July 19, 2005

You are on the invidual archive page of Teacup in a storm. Click Simon World weblog for the main page.
Teacup in a storm

Over the weekend Richard mentioned the fuss in Hong Kong over media censorship. Today's SCMP has an op-ed by Michael Chugani, the head of ATV news, on the not so strenuous efforts of those claiming censorship. Naturally Mr Chugani has a barrow to push, but the lack of interest by the main parties in appearing on a major news outlet to discuss their claims certainly suggests more than meets the eye. The full op-ed is below the jump, but I'll repeat the conclusion:

Before we in the media glorify the self-proclaimed victims of censorship, we need to examine all the facts. Doing that is not a dereliction of our duty to safeguard press freedom, but merely to make sure that the cause is not contaminated.
On another note, for some mysterious reason The Standard has been appearing gratis on my doorstep each morning this week. Off to do the Sudoku puzzle.

Crusaders shy away from the battle

There has been much talk lately about press freedom in Hong Kong, the focus being that we are sliding down a slippery slope to censorship. But let me share with you something that happened two weeks ago which might make some of you think twice about our self-styled crusaders for press freedom.

The threat to our press freedoms captured attention with the May arrest on the mainland of Hong Kong journalist Ching Cheong, followed by the dismissal this month of Commercial Radio talk-show host Wong Yuk-man. To raise awareness in the English-speaking community of this supposed threat, ATV's English channel talk show Newsline invited some central figures in the battle against censorship to discuss the issue.


We first approached the sacked Wong, but he refused to come on the show, without giving a reason. We then tried his producer, Toby Cham, who had also been sacked, but he told us he wanted to remain "low key" for now.

Former talk-show host Albert Cheng King-hon - now a legislator who claims censorship was behind Commercial Radio's shutting down his show Teacup in a Storm - at first agreed to appear on Newsline but cancelled at the last minute, saying he would only appear if Wong did as well.

We then tried Peter Lam Yuk-wah, who co-hosted Teacup in a Storm and was dismissed with Mr Cheng but he, too, refused the offer to discuss the threat of censorship. All the while, we tried to get someone from the Hong Kong Journalists Association, but it said it could not find anyone suitable. Commercial Radio boss Winnie Yu also refused to appear.

We finally found two speakers who agreed to come even though they were not central figures in the current controversy - former legislator Cyd Ho Sau-lan and commentator Steve Vines.

It could be that poor English skills dissuaded everyone, but aside from Wong, who speaks passable English, everyone we approached speaks it reasonably well.

Or, possibly they consider it a waste of time to appear on English-language television, which has fewer viewers than Hong Kong's Cantonese channels.

Maybe they thought it would not advance their agendas to speak to an audience made up mostly of foreigners, who may be unfamiliar with the shows axed by Commercial Radio.

If those are indeed their reasons, it exposes the pathetic mindset of the people who claim to crusade for our press freedoms. Defending press freedom, in my mind at least, means fighting every battle on every front to win as many supporters as you can.

If you do not have a gun, you fight with a stick, and if you do not have that, you fight with your fists. And you fight for the wider cause of press freedom, not just for narrow self-interest such as trying to get your radio show back. The current public debate over press freedom centres on the claim that the voices of our most outspoken media and political personalities have been silenced by a conspiracy involving the government, Beijing and media bosses.

Last Saturday's candle-light vigil in Central was intended to showcase this censorship. But how can anyone credibly claim to have been silenced when they refuse an offer to speak on an uncensored show on English television?

Before we in the media glorify the self-proclaimed victims of censorship, we need to examine all the facts. Doing that is not a dereliction of our duty to safeguard press freedom, but merely to make sure that the cause is not contaminated.

Michael Chugani is editor-in-chief of ATV English News and Current Affairs

posted by Simon on 07.19.05 at 09:43 AM in the




Trackbacks:

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/102006


Send a manual trackback ping to this post.


Comments:

That's not gratis. I want fifty bucks , by tomorrow, bucko!

posted by: doug on 07.19.05 at 10:11 AM [permalink]

The cheque's in the mail, old boy.

posted by: Simon on 07.19.05 at 10:13 AM [permalink]

...when they refuse an offer to speak on an uncensored show on English television?

This coming from the most self-censored TV station in HK? Please excuse me as I roll on the floor laughing...

posted by: spacehunt on 07.20.05 at 09:35 AM [permalink]

But they did offer, spacehunt. It is curious these guys didn't take up the offer. There's a letter in today's SCMP also asking if the fired radio hosts are busy shouting down anyone who argues:

Y. K. Wan hits the nail on the head ("Unilateral free speech", July 18). It does seem that Albert Cheng King-hon and Wong Yuk-man want absolute freedom to ridicule their opponents as well as silence their responses.

The fact is that RTHK, as well as the South China Morning Post, usually cater for this unilateralism. They have probably both done a great deal of damage not only to individuals but to the government. Even my favourite programmes on RTHK, Newsline and Letter to Hong Kong, invite more anti- than pro-government speakers.


I would also like to express my agreement with the Civil Human Rights Front, as headlined in the article "Protest alliance in danger of breaking up" (July 18). The July 1 marches have from the beginning been hijacked by the advocates of universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008. The real complaints of the public have been lost in this move, intended for western political support.

I agree in principle with the NGO cause. The G8 nations seek globalisation for the expansion of their new colonial capitalism at the cost of workers' wages and working conditions. Unfortunately some violent demonstrators damage their movement, and for that reason I cannot join them. I believe that violence is self-defeating.

Instead of trying to prevent aggressive Korean workers attending demonstrations, the WTO nations would do well to take immediate action on their grievances. Suicide bombings should, after so many years, have taught the rich nations that frustration ends in violence. Most world leaders are ignorant of the needs and frustrations of the major part of the world; the underpaid workers. Total harmony is hardly possible, but at least a little more understanding would do wonders, among politicians and in the world.

ELSIE TU, Kwun TongAnd the previous letter referred to:

I refer to the column by Albert Cheng King-hon on freedom of speech ("Spiralling towards silence", July 9), and wish to express my view on something which has been bewildering me for years.

During my college time in the UK, Hyde Park speaker's corner was my favourite spot on Sunday afternoon. Anyone could stand there and say what they wanted. But a speaker could only stay on if he successfully argued with the audience when they disagreed. This is the rule of the game - what I call "bilateral" freedom of speech.

In their Hong Kong radio talk shows, Wong Yuk-man and Mr Cheng bore a similarity. It is their "I can speak, but not you" style. Whenever an audience member phoned up the shows to disagree, the hosts kept the exchange brief and then cut the line abruptly. This is what I call "unilateral" freedom of speech.

Many friends and colleagues considered the persistence of these talk shows for so many years as a Hong Kong miracle. Personally, I have refused to listen to Commercial Radio for more than five years in protest against these two hosts because they did not respect the spirit of freedom of speech. Rather, they used it as their tool. Now Mr Cheng accuses Commercial Radio of eroding freedom of speech. Is this meant to be a joke?

Y. K. WAN, Yuen Long

posted by: Simon on 07.20.05 at 09:44 AM [permalink]

Yes, they did offer. And many of them have been burned by how these pro-Beijing media twists what they have to say into nonsensical blathering. Perhaps their English channel is different, but it is very obvious what ATV did to their News department in order to secure broadcasting rights in the Guangdong province.

It really comes down to whether they want to be used as a tool to further the attacks on them or not. And in this case they decided not to.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not your Y.M. Wong apologist. I also have issues with their style on radio. But at least on their radio shows they allow the callers to shout out "YOU LOT OF UNPATRIOTIC DOGS, STOP COLLUDING WITH OVERSEAS FORCES" before Wong cuts their line (it happened on every show when Wong still had his Monday-Friday slot.) What happened when Wong tried to call in to CRHK after he got sacked? He wasn't even allowed to speak one word before the line was put on hook.

posted by: spacehunt on 07.20.05 at 11:35 AM [permalink]

It is also possible that they might want to live in Hong Kong and hope to able to work again.

posted by: Tamquam Leo Rugiens on 07.21.05 at 03:50 AM [permalink]

Simon, I've forwarded this post to a local Chinese BBS HKDay; actually a few days passed before somebody bothered to read through the whole English passage. :( Anyway, a guy called chenglap replied to Chugani's op-ed, and have asked me to translate his reply into English. Here it is:

If those are indeed their reasons, it exposes the pathetic mindset of the people who claim to crusade for our press freedoms. Defending press freedom, in my mind at least, means fighting every battle on every front to win as many supporters as you can.

I actually think this is a bit of a warped argument.

Freedom has no set boundaries; there are very many different fronts, whether they are newspapers, radio, television, Internet, or physical gatherings. To defend freedom in every single place would require an impossibly huge amount of time and resources; hence, people can only choose ones that suit them best, ones where they excel in, as their own front.

Let me put it this way, I myself speak for the freedom of speech on the Internet, however I have never done so on Net radio; does that mean I have never done as much as I could to defend freedom of speech? Am I required to speak on Net radio? If I have, naturally I would have less time to spend posting on BBSes, and the total time and energy I spent actually stays about the same. Furthermore, speaking of winning more supporters, fighting on more different fronts does not equal to winning more supporters; for foreigners who are accustomed to living in freedom and democracy, they might not have any particular profound feelings for the demands and views on freedom by the likes of these Hong Kong personalities. It's very probable that they won't actually be able to convince much, which in turn becomes the weakening of time and human resources [were they to turn up on English TV].

This is only one of many reasons. The key point is that "fighting every battle on every front to win as many supporters as you can" is a really harsh request; if this also makes sense, does this mean that all patriotic Chinese shall all prepare their own vessels and all rush to the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, otherwise they are unpatriotic?

(Original here (Big5 encoding))

posted by: spacehunt on 07.22.05 at 03:47 AM [permalink]




Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?










Disclaimer