I am very grateful to Ms Claudia MO for proposing this motion which enables me to speak on the incident of LI Wei-ling from my personal experience. It seems to be rubbing salt into the wound to speak on the incident of LI Wei-ling now, but I think my personal experience can help Members better understand the incident. I guess what I am going to say today may draw many more unreasonable attacks against me in future, but I have decided to say it all the same.
We always talk about freedom of the press, or we may call it “editorial independence” from another angle. But have Members noticed that in the whole idea of journalism, freedom of the press has a conjoined twin brother called “media ethics”? They are combined to form an integral whole. Where there is freedom, there must definitely be ethics. If we only stress freedom to the neglect of ethics, there will be abuse of power by journalists or worse still, media hegemony, sooner or later. Journalists have great responsibilities and great powers, and their neglect of media ethics can result in serious problems. According to the “Joint Code of Ethics of the 4 Journalistic Organizations” published online by the Hong Kong Journalists Association, section (1) stated that “Journalists should handle news information with an attitude of seeking truth, fairness, objectivity, impartiality and comprehensiveness. Journalists should strive to ensure accuracy of their reports. They should not mislead the public by quoting out of context, distorting facts or twisting original meaning.” Many of my friends in the media have maintained these fine traditions but as a matter of fact, only journalists with conscience will abide by these rules on their own initiative. When there are journalists who act in defiance of media ethics, it will be downright impossible for society to exercise monitoring on them because any criticism will be alleged as interference with freedom of the press, which is a heinous crime.
Today, as we discuss the incident of LI Wei-ling, it is inevitable for us to discuss this person of LI Wei-ling and her approach in hosting her programme, because these factors will have a direct bearing on our judgement on the incident. Considering that LI Wei-ling was the host of an important radio programme, I think her style of hosting the programme was biased, and I would even say that her views were one-sided without seeing the whole picture, breaching quite a lot of rules by the standard of media ethics. Some journalists of Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company Limited (Commercial Radio), including front-line journalists and those in the senior management, had rung me up before to arrange for an interview with me. When I expressed concern about whether Commercial Radio would report my remarks impartially, they immediately made a clean break with LI Wei-ling, stating that they belonged to the news department whereas LI Wei-ling belonged to the programme department. They stressed that they are professional journalists and would certainly treat everyone fairly, and they eventually did live up to their words.
However, how can the general public distinguish between the news department and the programme department? Of course, the programme department of Commercial Radio also have hosts who are fair and impartial. Hong Kong people receive information mainly through various media channels. Journalists are in control of a social instrument. Apart from monitoring the Government, it is also a very important function of the media to provide the facts, in order for the public to fully grasp the truth and then make a response to various developments in society. Therefore, if the media provides information selectively or makes biased comments, the public will definitely be affected and hence respond differently.
Let me cite a recent example to illustrate this point. Last month, there was an incident in which the tourists on a cruise liner refused to disembark. LI Wei-ling’s assistant called my office asking me to comment on the compensation issues relating to cruise insurance in LI Wei-ling’s programme. In reply to her assistant, I said that as there was not much time left before her programme going on air and as cruise insurance was rather specialized, I would need time to get hold of the details of the policies underwritten by different insurers in order not to mislead the public. I, therefore, suggested that I would refer an expert on cruise insurance for them to do the interview. Then I immediately contacted the Hong Kong Federation of Insurers, asking them to arrange for an expert to do an interview with Commercial Radio. Although the Federation could not arrange for an expert for the interview, a written reply was provided and her assistant was also notified by phone. Recently, her assistant confirmed to me that the written reply had been given to LI Wei-ling. The Federation also informed me that the written reply was actually provided to other media organizations in Hong Kong as well. Subsequently, I was busy making enquiries with various experts about the differences in compensation while providing answers to enquiries from the media.
Later, Ming Pao Daily News (Ming Pao) also reported the information provided by me. I have with me now a news report and as Members can see, Ming Pao has made quite a long report on this incident. Ming Pao’s report outshone others in that apart from reporting the views of members of the insurance industry, they also took the initiative to glean information from the websites of various insurance companies and so, they made a very comprehensive report. LI Wei-ling’s remark that the insurance industry did not give a response in respect of this incident is incorrect. Regrettably, LI Wei-ling did not mention the written reply at all in her programme but only attacked me and the insurance industry, criticizing us for refusing to make comments. A few days later she even passed strictures on us again in her newspaper column. This made me feel that she was not genuinely concerned about the tourists on the cruise liner. Had she been concerned about the tourists, she would have cited from the written reply of the Federation and provided general information on compensation. She did not do that. All she had done was to chide other people for not agreeing to an interview in her programme. This is entirely not reporting facts, but distorting facts.
Indeed, it is very difficult for me to agree that LI Wei-ling is a professional journalist. I only feel that she has made use of the public instrument to serve her own purpose, using the radio and her newspaper column to attack me and the functional constituencies. I have also heard many Members and officials indicate that they would not accept an interview with her because they have had too many unhappy or unreasonable experiences. I always hold that a professional radio host or public affairs commentator can, compared with a journalist, express more independent opinions and even challenge the authority but this must be done on the premise of upholding media ethics. I have been interviewed by Commercial Radio and other radio hosts before and although they put to me equally sharp questions, they could broadly respect the facts and uphold impartiality, thus enabling us to freely speak our minds and clearly express our views. One thing about LI Wei-ling which has given cause for criticism is that she would do all the talking without giving others a chance to speak. It is learnt that even when the interviewees had hung up, they were still criticized by her unilaterally without having a chance to refute her.
Apart from the recent incident of the cruise liner, I have done few interviews with her but I still feel that I am targeted by her. I recall that back in September 2008 ― I was elected a Member of the Legislative Council for the first time then but would swear in only in October and so, I had yet officially taken up office, and I did not know very well the operation of the media back then ― there was the AIG incident and many media would like to know what actions should be taken by those people who had taken out insurance policies with the company. That was an extremely sensitive issue because the insurance company concerned had 2 million policies and if I provided incorrect information or opinions, it might give rise to a crisis similar to a bank run. So, only the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI) which knew the company’s financial position would be in a position to give opinions. Therefore, I immediately requested the OCI to hold a press conference on that day and the OCI agreed to hold a press conference at five o’clock in the afternoon that day. My office also informed all the media of the press conference and invited their attendance. However, LI Wei-ling arbitrarily attacked me in her programme that day. What is more, she said in her column that my whereabouts could not be located and went further to say that she had to put up search notices to find me. What she said was so cynical and mean that even my relatives and friends were upset on hearing it, and they even asked me why the media would adopt such practices in news reporting.
LI Wei-ling would certainly feel bad about her dismissal by Commercial Radio, but she should take the opportunity to do some soul-searching and learn to be more professional. The most important objective of conducting an interview is to provide accurate and professional information to members of the public and to this end, she should provide sufficient time and details of the questions to the interviewees for them to make preparations, rather than making use of the airwaves and newspaper column to attack other people. In fact, despite her different political views, she should respect the views of other people because the freedom of speech is very important.
I believe this incident of her dismissal has nothing to do with freedom of the press. According to media reports, LI Wei-ling was dismissed probably for three reasons: First, she was on bad terms with her boss and superiors; second, the listening rate of her programme kept falling; and third, LI Wei-ling wanted to switch job and in fact, LI Wei-ling started to host a programme for another radio in no time. Therefore, the allegation of silencing voices is not substantiated as there is still room for her to voice her views in the market. Besides, if it is true that she was at odds with her boss and superiors, even in a media corporation, the lack of mutual trust would make it difficult for them to co-operate with each other any longer in reality. The last point is a falling listening rate. While there is no way to verify this point, I would say that this is within my expectation. I have heard many friends say that while listening to her programme might at first have the effect of sensory stimulation as it was kind of fun to listen to her chiding other people, they gradually found that her programme was invariably pointing an accusing finger at other people. They said that this had given them a very negative feeling and they, therefore, gradually stopped listening to it. So, a decreasing number of listeners is very likely the case. These three reasons may be the truth of her dismissal and so, please do not put the halo of freedom of the press on your head, or else this is only an insult to freedom of the press.
I have spent so much time making an analysis mainly to make it clear that the incident of LI Wei-ling is only a labour dispute or a dispute over personnel matters with more complications. Some people have attempted to link this incident with freedom of the press, suggesting that the incident has to do with the licence renewal of Commercial Radio. Their only objective is to politicize the incident in order to serve their own purposes. In fact, even if there is no LI Wei-ling in Commercial Radio, I do not think the freedom of speech of Commercial Radio will be jeopardized, and the radio hosts of Commercial Radio can still continue to speak their minds freely. I hope LI Wei-ling will understand that unless she changes her hostile and lopsided attitude, I will not agree to do an interview with her.
I always try to be kind to others in getting along with people and going about things, but I have a deep aversion to people who are deliberately provocative, who have selfish aims and who make use of public instruments for private purposes. It is because there are these people in society that Hong Kong has degenerated amidst attacks and struggles. If, in future, LI Wei-ling no longer writes in any column, I hope society will not lightly link it with freedom of the press.
Deputy President, I oppose invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into this incident because the causes of the incident are already quite clear. I so submit.