其實不少當地朋友都說 chronicle 是一份很糟的報紙，它的消失，除了一大堆人失業外，對社區來說 nothing to lose. 現在所謂勞，資和投資者三方的方案，到最後大概會是裁員減薪＋多幾份廣告式 supplement＋互聯網來解決。。。因為似乎投資方仍然希望把報紙推向以市場為主導的 business model。

其實當天的討論都有一些評論說 investigative report 在市場化下的消亡，但新媒體的運作特性又不能做好相關的報導，如何填補這個空白，是傳統媒體和新媒體都要思考的。

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

"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.

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.

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)

cc

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？

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.

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.

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).