擁有大殺傷力武器為例，大家應該還記得在美國向伊開戰前的西方媒體，差不多都是一面倒的報導美國中情局所搜集到的證據，而伊拉克自己以至聯合國檢查員布克利斯先生 (Hans Blix)的聲明和報告卻被忽略，這就是不持平或偏頗的一個實例。明顯地，伊拉克政府和人民因而承受了莫大的傷害和痛苦！直至今天，伊拉克境內的炸彈事件和人命傷亡真是無日無之。
那我們應如何決定某一報導手法是否持平呢？這亦不太困難，因為我們可以發問：「在報導中我們採納﹝或拒用﹞某些人士或事物會否影響報導的持平性，又或是否會導致偏頗呢？」以拍攝老人專輯為例，一般當然不需同時採訪青少年和兒童群體，除非報導亦涉及後者的權利或義務；同理，若拍攝某地的貧苦現狀，一般亦不需要同時訪問當地的富豪來作出平衡的。
另一例就是近期百佳超市的「油魚事件」，若果報導的核心是要弄清楚百佳是否有意隱瞞或欺騙顧客，當然不需要同時採訪惠康或華潤等超市了；不過，如果問題是要搞清楚本港有多少超市以至魚檔有出售油魚的話，那電台和報館就真的要同時四出採訪本港各不同的超市和市塲了。
各位網友，相信你現在必明白甚麼是持平了，讓我再重申一次，在某一報導或特輯中，若要決定是否需要採納﹝或拒用﹞某些人士或事物的訪問來達至持平時，我們可以發問一個驗準問題﹝test question﹞，就是：「在報導中我們採納﹝或拒用﹞某些人士或事物的訪問/意見時，會否影響報導的持平性，又或是否會導致偏頗呢？」若答案是「會」，我們當然要針對相關處境而作出調節﹝如透過內容或訪問的增刪)，來達至相關議論的持平和準確性，若答案是「不會」，則只要按常規辦事則可，若畫蛇添足或周官放火，只會貽笑大方！
尚有補充觀點：明光社每週評論(24/1/07)
持平的意義雖然簡單，但其實際應用卻存在著一定的技術和處境性，以伊拉克被指擁有大殺傷力武器為例，大家應該還記得在美國向伊開戰前的西方媒體，差不多都是一面倒的報導美國中情局所搜集到的證據，而伊拉克自己以至聯合國檢查員布克利斯先生 (Hans Blix)的聲明和報告卻被忽略，這就是不持平或偏頗的一個實例。明顯地，伊拉克政府和人民因而承受了莫大的傷害和痛苦！直至今天，伊拉克境內的炸彈事件和人命傷亡真是無日無之。
那我們應如何決定某一報導手法是否持平呢？這亦不太困難，因為我們可以發問：「在報導中我們採納﹝或拒用﹞某些人士或事物會否影響報導的持平性，又或是否會導致偏頗呢？」以拍攝老人專輯為例，一般當然不需同時採訪青少年和兒童群體，除非報導亦涉及後者的權利或義務；同理，若拍攝某地的貧苦現狀，一般亦不需要同時訪問當地的富豪來作出平衡的。
另一例就是近期百佳超市的「油魚事件」，若果報導的核心是要弄清楚百佳是否有意隱瞞或欺騙顧客，當然不需要同時採訪惠康或華潤等超市了；不過，如果問題是要搞清楚本港有多少超市以至魚檔有出售油魚的話，那電台和報館就真的要同時四出採訪本港各不同的超市和市塲了。
各位網友，相信你現在必明白甚麼是持平了，讓我再重申一次，在某一報導或特輯中，若要決定是否需要採納﹝或拒用﹞某些人士或事物的訪問來達至持平時，我們可以發問一個驗準問題﹝test question﹞，就是：「在報導中我們採納﹝或拒用﹞某些人士或事物的訪問/意見時，會否影響報導的持平性，又或是否會導致偏頗呢？」若答案是「會」，我們當然要針對相關處境而作出調節﹝如透過內容或訪問的增刪)，來達至相關議論的持平和準確性，若答案是「不會」，則只要按常規辦事則可，若畫蛇添足或周官放火，只會貽笑大方！
尚有補充觀點：明光社每週評論(24/1/07)
星期四, 1月 25, 2007
笑話一則：說夢話
話說某甲發了個怪夢，夢見某電子媒體大隊長正跟他的隊目開會，說要為公司拿個國際獎項；有隊目說，不如搞個甚麼「香港名人遂個捉吧！」大隊長說：「不好，太平凡了，而且很易捉錯用神，一不小心便得罪了上大人！」
另一個隊目說；「本港卧虎屠龍記好嗎？」「不好，以李安導演的天才横逸，都要斷背山來拿大獎，所以我們一定要拍個與洋人對嘴型的片子才行。」隊目L想到不如搞個「同好反擊組」，一則可以表現公司如何重視弱勢社群，二則順水推舟再把「還我好姻緣」法案重提舊話，無論成敗與否，洋裁判那有不拍案叫絕，那大獎必拿個十拿九穩了！大隊長聽後，心甚歡暢，便下令好好執行，還吩咐各方友好通力合作，務求好事速成！
欲知後事如何‧‧‧‧‧
鄭重聲明：本故事純屬虛構，如有雷同，實屬巧合！目的只為求搏你一笑是也。
另一個隊目說；「本港卧虎屠龍記好嗎？」「不好，以李安導演的天才横逸，都要斷背山來拿大獎，所以我們一定要拍個與洋人對嘴型的片子才行。」隊目L想到不如搞個「同好反擊組」，一則可以表現公司如何重視弱勢社群，二則順水推舟再把「還我好姻緣」法案重提舊話，無論成敗與否，洋裁判那有不拍案叫絕，那大獎必拿個十拿九穩了！大隊長聽後，心甚歡暢，便下令好好執行，還吩咐各方友好通力合作，務求好事速成！
欲知後事如何‧‧‧‧‧
鄭重聲明：本故事純屬虛構，如有雷同，實屬巧合！目的只為求搏你一笑是也。
星期一, 1月 22, 2007
歡迎廣管局對港台鏗鏘集[同性‧戀人]的勸諭
廣管局最近經開會後對港台發出嚴厲勸諭，是值得我們歡迎的，因為現時社會對所謂某些少數群體﹝如十份一會之類)的認識實在未能與時並進，而港台又不知何故的偏袒他們，動員人力物力，花費公帑來為他們說教！令人相當憤慨。
小弟僅把相關的上訴理由載於「我為何反對港台在合家歡時間內播放[同性‧戀人]」一文中公諸各位網友，好讓大家親自來評斷一下你是否同意。
無論如何，今天本港弱勢社群的確多的是，你和我這些沒有新聞價值的人便是其一，試想想，如果你或我要港台為我們拍一個特輯，何等困難？還有，論優先次序，今天香港的貧困人仕，中年失業人士，因為社會壓力而被邊緣化的人士何其多？為何港台偏偏要為爭取同性婚姻合法化的人士作嫁衣裳呢？
Howard 上
小弟僅把相關的上訴理由載於「我為何反對港台在合家歡時間內播放[同性‧戀人]」一文中公諸各位網友，好讓大家親自來評斷一下你是否同意。
無論如何，今天本港弱勢社群的確多的是，你和我這些沒有新聞價值的人便是其一，試想想，如果你或我要港台為我們拍一個特輯，何等困難？還有，論優先次序，今天香港的貧困人仕，中年失業人士，因為社會壓力而被邊緣化的人士何其多？為何港台偏偏要為爭取同性婚姻合法化的人士作嫁衣裳呢？
Howard 上
為何我會反對[同性‧戀人]在合家歡時段播放
本人認為香港電台﹝RTHK﹞於2006年本年7月9日晚上於無線翡翠台播放鏗鏘集「同 性 . 戀 人」一集之內容，其中關於二對同性戀者的申訴，其目的和處理手法，明顯偏離港台使命宣言中的適時與不偏不倚報道本地及國際大事與議題的承諾，當中主要問題為上述之鏗鏘集節目是在合家歡時段﹝即下午4時至8時半﹞播出，所以是有很多兒童和青少年觀看，而節目的編輯/負責人明顯忽略這一重因素！
港台適用的「電視通用業務守則 — 節目標準」之9( h )節目的價值一節也明確指出對於涉及道德、社會或文化問題的嚴肅節目，其考慮因素便會與輕鬆的娛樂節目有所不同；今天同性戀的議題在香港正是一個既嚴肅又分歧的社會問題，鏗鏘集的負責人竟把它當作一軟性的「訴心聲」或「不平則鳴」/「讀者來函」等的方式來處理，實在欠缺公允，並有明顯偏袒同性戀者的傾向。亦缺乏作為大眾及公營傳媒的社會責任感及敏銳觸角能力！
因此，本人針對公營電台﹝港台是公帑支持的)以下的幾個專業操守提出質詢：
(1) 現行電視台間有沒有一個清晰的節目分級及警告標準？(該節目開始時只以知會式的說節目是關於同性戀的)
(2) 對於在社會上以至在國際上仍存在很大爭議的事情﹝如同性婚姻合法化等﹞，作為公營電台的香港電台， 她的政策和進路(approach)有沒有以香港社會整體的利益與和諧為一重要考慮？
(3) 在相關節目製作及播放前，相關製作人員有沒有履行其專業以至電台的守則和不偏不倚的使命呢？ 有沒有認真考慮過嚴謹的論證要求及人云亦云之分別呢﹝請參考上訴呈請書第﹝五﹞段﹞？
另外，本人亦提供以下論點作為上訴理由：
(1) 只單方面的讓同性戀者大訴苦水，卻未有給異見者給予回應或反駁的機會，
(2) 對出鏡的主角未有清楚介絡其官方身份(official capacity)、立場及代表性，容易令觀眾產生錯覺，
(3) 有誤導青少年關於同性戀的核心問題所在── 例如指出同性戀者大多數是因為先天基因的影響所導致，又只強調他們如何缺乏在婚姻的認同，卻未有清楚界定香港現時婚姻法例的源流和立法意向和作用等，
(4) 完全不披露現時社會各界對同性婚姻合法化的擔心和疑慮，莽顧社會的和諧和長遠發展延續性等考慮。
(5) 沒有在電視播放前告誡家長要陪同兒童和青少年觀看，
(6) 沒有邀請對問題有深入研究人士和關注社群作出回應，只憑單方面的告白式控訴來指責社會其他群體和機構﹝如教會﹞，有嚴重不公平和偏袒！
(7) 對同志「報喜不報憂」的報導手法，例如愛滋病跟男同志的明顯相關，病性淋巴肉芽腫（LGV）或花柳淋巴肉芽腫----罕見性病在紐約男同性戀社群出現，本地隱藏身分的男同性戀者不戴套作肛交的風險較肯公開身分者高出逾一倍﹝見明報2006年8月16日報導：男同志網上尋伴侶 高危性行為多逾倍﹞。
(8) 還有一很重要的相關因素，就是本港現時相關的處理和應付能力等重要課題，隻字不提，十分偏頗！﹝參考非洲現時如烏干達等國家受愛滋病肆虐，而相關政府以至聯合國組織基本上是束手無策等重要資料﹞。
謹此與各位網友分享，好讓大家清楚本人之理據。
港台適用的「電視通用業務守則 — 節目標準」之9( h )節目的價值一節也明確指出對於涉及道德、社會或文化問題的嚴肅節目，其考慮因素便會與輕鬆的娛樂節目有所不同；今天同性戀的議題在香港正是一個既嚴肅又分歧的社會問題，鏗鏘集的負責人竟把它當作一軟性的「訴心聲」或「不平則鳴」/「讀者來函」等的方式來處理，實在欠缺公允，並有明顯偏袒同性戀者的傾向。亦缺乏作為大眾及公營傳媒的社會責任感及敏銳觸角能力！
因此，本人針對公營電台﹝港台是公帑支持的)以下的幾個專業操守提出質詢：
(1) 現行電視台間有沒有一個清晰的節目分級及警告標準？(該節目開始時只以知會式的說節目是關於同性戀的)
(2) 對於在社會上以至在國際上仍存在很大爭議的事情﹝如同性婚姻合法化等﹞，作為公營電台的香港電台， 她的政策和進路(approach)有沒有以香港社會整體的利益與和諧為一重要考慮？
(3) 在相關節目製作及播放前，相關製作人員有沒有履行其專業以至電台的守則和不偏不倚的使命呢？ 有沒有認真考慮過嚴謹的論證要求及人云亦云之分別呢﹝請參考上訴呈請書第﹝五﹞段﹞？
另外，本人亦提供以下論點作為上訴理由：
(1) 只單方面的讓同性戀者大訴苦水，卻未有給異見者給予回應或反駁的機會，
(2) 對出鏡的主角未有清楚介絡其官方身份(official capacity)、立場及代表性，容易令觀眾產生錯覺，
(3) 有誤導青少年關於同性戀的核心問題所在── 例如指出同性戀者大多數是因為先天基因的影響所導致，又只強調他們如何缺乏在婚姻的認同，卻未有清楚界定香港現時婚姻法例的源流和立法意向和作用等，
(4) 完全不披露現時社會各界對同性婚姻合法化的擔心和疑慮，莽顧社會的和諧和長遠發展延續性等考慮。
(5) 沒有在電視播放前告誡家長要陪同兒童和青少年觀看，
(6) 沒有邀請對問題有深入研究人士和關注社群作出回應，只憑單方面的告白式控訴來指責社會其他群體和機構﹝如教會﹞，有嚴重不公平和偏袒！
(7) 對同志「報喜不報憂」的報導手法，例如愛滋病跟男同志的明顯相關，病性淋巴肉芽腫（LGV）或花柳淋巴肉芽腫----罕見性病在紐約男同性戀社群出現，本地隱藏身分的男同性戀者不戴套作肛交的風險較肯公開身分者高出逾一倍﹝見明報2006年8月16日報導：男同志網上尋伴侶 高危性行為多逾倍﹞。
(8) 還有一很重要的相關因素，就是本港現時相關的處理和應付能力等重要課題，隻字不提，十分偏頗！﹝參考非洲現時如烏干達等國家受愛滋病肆虐，而相關政府以至聯合國組織基本上是束手無策等重要資料﹞。
謹此與各位網友分享，好讓大家清楚本人之理據。
星期五, 10月 13, 2006
Final Submission to the PSB Review
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.
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, 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)
