The title of “Director of Broadcasting” should be renamed

    I am not and have never been a staff member of the RTHK. But as a member of the Hong Kong news media, I feel obliged to explain to readers outside of the industry why I think the appointment of an administrative officer (AO) to head the public broadcaster is a problem.

    Undoubtedly, RTHK has a unique status among all media outlets in the city, as the broadcaster is also a government department. Some argue that the appointment of an AO as the Director of Broadcasting (DB) is fine because it is in line with the practice for other government departments. I would have agreed with this viewpoint had the job nature of the DB been administrative, i.e. if the DB were the chief administrator of an official organ which executed Hong Kong’s broadcasting policies. But is that the case?

    With full acknowledgement of the RTHK’s status as part of the government structure, let’s draw comparison from another department in our administration. For example, the Director of Leisure and Cultural Services heads the Department of Leisure and Cultural Services, which executes the government’s policies on leisure and cultural services. I believe most would agree that she does not need the knowledge of a librarian or the skills of a professional swimmer to oversee the operation of libraries and swimming pools run by her department.

    Now, let’s look at the role of the Director of Broadcasting. Does he head something called the Department of Broadcasting? No, such a department does not exist. Does he regulate broadcasters in Hong Kong? No, that is the job of the Broadcasting Authority. What he leads is one of the broadcasters in the city. Then what is his role in RTHK? Clauses C (8) and (9) of the RTHK Charter clearly that the director is the editor-in-chief of RTHK, and is responsible for making final editorial decisions. That is to say, the job is a professional, not purely administrative in nature.

    Unlike the Director of Leisure of Cultural Services, who has a professional Chief Librarian as her subordinate, the Director of Broadcasting himself performs the professional duties as the Editor-in-Chief of radio and television services. That is the key of the issue.

    Some critics have argued that the RTHK staff union’s opposition of Mr. Roy Tang’s appointment amounted to an unreasonable complaint, or that Mr. Tang “should be given a chance” to perform before being judged whether he was suitable for the position. With due respect to their opinion, I am afraid those who hold such a view have missed the point. While it is perfectly fine to appoint a brilliant business executive without any medical training as the CEO of the Hospital Authority, it would pose a threat to patients’ health and lives if such a person was appointed as the chief surgeon, who makes final decisions on medical operations. If the misleading title of the “Director of Broadcasting” could be renamed the “Editor-in-Chief of RTHK” to properly reflect the job nature, I believe the general public would appreciate the rationale behind the campaign for the appointment of a professional to take up the role. Or if the government insists there should be a “Director of Broadcasting”, strip all editorial work from the duty list of the post.