RTHK operations due for review and improvement

On the morning after the Audit Commission published a “Value for Money” report criticizing the operations of Radio Television Hong Kong, I happened to listen to the RTHK 1 program Morning News Digest from 6:30 am to 8 am. The program is supposed to cover all the main news of the previous day along with related interviews and commentaries. Yet, while all Hong Kong newspapers used the Audit Commission’s criticism of RTHK as a major news item, it was not even mentioned in the station’s main morning newscast. Instead,it focused on the commission’s criticism of the Centre for Food Safety. This ostrich approach of RTHK explains why it has deteriorated to such an extent that many are now calling for the station to be shut down. Indeed, if we follow the opposition parties’ usual practice of labeling all the SAR’s major development projects as white elephants, we should equally consider labeling our HK$1 billion-plus annual expenditure on RTHK as a perpetual white elephant. Imagine how we can make better use of this annual expenditure of HK$1 billion by improving our services for the elderly, helping our ethnic minorities and improving our medical services and public housing!

The Audit Commission’s report on RTHK refers to many problem areas, two of which are of particular concern to me. Firstly, RTHK’s acquisition procedures of TV and radio programs have deviated from normal government procedures as stipulated in the Stores and Procurement Regulations (SPR). For each procured TV or radio program, there was only one supplier. Instead of inviting the supplier to quote a selling price as required by the SPR, RTHK suggested a price and used that as a starting point to negotiate with the supplier. As early as 2015, the Independent Commission Against Corruption had completed a corruption prevention study on RTHK’s acquisition of TV programs, and concluded that RTHK’s practice could pose a collusion risk of circumventing the corruption prevention controls built into the standard government procurement procedures to prevent favoring a particular supplier. Unfortunately, RTHK chose to ignore the ICAC guideline. The anti-corruption watchdog should now investigate these acquisitions to ascertain if there’s any conflict of interest between the parties The author is an honorary fellow and adjunct professor of HKU SPACE and council member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies. He is also a former deputy commissioner of ICAC and currently an international anti-corruption consultant

and whether there’s any element of corruption involved.

Secondly, the RTHK Channels TV 31/31A have suffered ridiculously low ratings. The TV ratings exercise has been standardized for all TV stations in Hong Kong, based on each score of TV rating representing around 64,000 viewers. Whilst most of the popular TVB programs score average marks of 10 to 20, the average rating for RTHK TV 31/31A for the six-month period was 0.1! A former senior RTHK official had once expressed deep concern to me over some of the popular programs, saying they have deteriorated to an unacceptable standard. He particularly referred to Hong Kong Connection (Hang Chang Chap), which has a very high production cost, much higher than equivalent TVB news programs, yet its rating is dismally low. The reason, he said, was probably because this particular flagship news program has become very biased against the central and SAR governments, so much so that most viewers now ignore it. The Audit Commission should investigate such an expensive program in pursuit of value for money.

What’s even more disturbing is that in the Audit Commission’s list of recommendations, it stated that: (1) RTHK management should submit reports on performance evaluation of RTHK and the station’s compliance with performance evaluation indicators to the Board of Advisors on a regular basis as required by the Charter of RTHK, and (2) RTHK management should prepare an annual report for public inspection as required by the Charter of RTHK. Such recommendations reflected so negatively on the RTHK management that they have intentionally failed to comply with their duties under the charter, clearly trying to avoid public accountability!

Hence, what’s urgently needed is a complete overhaul of RTHK’s operations. To start with, the policy bureau currently in charge of RTHK should be switched from the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau to the Home Affairs Bureau. RTHK’s operation is hardly relevant to Hong Kong’s commerce and economic development. On the other hand, if RTHK is put under the Home Affairs Bureau, it would be compelled to assist more in publicizing the work of the District Offices, to place more emphasis on citizens’ welfare, and to promote the Recreation and Culture Services Department’s activities.

Since the two channels 31 and 31A have such low ratings, I suggest one of them should be converted to a fulltime sports channel, featuring national as well as local sports events. The main purpose is to televise live some of these events in which the national team and/or the Hong Kong team take part and have a good chance of winning, such as badminton, table tennis, squash, volleyball, gymnastics and springboard diving. Apart from its entertainment value, the successes would undoubtedly spur patriotism and a sense of belonging among young people. As sports are getting more popular in Hong Kong and it’s the policy of the HKSAR Government to promote active participation in sports, this sport channel can surely help in achieving this objective.

To win back public support, RTHK should live up to its public accountability. On this, they can learn from the good practice of the ICAC by setting up two additional committees. One is the Operations Review Committee and requiring all programs with low ratings to be submitted to this committee for review. Second is the Public Complaint Committee, where all public feedback should be addressed. In both committees, annual public reports should be published and submitted to Legislative Council for debate.

One common observation is that the RTHK news programs have lost their objectivity and neutrality and are usually biased against the central and SAR governments. A review of RTHK’s editorial policies should be conducted to install check and balance measures to guard against the possible abuse of its claimed “editorial autonomy”.