香港獨立媒體 - Comments for "編輯室周記：三藩市記事"

i don't think it is a real problem la

and RTHK has several music channels. moving classical music online won't make music disappear (of course i assume most classical music lovers have internet access).

Interest conflict

阿藹："And if frequency is really a problem, than better close one music channel in RTHK in order to give a frequency range for enabling at least a dozen of low power community radio channel."

Oh! Please don't! Life without music is a mistake...

view on hk

hk is a multi cultural and lingual society, up till now, we don't have radio station that serve more than half a million migrant workers from philippines, nepal, and other south asia countries, nor do we have community radio that serve chinese ethnic minorities, such as chiaozhou, fujian and others, nor radio station that serve the micro geographical need, such as tianshuiwai and yuenlong.

most of the new immigrant, housewives, old people and migrant workers don't have access to internet.

this is not trivial. and if citizen radio does not start the civic disobedient act, the license problem doesn't even surface in the public discourse and marginalize groups continue to be silent and be assumed that they don't have the need to express in their own tongue.

Re: objectivity

I think there's no objectivity in policy formulation but there is in policy implementation.

What the government should do is to formulate policies that satisfy most people's want. And in the process there is a clearly-defined "objective" standard.

After the process the policy must be implemented with the clearly-defined guidelines and this is what I call objective.

Similar procedures should be applied to radio licensing. If later when the licensing guidelines are set, no radio stations can claim to be suppressed, whatever their political affiliations are.

Information flow is the key

On one point we have finally come to a mutual agreement is the present license issuing regulations must be revamped. I agree that a clearer guidelines (like what we have in our driving license) must be set.

But unfortunately I cannot agree with you on the point at civic disobedience, as I don't think it is really such a serious case at all. Every reform must take a gradual manner and the opening up of the radio broadcasts is not such an urgent business. And Hong Kong has a very high Internet coverage, and Wong and his supports can set up their own radio channels online. Why must they deliberately break the law for such a trivial matter (to me and a lot of people, as seen from people's support for their disobedience.)?

In Mexico maybe local community radio stations can really help preserve the local culture, as some Mexican people does not enjoy such a free flow of information. (Still, I think being backed by strong organisations is very dangerous if there are criminals or triads involved.) But actually why must Hong Kong people express and receive information, or exchange views with each other through the community radios? After all Hong Kong is a lot smaller than Mexico, and information flow here is a lot easier and convenient.

there is no way to get a community radio license

please read carefully what i had said. at present there is no way, no way for any one in hk to get a low power community radio license because the gov't won't open up frequencies and set up co-ordinating body. that's why civic radio has to do the illegal civil disobedient act.

the gov do have a license system for high power radio, like commercial and metro radio, which requires millions to get register. and now all frequencies had been occupied. however for low power radio, just read the UNESCO reports, the frequency argument cannot stand because all it takes is frequency coordination to prevent jamming. regulation is needed of course, but we are not in that stage yet.

And if frequency is really a problem, than better close one music channel in RTHK in order to give a frequency range for enabling at least a dozen of low power community radio channel.

客觀條件

路牌也有人爭拗吧，為何 99 合法而 101 是非法？可是，那是無爭議的客觀吧。

這個牌照要求不可能是為了滿足大多數的，我以台灣為例，我們可以設立制度去「滿足大多數」，我亦不認為部分賣春藥的地下電台是對的，可是以「滿足大多數」打壓有政治意識的地下電台，這個道理能講得通嗎？

Objectivity varies with people

"客觀條件" is easy to say in words but different people hold different views when it comes to the word "objective"

What I think the government should do is to make clearer guidelines on issuing a license. But such guidelines can be objective to some,while subjective to some (If you ask Raymond Wong Yuk-man whether the government is right in any case, he always speak no by skepticism.) So to me this is not a question of objectivity, but one of how to satisfy as most people as possible. (most people agree with something =/= objectivity)

And I quote the example of driving licenses to support a regulation does not mean limiting people's speech.

Opening up the air-wave=/= no licenses for radio broadcasts

I think what you are trying to say is that the present situation requiring a license is a way by the government to curb people's freedom to express their views, and their excuses are technical reasons. (correct me if I got it wrong)

But I hold a very different view from you here. Ensuring freedom of speech must come with a regulation, through which the government can ensure that the radio stations are broadcasting the proper information i.e they are not spreading messages from the criminals, lunatic fringes which emphasize racial discrimination or even violence, and people's constitutional rights to speak does not mean they can spread the above messages.

I think technical reasons are really excuses as the actual reasons as I mentioned above cannot be told directly. Perhaps that could be part of the reasons, but I think the regulation is of higher importance.

As I have commented last time, you justify the presence of civic radio by quoting relevant examples in Mexico. You said they were backed by nation-wide organisations and the government did not dare arrest the operators. And this leads to the potential danger I have been mentioning. What if these radio stations air messages from the criminals? As sometimes the organisations backing the radio stations can be connected to the triads.

I am afraid I cannot agree with your views that freedom of speech must come with no radio regulations. (correct me if I got you wrong)

車牌與電台牌

我看車版與電台牌是不一樣的。如果領電台牌好像領車領一樣，只申請者需要合乎客觀條件即可，好像領車牌一樣，咁樣是無乜人會爭議的。問題在於事實並不是這樣，這樣牌照的意義便不只是「right order」，而是怎樣的「right order」。

同埋，「right order」與需要牌照是兩回事，例如社工根本不應是有需要註冊的職業。

not justifiy

for what i said about chiapas is descriptive in nature. they are illegal and they are doing a lot of great work without fearing that the gov't would close it down because of people's support. whereas in hk, everyone knows that the civic radio is a civic disobedient act to challenge the monopoly of radio frequency and license. there is no way, at present in hk to apply for a low power community radio frequency because the hk gov use technical reason (that frequencies are all occupied) to control people's broadcast. however, it only takes a co-ordination body to solve low radio frequency community radio broadcast. if we have enough people's support, the civic disobedient act of citizen radio would be more successful for opening up the air-wave resource to people.

if the gov still refuse to open up public access of radio frequency with a frequency coordinating bodies, a larger scale civil disobedient act is necessary, in this case, the chiapas experience is a useful reference to people's resistance here.

有點不明白

"我[...]提出新聞媒體要與讀者重新建立關係，不是生意和市場的關係，而是建基於對社會議題的共同關懷，讀者才會願意支持。"

所謂市場導向, 不就是只報道社會共同關懷的議題嗎?

Radio Broadcast must be with a licence

"Lux 來自墨西哥 Chiapas 地區，她是一個社區電台網絡的組織者，這個網絡有大大小小近五十個小電台，每一個都由當地婦女組織起來，服務當地居民。這些電台婦女，都很有政治意識，不單回應社區事務，亦決意保留當地的小數族群文化。還有的是，它們都是非法電台，因為有地方的力量示威，亦有全國性的網絡組織作後盾，政府不敢碰它們半條汗毛。這令我想起香港人丁單薄的民間電台，當然現在打的是司法戰，但若民間力量手瓜夠大，於香港十八區搞低功率的社區電台，並設立頻譜協調機制，成功開放大氣電波的機會會更大。"

I am really not sure if you are really independent. First, it is illogical for you to justify the illegal "civic radio"by quoting the presence of illegal radio broadcasts in Mexico. What if I push for the legalisation of guns in Hong Kong by quoting the presence of related laws in the US? And being backed by bigger organisations does not mean they are representing the majority of people's will. This is especially dangerous for such radio stations, as the government does not have the guts to arrest these law breakers--what if these radios broadcast messages from the triads? And the government cannot do much as you have said.

And there must be an mechanism to make sure that radio broadcasts are in right order. Take the car license issuing as a example. It is clear that freedom of owning a license must come with the related safety precautionary measures, like examinations and road tests. Freedom is not an excuse for abandoning all other necessary measures, and in the case of illegal broadcasting, a mechanism must be present or otherwise hundreds or even thousands of radio stations, whose content cannot be supervised by the authority, will create a big trouble and great stability.

I support freedom of speech and expression, but I also support a necessary mechanism to maintain law and order. Your example in Mexico is not a piece of supporting argument for the illegal broadcasting in Hong Kong, I am afraid but I must be frank.

One more thing...

"我[...]提出新聞媒體要與讀者重新建立關係，不是生意和市場的關係，而是建基於對社會議題的共同關懷，讀者才會願意支持。"

That's exactly the point. All the talk about business model, delivery method, etc., are secondary issues that muddy the discussion concerning the root cause of the problem. You can have the best business model in the world but if it's built on a house of cards, i.e., if the media don't wake up and do what they're supposed to do, you'll still fail in the long run. "對社會議題的共同關懷" doesn't necessary cause journalists to lose their independence; on the contrary, a genuine concern over social/political issues would encourage the presentations of multiple viewpoints, fair coverage of all sides to the story, etc. Right now there's a total lack of this kind of "關懷", as most people in the trade are bending over backwards not to touch the sacred cows, fearing that doing so would result in the loss of their jobs.

I'm glad that 阿藹 raised that point at the meeting.

錯別字

第二段, "薪籌"應是"薪酬", "拉底"應是"拉低". (民記要專業嘛!)