(SCMP; no link)

The wife of a Sun Hung Kai Properties tycoon was warned by police after an altercation with a member of the cabin crew during a Cathay Pacific flight from Japan to Hong Kong on Sunday night.  A police spokesman said a dispute between a female passenger and a member of the crew over the storage of luggage prompted the pilot to call police after the aircraft landed at Chek Lap Kok.  The police spokesman did not identify the passenger. The dispute was later settled but police issued a verbal warning.

However, a spokeswoman for Sun Hung Kai Properties said Helen Kwok, the wife of vice-chairman and managing director Raymond Kwok Ping-luen, had a headache during the flight and needed some medication.  She said that Mrs Kwok had a misunderstanding with the crew and that the incident had now been resolved.  The company spokeswoman would not confirm whether police were involved.

The above may be politically and factually correct, but it is also staid and unexciting.    Actually, it is missing the real story altogether.  You should try the two top local Chinese-language newspapers instead, where this was their front-page story.

(Apple Daily)  On July 29, Helen Kwok and family were taking Cathay Pacific flight CX 581 from Japan to Hong Kong.  At around 8pm, the A330 was preparing to land in Hong Kong and the air stewardesses began to walk down the aisles to ask the passengers to straighten their seat backs and put their luggage into the luggage compartments.  A veteran stewardess walked by Helen Kwok's seat and asked her to put her handbag (which measures 12" by 12") into the overhead compartment.  But Helen Kwok said: "I won't.  I am always like this each time!"  The stewardess informed Helen Kwok that this was a regulation designed by Cathay Pacific for safety purposes.  She even volunteered to put the handbag into the compartment.  Helen Kwok said:  "What kind of regulation is this?"  The stewardess informed the pilot, who was too busy with the landing preparations and only used the radio to inform the airport security staff.  When the airplane landed at 8:23pm, the security came on board and learned about the story.  Although Helen Kwok had already disembarked, she was still in the restricted area and she was intercepted and taken to the airport police station for interrogation.

Neither the stewardess nor the pilot knew the identity of this female passenger who refused to separate from her handbag.  The stewardess is worried that she may be punished by Cathay Pacific for offending this wealthy customer.

On the Internet, Helen Kwok has already earned the title "Airplane Sister" in the manner of "Bus Uncle."

[in translation]

... On July 26, Guilin Daily published a news report titled <Guilin begins clean-up of rule-breaking tour agencies and guides> in which the recent city government's actions with respect to the tour industry were described in detail.  The report caused the affected tour guides to petition at the city government for three consecutive days.  The tour guides presented their views and asked for certain unreasonable conditions to be changes.  These assemblies created a great deal of nervousness.  On July 29, Guilin Daily and the reporter who wrote the story apologized publicly to the tour agencies and guides for the "bad influence" created by their news story.

It is reasonable to speculate that this public apology was intended to mollify the affected local tour guides and calm things down.  The perplexing thing is that the neither the official information nor the public apology itself carried a single word about the exact reason for apologizing.  The outside world is left clueless and probably thinks that the local tour guides were petitioning against a news report.

Yet everyone familiar with the local tour market knows that the local tour guides were petitioning for survival in the aftermath of the media exposure over the bad practices in the industry ... There is plenty of competition in the industry, but the corresponding supervision is missing.  The tour agencies offer very low prices to attract customers, using zero-fee (or even subsidied) tour packages.  But these low price tour groups could not satisfy the financial needs of the tour agencies, guides, drivers and shopping outlets at the same time.  The tour guides happen to be the most vulnerable group.  They cannot obtain a share from the tour group fees.  Instead, they are forced to pre-pay the tour agencies in order to be assigned to lead groups.  Therefore, their sole sources of income come from bringing tourists to high-priced shopping outlets or scenic spots that charge additional fees.  These are the well-known ills within the tour industry.

So why did Guilin Daily have to apologize publicly?  The original report was a steady and cautious commentary that completely fitted with the official position.  The case studies that were cited came from the files of the local tourism quality control board and they were presented in the tone of a government supervisory agency.  The report even cited the city party committee's directive "to clean up the tour industry and expose whatever needs to be exposed."  There is no doubt about the political correctness of that report.

But such a news report that is anchored in the ruling ideology may not fit the causes and effects around the incident as well as the interests at play.  Such a report only presents the government action while ignoring the reaction of those who are affected; it represents only the will of the administration while ignoring the demands of those who are affected.  The net outcome is that the media function to relieve social pressure is reduced.  Insetad, the media became a magnifier for social conflicts.  Not only did the media fail to become a buffer zone between the government and the industry, they actually injected themselves into the conflict.  The Guilin tour guides had to petition directly because the media abandoned their public functions and intensified the conflict instead.  If the newspapers had also described the situation and demands of the industry while they reported on the government clean-up campaign, things might not have gone so far.

The public apology by Guilin Daily illustrates the embarrassment that can come when the media lose their objectivity and fairness.  The lack of freedom for the media (as well as their own willingingness to comply) is also the reason why they are forced to give up their dignity and be sacrificed.  Since they don't have professionalism, dignity becomes a false issue ...

(SCMP)  Carrie Lam faces blood and jeers at the pier.  By Olga Wong.  July 30, 2007.

Secretary for Development Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor took part in an unprecedented and passionate public debate with heritage activists yesterday over the fate of Queen's Pier.  Facing protesters' jeers, hunger strikers and petitions written in blood, the new minister stood firm, saying the decision to demolish the pier was the right one ... "She did walk into the crowd, but she has not listened to us," one protester said.  Yesterday's forum was the first time a government minister had spoken directly to the public about heritage conservation.

 (The Standard)  Death knell on pier.  By Una So.  July 30, 2007.

Lam was booed and cheered as she spoke at Radio Television Hong Kong's live broadcast of City Forum and later at a public forum organized by activists, three of whom have been on hunger strike since Friday in protest against the pier's demolition.  As she stepped onto the stage surrounded by walls of police officers, catcalls and cheers broke out among the crowd which jampacked the pier, with the moderator asking the audience whether the government owed the people of Hong Kong anything if the pier is pulled down by as early as tomorrow.  ... A man in a Star Ferry clock tower costume and wearing a T-shirt with Chinese-language characters reading "Repeating the mistakes" walked behind Lam as she spoke.  

... City Forum was punctuated with loud jeers and insults from elderly members of the audience, but most were in support of Lam and the demolition of what they called the "ugly pier from the colonial days."

(Apple Daily)

"Watch the people hold hands to fight for justice and liberty ..."  More than 500 people were singing civil movement songs to "welcome" Mrs. Lam.  In the first round, Carrie Lam reiterated that she came to forum with the assumption that there was no way to go back on the decision.  "Because this would be raising the hopes up only to let it fall down again."  The audience booed.  Lam smiled and said: "We officials like to leave after we speak, as opposed to be the last one to leave."  The booing got even louder.  Raymond Wong said: "You describe yourself as an official in every sentence!"  Lam said: "It is not easy mixing with the people."  Leung Man-tao said: "I have no idea why  you bother to come today.  You have used the work 'respect' seven times, but you tell us that there can be no discussion over the demolition of the pier.  Is this called 'mixing with the people'?"  Ng Chi-sum said that Lam had not provided anything to convince the crowd.  "This is just a public relations show."  Lau Mung-hung said: "If the pyramid can be relocated in Egypt, why can't Queen's Pier?"  A representative for foreign domestic helpers said that they government never consulted the domestic helpers who show up every Sunday at Queen's Pier.

Then a young man on hunger strike told Lam: "The prior government decision was wrong, so why carry it out now?  This kind of environment protection is destructive, and is equal to the massacre of Queen's Pier."  Lam attempted to make an appeal by narrating her own experience in social movements during her own university days.  This drew shouts of "hypocrisy" and "well spoken" from downstage.

At the end of the forum, demonstrators used blood to write the words "Wrong Again" and tried to deliver it to Mrs. Lam, who was surrounded by a phalanx of about 10 uniformed and plainclothes police officers.  During the chaos, the letter was ripped apart.

Carrie Lam attended two meetings at Queen's Pier yesterday.  At the RTHK's City Forum, representatives from various professional groups expressed their support for Lam.  A large number "Victoria Park" uncles also came to Queen's Pier to yell "Demolish it!" and condemn the preservationists as "Chinese traitors 漢 奸."

If one suggestion from the above was about "putting on a show," then we need to be clear about just who has been putting on shows.  In the preceding report, Carrie Lam is putting on a show by making an appearance to talk to the people when in fact there is no way that the decision could be reversed.  That is putting on a show for the public just to show that she is "approachable" when in fact she is not.  But Carrie Lam is not the only person putting on a show.
 
For the first other show, you have to consider the "letter-written-in-blood."  So some people put on a show for the media to use their own blood to write a letter, which was promptly ripped up during the attempt to deliver it to Carrie Lam.  Please consider: If the letter could not be delivered to Carrie Lam, then nothing happens; if the letter was successfuly delivered to Carrie Lam, then ... nothing happens because she has already said that the decision has been made.  Then why did they do it?  It was a media show, one way or the other.  It had no material impact, but it just make the news program on TVB and Cable TV.
 
Hey, but there was another show that didn't even get reported in mainstream media.  In Wong Onyin's blog, he noted that Hong Kong Legislative Council member Leung Kwok-hung was seen at 2:30pm and then he vanished before re-appearing at 4:30pm with a banner (see photograph at Wong's blog).  The banner obstructed the public view and it fell apart on its own several minutes later.  So this was another sideshow that none of the mainstream media cared to report because it was so irrelevant.

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's ( 馬英九 ) trial over alleged misuse of his mayoral allowance has been enveloped in controversy over accusations that Prosecutor Hou Kuan-jen ( 侯寬仁 ) doctored the transcript of a witness' testimony. However, the audio recording of the deposition in question is not clear enough to be conclusive and Ma will have a hard time using it to convince a court he has been a victim of political persecution.

The disputed recording is of Hou's interview with former Taipei City Government treasurer Wu Li-ju ( 吳麗洳 ). The questions related to whether Ma's mayoral allowance was used for public expenses. Prosecutors hope to use Wu's testimony to prove that she mistakenly reimbursed Ma from the fund because she incorrectly deemed the receipts he provided to be valid and that this constitutes embezzlement on the former mayor's part.

In listening to the recording, it is apparent that although Hou frequently clarified his questions, Wu often replied with only "Hmm, hmm" or "Yes, yes." It is not clear from this response whether Wu was answering Hou's questions or indicating that she understood or simply heard them. Furthermore, both Wu and Hou cut each other off when talking, with the witness sometimes answering questions without waiting for the prosecutor to finish.

Because of the alleged discrepancies between the written and recorded deposition, Ma's lawyers accuse Hou of being biased against Ma, and having already made up his mind about the case. They have even threatened to sue Hou for forgery, malfeasance and abuse of power ... Ma's legal team has released selected parts of the recording to the media in an attempt to attack Hou. This political tactic suggests contempt for the court. As a former justice minister, Ma should know better than to attempt to manipulate public opinion and influence the judiciary in this way. His lawyers, meanwhile, may yet face disciplinary action from the National Bar Association.

Do you know what those "discrepancies" between the transcripts and the audio recordings were?  Will you just take the word from Taipei Times for what happened?

Here is the parts that were listed in Next Weekly:

Transcript:
Q: Must the special fee be spent only for official purposes?
A: Yes.  That's right.

Audio:
Q: Must the special fee be spent only for official purposes?
A: I'm not sure.  The mayor is probably unaware of this rule.

Transcript:
Q: Do you apply the seal only if the mayor took the money and spent it for official purposes?
A: Yes.

Audio:
Q: Do you apply the seal only if the mayor took the money and spent it for official purposes?
A: I've never thought about this problem.  Actually, the special fee was not clearly spelled out.

Transcript:
Q: If the mayor took the money but did not spend it, will you apply the seal?
A: As long as the mayor took the money, we would stamp it.

Audio:
Q: If the mayor took the money but did not spend it, will you apply the seal?
A: We do not think about whether this is for official or personal reasons.  As the payer, we do not think about whether the money was for official or personal reasons.

Transcript:
Q: Because there are official expenses, that was how special fees come in?
A: Yes.

Audio:
Q: Because there are official expenses, that was how special fees come in?
A: I totally forgot.  I wouldn't ... I can't remember.

Transcript:
Q: If you find that the mayor did not spend the money, or he did not spend all of it, would you apply the seal?
A: If we know that it was faked, we obviously could not stamp it.  But if the mayor stamped the form, we obviously believe that the mayor will follow rule number three on the form.  He has to bear responsibilty on the truthfulness of the original form.

Audio:
Q: If you find that the mayor did not spend the money, or he did not spend all of it, would you apply the seal?  You should ... you should ... you wouldn't stamp it.  Let us say that if you discover that, you wouldn't stamp it.
A: (...)
Q: Let us hypothesize.  There is a receipt which you know was forged.  Then you wouldn't stamp it.
A: Of course.
Q: So it means that same thing.  I know what you mean.  The form is obviously genuine.
A: No.  If he puts his seal on the form, we will verify and issue.
Q: Yes.  Let me hypothesize ... 

These examples were deliberately selected and may not prove malice on the part of the prosecutor.  Nevertheless, the quality of the transcription work is simply not acceptable.  Transcription should not be this shoddy because it is relatively easy to do (compared to translation, for example).

[in translation]

The distinction between the "cardboard steam bun incident" and the "stepmother mistreating stepdaughter incident" does not lie on whether the news is true or false, but on their influence.  Both incidents were manufactured news.  But the creator of the "cardboard steam bun incident" is under criminal custody while the creator of the "evil stepmother" can come out and explain that he was motivated to help treat the child's ailment.  He received broad understanding and sympathy for his "well-intended lie."

If we think about this more, we will remember that certain fake news have been accepted and praised before.  For example, certain biographies of heroes and stories of model workers were dubious, but they were still strongly promoted.  In mainstream media, we often read that "the conference ended in a swell note," "the situation is fantastically well," "the disaster victims were delighted," "every Chinese child became irate" and so on.  These clearly will not withstand scrutiny, but they continue to occupy the front page headlines and take the top journalism prizes.  These stories are accepted and praised not because they are the most truthful, but because they have "good effects."

Perhaps there really are "well-meaning lies" in the world.  But at least with respect to news reporting, I firmly supported the sentence used in the notice from the three government departments including the Central Publicity Department: "We will resolutely put a stop to false news."  From the wording, this sentence should obviously be interested as follows: All false news must not be tolerated, irrespective of whether it was well-intended or malicious and whether its influence was bad or wonderful.  In terms of philosophy, it is still an open question whether a objective truth can exist.  But in terms of communication studies, objective truth is still the first aim of news reporting and it is the accepted standard.  Truth in news reporting requires the reporter to do his best to describe the facts accurately, as opposed to designing the news based upon the best effects.

Several years ago, the established newspaper <New York Times> exposed that its reporter Jayson Blair had manufactured many news stories.  They announced solemnly that this was the greatest shame in their 150 year history, and the chief editor resigned as a resign.  What did this reporter actually do?  Based upon our standards, his manufactured stories cannot be said to have "bad influence."  For example, he made up the life history of a criminal suspect, he made up an interview with the father of a wartime hero, etc.  These stories matched people's logical expectations and did not have the sensationalism of the "cardboard buns" or "evil stepmother."  But as far as news is concerned, any kind of manufacturing is shameful regardless of its effects.

Culturally speaking, we do not have a tradition for seeking the truth.  Instead, we are more interested in effects.  Therefore, it will not be easy to put a stop to fake news.  Not only must the leaders change their ideas, but the people have to reflect whether they cannot tolerate false news with bad consequences because they once applauded and cheered false news with good consequences?  If the media become used to telling lies, they may be well-intended today but there is no guarantee that they won't do evil tomorrow.  Evil false news should be condemned, but only when the well-intended false news are also considered shameful will the principle for truth in news take root and grow. 

[in translation]

... I didn't want to get involved in this matter, but I have some opinions about certain values being reflected here.  First of all, the Ming Pao editor published a newspaper essay in which she connected the way in which netizens shared Japanese adult videos over the Internet through BT seeds with the increase in sex crimes among young people.  This is a totally irresponsible deduction.  Please do not forget that this article appears in a newspaper that prints the words "Number 1 in public trust" on its front page every day.  When she wrote the words, did she have any data or evidence that supported her conclusion?  Did she have any objective data and research?  Did she have a second source?  If she just wrote whatever came to her head without any objective supporting data, then her idea that the AV-seeding netizens are nurturing new AV actors may be idle speculation.  It is one thing for this essay to appear in Apple Daily and Oriental, because it will allow the Communications Department professors and lecturers to criticize these untrustworthy newspapers even more.  But this essay appears in the newspaper which is "Number 1 in public trust."  How shall the professors and lecturers explain to their students?

Even more striking was the ignorance and prejudice of the essay-writer about adult videos.  If you have read Tong Ching-siu's book <The AV Scene>, you would understand the professional attitude of the Japanese hold towards AV.  All AV workers, including the actresses, actors and directors, regard their work with professionalism.  In the foreword to <The AV Scene> by Leung Man-tao: "It does not matter how you judge adult videos in terms of the moral value, I feel that you must first try to understand it.  I have read many essays that analyze adult videos.  I must say that they are very detailed, in which the angle of each scene is described in detail.  This is like a close reading of a work of literature.  But like so many cultural studies, they pay too much attention to the product from the cultural industry while they have too little understanding of the production method and process.  Before you know it, it becomes their own fictional ideas about the product.  The remarkable thing about Tong Ching-siu's <The AV scene> is that it is the first Chinese-language book about the AV industry."  When the Ming Pao editor concluded that AV caused the proliferation of sex crimes among Hong Kong youth, did she try to understand AV like Leung Man-tao and Tong Ching-siu do?  Do young people really want to become AV stars after watching some AV?  Based upon the same logic, if the youngsters read the rape stories in newspapers (including the newspaper that is "Number 1 in public trust" which is allowed into the schools), will they become rapists through imitation as well?

As for the so-called cyber bullying, frankly speaking, how much can the netizens do?  Alter photographs?  Look up your private details?  Apart from some personal annoyance, what else is there?  (I have gone through the same thing and I deleted my old blog in order not to get involved in certain disputes on the Internet)  But an essay was published in a newspaper and it may lead to government intercession.  The accused will not be subjected to just minor challenges about altered photographs and private details, but there may be criminal charges instead.  It goes without say just who is the bully and who is being bullied in this case.

I only wanted to say that Internet culture and ethics are completely different from the traditional media culture and ethics.  You can stay far away from the Internet.  But if you take one step into the Internet, you must respect Internet culture and ethics, no matter whether you agree with them or not.  This represents the progress of scientific technology and our times ... 

[in translation]

Recently, the case of Nike fans lambasting the Ming Pao editor was a hot topic on the Internet.  As someone experienced in such matters, I obviously want to join the party.

The history of the case has already been entered into the Hong Kong Internet Encyclopedia: On July 17, 2007, Zhou Li wrote an essay titled "Just Do It" in Ming Pao's supplement section.  She wrote sarcastically about the adult video uploader Nike and blamed the youth sex crimes on the proliferation of adult videos uploaded by people like Nike ... many forum discussants thought that it was unfair, unreasonable and irresponsible for Zhou Li to attribute most of the blame on Nike while completely ignoring the roles of the parents and the media.   Furthermore she stereotyped all AV-watching netizens as Densha Otoko (電車男) while saying, "every Asian Densha Otoko (電車男) has a nike link in his heart."

If Zhou Li wants to criticize something or censure someone in her Ming Pao column (which is her platform), she is free to do so.  As to whether she was fair and reasonable in what she wrote, that is a later story.  It the netizens read her essay, became upset and they went to their own platforms (namely, the discussion forums on the Internet) to curse her out, it is also their freedom.  As to whether their language was harsh, that is a later story.  All parties have their own platforms and viewpoints, and they go about their own business.

A few days later, Ming Pao's Internet page editor Mr. Tang Shiu-hang published an essay titled <The Invsible Fists> to inform us about a contemporary Internet term "cyber bullying."  This refers to netizens "using a section of writing by the principal, a photograph or a video clip plus a bit of fabricated information" to insult or even libel the principal.  Thus, the attacks by the netizens against Editor Zhou was a form of "bullying" while she is being presented as the little lamb being "bullied."

By the time that I read to this point, I had to start laughing.

The Media 1.0 era in which the newspaper writers own the say-so is over.  Nowadays, as long as you have an Internet connection and a keyboard, you have the right and platform of expression with equal degree of influence.  Why else would TIME magazine select "You" as the Person of the Year in 2006?

Does Mr. Tang believe that altering Editor Zhou's photograph and distributing it on the Internet is "bullying"?  Suppose I take Chief Executive Donald Tsang photograph and add a moustache, and then this altered photograph is forwarded to friends and relatives as well as posted at the discussion forums.  Am I "bullying" the Chief Executive?  If so, am I not very powerful?  Such juvenile activities can only be said to be idiotic and disrepectful, including being disrespectful to oneself.

Since the articulate Editor Zhou is so contemptuous of the Densha Otoko, then why does she mind the comments at her blog all of a sudden?  Is she being concerned about what these people are saying?  Editor Zhou shut down her blog for a day in order to escape the attacks.  Her blog is her space and there is nothing wrong with her shutting it down.  But can she shut down the innumerable discussion forums on the Interent?  It is ineffective to cut off your toes in order to avoid the sand worms.

Since Editor Zhou is a writer and a media worker, it is hard to imagine why she could not be more tolerant: she could not calmly receive other people's opinions and feelings, she chose evasion over accepting responsibility in handling the matter and she offered no apologies for the lack of evidence and blanket statement in presenting her original case.  I recommend that Editor Zhou should write anonymously in the future, because she can avoid many unncessary problems.

If you are going to stand up in public and condemn people and things, you better expect to be condemned and cursed in return.  This should be simple enough.  A professional commentator should treat criticisms as encouragement.  If  your essay can arouse the passion of others, it will make us want to understand their viewpoints and values and bring us to a deeper level of reflection and adjustment.  That would be extra value.  The near universality of the Internet allows the reactions to arrive quicker and more directly.  All writers and commentators should count their blessings instead of complaining that this battle of saliva is "cyber bullying."  If you face the fearful with no fear, then the fearfulness will disappear! 

Relevant Link: Hong Kong Reporter Transgresses Against A God And Gets Lynched

[in translation]

... In the Internet world, there really are some very radical people who employ extreme language.  When they encounter people whose opinions they disagree with, they will use critical or even abusive language to express their disagreement.  I used to think that they were misusing the freedom and space on the Internet, but upon further reflection, I now feel that they are actually a group of socially weak people.  Apart from the Internet, where could they express their voices and be heard from?  The Internet provides an outlet for these people.  On careful thought, this may be a good thing for society.  The violence implied in their words are very unlikely to be turned into real action.  But if there is no way for them to express their voices, it would not be a good thing for those sentiments to simmer and accumulate.  Besides, when faced with these speeches, all you have to do it tap on your keyboard and it will immediately disappear.  So it does not matter how loud they shout.

If we go back and examine the series of Internet violent incidents, including the case of Bronze Moustache, we can see that even as many netizens made loud condemnations, this is the Internet and we quickly saw a different version about the other aspects of the affairs.  I still believe that debate can lead to the truth as long as information flows smoothly.  The ability to get to the truth on the Internet cannot be matched by other media because the Internet is particularly effective at communicating information and viewpoints.  Some of the Internet mobsters saw that the final facts did not match their original assumptions, and they began to reflect and contemplate.  Therefore, debate is not a bad thing.  The bad thing is during the course of the debate, the source of information was suddenly cut off and people lose their orientation in the confusion.

At my blog, whenever someone used abusive language or make personal attacks against others, someone else will stand up and remind people about the proper way to discuss issues.  Due to this atmosphere of self-correction and self-regulation, I do not regard intense (or even abusive) language as a problem.  I am more scared about another type of commentators.  That is, they will determine the nature of your position, and then they will determine the nature of you as a person.  This sort of definition is sufficient to make you worry about your future.  It makes you feel that there is invisible eyes something watching your every move from some unknown place.  They seem to be giving you advice and they use very steady language, but in truth you feel that they are really trying to intimidate you.

The yelling from the "angry young people" only show their vacuity and fragility, and they only invade the dignity or privacy of others.  If we have sufficient tolerance, endurance plus patience, their comments will just be fleeting episodes that we merely laugh about.  But the kinds of comments that I was talking about has a certain deterrent effect.  They make you speculate just which interests are represented by these commentators.  You cannot stop asking yourself that question, but you are afraid to say more because you don't know the consequences.  When you encounter these kinds of comments, you will have truly encountered Internet violence.

1. Your blog has really gone to SHIT with your latest post about the case of the dissident arrested by the Chinese secret police with the assistance of an American company.  Why are you so interested in justifying corporate misdeeds?  You are just so predictable in each and every case.  Whenever a Chinese dissident gets arrested, I don't even have to come to your blog because I know what you are going to say already.

2. I have been monitoring the GLOBAL RECOMMENDED READINGS in your blog.  It seems that you are paying a disproportionately high proportion of the links (especially since the rest of the blog is related to China) to Venezuela.  Your selections are clearly uniformly pro-government and pro-Chavez there.  I think I know why you are doing this, because there is no other reasonable explanation.

3. I have asked you before about who works on your blog and you replied that you are the only one.  All the other public sources about you out there say the same thing.  But given the amount of output this month, I do not think that it is physically possible for you to do it all by yourself.  I have done the calculations, and it just does not work.  There is something that you are hiding from people.  But I have difficulty figuring out why do you need to do so.  What are you hoping to gain?

4. I can understand why you place so much emphasis on certain incidents at the Taiwan parliament in which body contact took place.  That's because we've got freedom and democracy in Taiwan and you've got none of that.  You are jealous and therefore you want to denigrate our freedom and democracy.  Unfortunately, that won't work because the truth is out there.

5. You are getting repetitious and boring.  Every week, you bring up that you don't understand the 87,000 mass incidents in China being cited by somebody or the other.  The fact that there are mass incidents in China upsets your wish for The Peaceful Rise of a Harmonious China.  But this is also a fact that cannot be wished away by your obfuscation with technical details of the statistics.

6. Here is an important piece of advice for you -- you should be very careful about the choice of words among cult, sect and religion.  I noticed that you seem to switch among them with nary of thought of the important distinctions.  These are not just linguistic niceties, but they have serious political consequences.  If I were you, I would be really careful about handling those terms.

7. Once again, you were making fun of the Civil Human Rights Front over the July 1st march numbers.  Look, I was personally there and I saw a sea of people.  There was no way that the number could be as low as the academics say.  I would rather trust my 'own lying eyes' than the academics any day.  If there is a real news story, it is why these academic teams collude to low-ball the number each and every year without anyone challenging them.  But it takes intellectual curiosity, technical knowledge and moral courage to cover this story.  That obviously removes you as a candidate.

8. I think I know what your gig is.  Your biography says that you work for a company with assets in media and marketing research, advertising and public relations.  That experience led you to create a website which is in fact a clever mixture of propaganda and entertainment.  About 80% of your website content are sensationalistic social stories (about sex diaries, Internet mobs, eating dogs/cats, etc) that draw the majority of your audience, and the remaining 20% of the content are propaganda (masked as 'straight translations').  For example, you translate 'news' stories about the happy endings when some corrupt Chinese local officials are weeded out while ignoring the white elephant in the room (everybody knows that the real problem is the Chinese Communist Party).  Do not think that nobody out there knows what you are up to.  You may be clever, but not everybody is stupid.  The only open issue is whether you are doing this on  your own, or whether your company was paid to task you on this assignment.

9. You say that you don't derive a cent in income from your website and yet you spend so much time working on it.  So who pays your bills?  Does money fall from the sky?  Someone has to be paying you under the table.  The tax authorities should really look into your finances carefully.

[in translation]

According to the July 26 report in Southern Weekend, no one could imagine that a three-hour-long rainstorm could lead result in massive flooding in the center of Jinan city with at least 34 people dead.  The basement of Jinan city's busiest Ginza Shopping Mall because clogged with water in 30 minutes.  Although the officials claimed there were no casualties, various rumors have persisted.

How big was the disaster from the 3-hour-long rainstorm in Jinan on July 18?  I live faraway from Jinan and I was not there to experience it personally.  Even those locals who experienced the rainstorm personally do not have the right to speak either.  Didn't the netizen "Red Diamond Empire" get arrested for raising questions about casualty figures?  Therefore, I don't intend to sane anything more.

But I am reminded what Lung Ying-tai said.  Someone asked her: If you were taken to an unfamiliar country, how do you determine if it is a developed country?  She said: A rainstorm is sufficient to tell -- best yet, let is be a huge rainstorm that lasts three hours.  If you walk around with an umbrella and you don't feel that your trouser legs are getting wet or the vehicular traffic being slowed down but continuing to move or the pavements are slippery but without flooding, then you are likely to be in a developed country.  If you find that the water is covering up your feet, or the teapot from the shop is floating in the middle of the street, or the children are using pots to fish at the street intersections, then you are likely to be in a developing country.  Developing countries may have money to build tall buildings, but they don't have the mental will and physical ability to build the storm drainage system; tall buildings are visible, but the storm drainage system is invisible.  It takes a rainstorm to show the true face.

Professor Lung Ying-tai is known to have the courage to speak out.  But when she said those words, the Jinan rainstorm has not yet occurred.  Therefore, nobody can hold her responsible.

But no matter what, I feel that she had "foresight."  The Jinan storm lasted exactly three hours.  If we switched the "country" in Lung Ying-tai's words to "city," then it fits even better.  Of course, there are just my random thoughts.  I placed quotation marks around "prediction."  Therefore, I am not manufacturing a rumor, and Lung Ying-tai will probably not come and give me trouble for saying so.

[in translation]

At this year's Hong Kong Book Fair, the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority issued advice for 17 books not to be sold.  Most people know about <Myths of Love> for which TELA later withdrew their advice.  But what about the other 16 books?

Sorry, you don't have the right to know!  That was the response from the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority and the Trade and Development Council.

I called the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority first and the worker quickly transferred me to the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau's Information Office director Ms. Tam Sze-man.  Ms. Tam spent several hours and then told me, "We cannot disclose any information about the 16 books."

I asked, "What is the reason why TELA cannot disclose the information?"  Ms. Tam was unable to respond and said that she will find the appropriate colleague to respond.  I waited for more than a day without receiving a reply.  After repeated inquiries from me, she told me to speak to the TELA Executive Director Mr. Tong Fu-keung.

Mr. Tong Fu-keung was a very busy man.  I left four voice mail messages.  After one full day, I finally reached him.  He explained that TELA was invited by the TDC to inspect the book fair.  Any advice that TELA issued to TDC was strictly between themselves and not appropriate for public disclosure.  Mr. Tong explained that that there are no rules or regulations against disclosure, but this has always been the principle and practice of TELA.

Since the matter of the advice against the 16 books was a matter between TELA and TDC, I decided to contact TDC.  After half a day and two telephone calls, I finally located TDC's Information Office director Ms. Lam (who did not want to give her full name).  She also said that she will not publish the full list.  She said that TELA did not issue any paper document to TDC that provided the details of the books.  After repeated probing, Ms. Lam suggested that I should contact Mr. Lawrence Yau, who is the spokesperson for the book fair.

Mr. Lawrence Yau seemed to have a better understanding of the affair.  He said that TELA was asked to inspect, provide advice and then withdraw those advice for the benefit of the booksellers.  The booksellers had signed contracts to exhibit only Class I (Neither Indecent Nor Obscene) books.  If the books are sent to the Obscene Articles Tribunal and classified as Class II: Indecent or Class II: Obscene, the booksellers will face criminal charges.  So the "pre-review" was good for the booksellers.

Thanks, Mr. Yau, for telling us that pre-censorship exists at the Hong Kong Book Fair.  Superficially, it would seem that the Hong Kong SAR government does not pre-censor publications, but it can do so in practice.  The "pre-review" at the Hong Kong Book Fair is one example.

At the same time, Mr. Yau declined to provide the information about the 16 books.  He said that it would be unfair to the booksellers.  I must be dense because I cannot understand the 'reason' how this could be unfair to the booksellers.  He said that the advice from TELA to stop selling the books and the withdrawal of those books by the booksellers occurred before the book fair officially began -- therefore, the details will not be disclosed.

Recently, TELA has triggered many controversies over the classifications of many cases.  It makes one wonder what scandals lie behind those 16 books.  Even more worrisome is the fact that TELA is a government department and TDC is a statutory organization established by the government.  These two organizations oversee the largest book fair in Hong Kong.  For this important cultural activity, the process of the review (known as "advice" but actually "pre-censorship") of the books on sale basically occurs behind closed doors!  The citizens do not even have the right to know, much less any basis to question the decisions!

Postcript:  Cosmos Books has said that two of the 16 books are those by Mu Zimei (see Comment 200707#067).  Those two books have been on sale at the Hong Kong Book Fair in past years without problems.  Those two books can also be purchased in Hong Kong bookstores.  But they cannot be sold at this year's Hong Kong Book Fair per TELA advice.

[in translation]

At 6:30pm on July 22, two Southern Metropolis Daily reporters and a Southern Daily reporter followed tips to proceed to a packaging factory in Dongguan to investigate a case of workers being assaulted over a labor dispute.  At around 8pm, the reporters were interviewing the manager.  At that time, a man wearing a white jacket entered in the company of four plainclothes persons.  The man yelled: "Detain all these people!  Do not let anyone leave!"  Then he pounded his fist on the table.  After the man said those words, the factory directors and the plainclothes men went up to stop him from saying anything more.  They explained to him that the visitors are reporters.  The reporters took out that mobile cameraphones to record, but one of the plainclothes men used his hand to block the camera eye.

The man then hollered: "So what if they are reporters.  I'm not afraid.  You better report what happened as is."  Then he threw his lighter on the table.  The reporters asked him who he was.  "I'm the deputy party secretary here," said the man.  The reporter asked him what deputy party secretary he was for.  "None of your business!  I'm not telling," said the man.  "You can ask CCTV to come here!"  But his speech was slurred and incoherent, and the reporters could not really understand what he was saying.  At around 8:18pm, the man left the factory upon advice by the others.

After the "deputy part secretary" left, the three reporters left.  At the entrance, a person told the reporters: "The leader drank a bit too much.  I hope you won't mind.  This is a trivial thing."

After leaving the factory, the reporters were concerned about their personal safety and went to the police station.  When the reporters showed the video to the police officer, they were told that the middle-aged man was the deputy director of the city street administration in charge of industrial activities.

Now there is a way of turning this small story into a national storm -- just post the video at the video-sharing sites and let the viral effect take over!

One final comment on this whole issue. People have asked me: "but if Oiwan gets away with posting a picture of a topless woman on Inmedia Hong Kong, doesn't that give all the Hong Kong tabloids carte blanche to publish topless girlie pix to increase their circulation?"

Frankly, I appreciate not being confronted with pictures of boobs at newsstands. I hope that if she wins her case, the result will not be boobs all over the local newspapers (unless that's seriously what everybody in Hong Kong wants), but rather will be part of a re-examination of how the Hong Kong people as a society can best determine and enforce community standards - in a way that makes sense and is considered fair by the community.

But there are pictures of boobs and more at the newsstands now, and they have been there for decades already.  Here are some of the magazines that are available at just every regular newsstand in Hong Kong (note: the magazine covers are taken from Tenten Net).  At the newsstands, the magazines are wrapped in plastic paper with the legal disclaimer warning: "This magazine contains material which may offend and may not be distributed, circulated, sold, hired, given, lent, shown, played or projected to a person under the age of 18 years or local legal age."  The magazine covers do not show nipples or genitaliia and therefore they may even be classified as Class I: Neither Indecent Nor Obscene.  However, the photographs inside are definitely Class III: Obscene.  You can tell very simply by the titles -- for example, the first title is "Pretty Girls Urinating," the second title is "Ten Shaved Pussies," etc.

The Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority exists to ensure that the magazine covers do not show nipples and the magazines get wrapped in plastic with the warning message.  TELA is not out to ban those publications, which have been around for decades already.  Do the plastic wrapping and warning message work?  Of course not.  But the bureaucracy is satisfied, even though everyone else thinks that this is hilarious.  In that sense, there is no censorship.

In the case of Chu Pui-hing, he did three things wrong: first, he patronized a place with sex workers; secondly, he lost his composure when he encountered the photographers; thirdly, he later used the RTHK public relations apparatus to declare that the girl next to him that night was just the girlfriend of a friend of his.

... So far, the Hong Kong media and public seemed to have paid the most attention to the above two items.  The absurd pose of Chu Pui-hing in the photographs drew the scorn of citizens.  What happened between him and the woman was uncovered by the press in more and more detail and the general story is now known.  But everybody glossed over the third thing that he did wrong.

Based upon the preceding discussion of political ethics, it is this third mistake that is far more serious.  First of all, it was a lie because the "girlfriend of a friend" as characterized by Chu Pui-hing was actually a sex worker that he hired.  When a political figure tells such a lie to the public, it obviously makes people wonder if he might also lie about matters of public interest.  Next, even if we made the most tolerant attitude to say that the lie is unrelated to the public, it is still a very serious mistake because this lie was promulgated through a government department, namely the RTHK public relations apparatus.

In other words, Chu Pui-hing can consort with women or lose his composure, and it has nothing to do with his job position.  But his manner of response genuinely violated the professional ethics of public servants.  Since he used his job position and the government apparatus to tell a lie, he was abusing his power.

Technically, Leung Man-tao was wrong when he said that "everybody glossed over the third thing that he did wrong."  There is at least one person who pinpointed that: Comment 200707#033:

... the RTHK communications/public relations apparatus was marshalled to mount a defense of the private affairs of its director.  If private affairs are irrelevant to public service, then why is public service paid for by taxpayers' money being made to serve private interests?  Worse yet, the defense was incompetent or even deceptive.  This was doing a great deal of damage to the reputation of RTHK.  To cut the losses, Chu opted for early retirement.

But on July 21, an essay by a RTHK worker appeared in Ming Pao (re-posted at InMediaHK):

Our director Mr. Chu Pui-hing drank too much and hid hurriedly behind a woman.  It looked terrible.  Afterwards, some colleagues could not believe the ruin of his gentleman's image; some rued that his disarray was due to his lack experience; others sighed that the director lost his job for going out at middle-age; others said directly, "Why was Mr. Chu was careless?"  We kept talking and we even spent our meal time reading every newspaper report.  But nobody at RTHK expected Mr. Chu would resign on account of his "private affairs."

On July 9, I received a SMS from a colleague that Mr. Chu will hold a press conference to announce his decision to retire early.  This was the worst moment in RTHK history.  The colleagues present said that it was even more rowdy than the transfer of Cheung Man-yee in 1999.  RTHK has been bothered by the "Report on Review of Public Service Broadcasting" recently because the workers were hurt that the past accomplishments of RTHK were not affirmed positively.  The departure of Mr. Chu is like rubbing salt into the wounds of RTHK people.

On the day after the Mr. Chu announced his departure, the Union held a meeting.  On this stormy day, we met with the senior people . There were no new announcements made at the meeting, just the recount of the early retirement of Mr. Chu and how the senior people handled the affair.

That was it.  Perhaps the senior people knew and acknowledged that they had done wrong as suggested by Leung Man-tao.  But nobody at RTHK has come out to acknowledge it.  If they still don't realize that this was a problem, then it is bad; if they know that this was a problem but will not acknowledge it publicly, then it is even worse.  Either way, this is part of the corporate culture because it requires all the RTHK workers to join the process of staying mute.
 
Addendum:  It is alleged that RTHK has a habit of being brutal in its sarcasm about certain political figures whereas others are "untouchable" "sacred cows."  In the case of Chu Pui-hing, it is alleged that RTHK was "hands-off" and "neutral," which marks it as being very different from the rest of Hong Kong media from Apple Daily to South China Morning Post to Oriental Daily to Ta Kung Pao.

 VISION

  • To be a broadcasting and entertainment regulatory agency that fully satisfies the needs and expectations of the community.

MISSION

We are committed to -
  • following closely standards for taste and decency accepted by the community and reflecting them in our decision making;
  • effectively monitoring broadcasting services and publications;
  • providing an efficient service for film censorship, entertainment centre and gaming activity licensing, and local newspaper registration;
  • facilitating the development of the film industry;
  • maintaining the relevance of our regulatory framework with regard to community needs, technological development and international practices; and
  • continuously enhancing our professionalism.
VALUES
  • Freedom of expression with social responsibility
  • Professionalism
  • Impartiality
  • Openness
  • Responsiveness
  • Quality Service

The problems with TELA are rooted in its mission: "following closely standards for taste and decency accepted by the community and reflecting them in our decision making."  In any society, different people have different standards for taste and decency.  This makes the it impossible to do anything without upsetting someone or the other.  This so-called "community standards for taste and decency" cannot be objectively determined.

Even worse, the first item in "Values" is "freedom of expression with social responsibility" in which two different concepts are bundled together.  It is easy to explain "freedom of expression" but "social responsibility" is not trivial.  Every person has his/her own notions of social responsibility.  For example, some people think that the single invocation of the term "Pok-kai" in the televised movie <Tales of Autumn> was enough to destroy our entire society, but others consider that hiliarious.

To solve the TELA problem fully, the government ought to reconsider the mission and value statements and return to the Constitution (Basic Law) as well as act according to the law (such as the case of the Statue of David years ago).  Otherwise, there will be no end to the continual international loss of face for Hong Kong.

Meanwhile, were the TELA bureacrats wrongfully pilloried?  Not entirely.

Could the Obscene Articles Tribunal have been infiltrated by agents?

中法戰爭 Sino-Franco war -> the war between the Qing dynasty and France
日本佔據台灣 Japan occupied Taiwan -> 日本管治台灣 Japan administered Taiwan
Calendar references during Japanese rule used to be in terms of Qing Dynasty or Republic of China calendar, but they will now have to changed to either Showa (Japan) or western calendar (for example, the 20th year of the Republic of China must now be either the 5th year of Showa (Japan) or 1932).
 
中外遊客 tourists from inside and outside China -> 國內外遊客 tourists from inside and outside the country
國畫 national painting -> 中國山水畫 Chinese landscape painting
京劇 Beijing opera -> 中國京劇 Chinese Beijing opera
國字 national writing character -> 中國文字 Chinese writing characters
國曆 national calendar -> 陽曆 solar calendar
歷史上 in history ->  中國歷史上 in Chinese history
古人 ancient people -> 中國古人 Chinese ancient people
古代 ancient times -> 中國古代 Chinese ancient times
 
Those like Ma Ying-jeou who were not born in Taiwan will be hereafter referred to as 新住民 "new residents" or 中國各省隨中華民國政府遷台人士 "those people from various Chinese provinces who moved to Taiwan along with the Republic of China government."
 
國父孫中山先生  nation's founder Mr. Sun Yat-sen -> 孫中山先生 Mr. Sun Yat-sen
台灣地區 Taiwan area-> 台灣 Taiwan
海峽兩岸 the sides of the strait -> 兩國 the two countries
我國 our country -> 中國 China; if for example the reference is to Chinese history, culture or language (e.g. 王羲之是我國著名的書法家 Wang Xizhi is a famous calligrapher of our country -> 王羲之是中國著名的書法家 Wang Xizhi is a famous calligrapher of China)
中國 China -> 我國 our country; if, for example, the reference is to Taiwan history, culture or language
鄭成功從荷蘭人手中收復台灣，所以後人尊其為民族英雄 Kuxinga recovered Taiwan from the Dutch and therefore people honored him as a national hero afterwards -> 收復recovered and 民族英雄 national hero are controversial value judgments.

Yesterday, Minister of Education Tu Cheng-sheng denied at the press conference that this was about de-Sinofication of the school textbooks.  He said that the list was used only as 'reference' by the book publishers.

However, some book publishers said that while it would appear that they have some leeway, their books were eventually have to be approved by the Ministry of Education.  

(Radio Taiwan International; June 23, 2007)  At an exhibition of old elementary and secondary school textbooks, Lu Mu-lin (current Political Deputy Minister of Education) recalled what a book publisher friend told him: "He said that the textbooks often get sent back without explanation.  They won't explained the cause.  After a couple of time, someone shows up to tell him that he might want to make certain changes, and those parts are based upon political considerations."

So the book publishers are now saying that they will know soon enough when the next round of reviews come.  If they refuse to make all the changes, will they be rejected?

Another question is if Ma Ying-jeou should become President in 2008, then will all the books be revised all over again? 

[in translation] 

Do you want to buy a cushy government job?  Do you want someone to fix something for you?  Do you want to win the bid for a government project?  If so, please buy the work this painting by Wang Chun-siang, the cousin of First Lady Wu Su-chen.

Those who paid for the painting and the registration fee will get promoted, make money, acquire banks, obtain projects and get anything that they want!!

Please hurry up to buy a painting by Wang Chun-siang and then you will be on the fast track to get promoted and wealthy!!

This painting is valued at NT$320,000 but auction is starting off at the original purchase price of NT$320,000 (or NT$500,000 if you want it outright without going through the bidding).

Who is selling this painting?  This is Ligi Lee who exposed the SOGO vouchers case of First Lady Wu Shu-chen.  Back then when the two were still friendly and her company "Taiwan Red" held a grand opening in Taiwan, she got the First Lady to do the ribbon-cutting ceremony and she paid NT$320,000 to purchase the <Ten Nudes> painting of Wang Chun-siang.
 
Sorry, but it is unlikely that anyone who buys the painting from the Yahoo auction will get the First Lady to cut any ribbons ...

Yesterday morning, senior Hong Kong SAR officials met to discuss the storm over the book <Love Mythology> and they held different opinions about what to do.  The eventual decision was to let Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Frederick Ma Si-hang study the problem.  The immediate order was for Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority commissioner Maisie Cheng Mei-sze appear in person to explain.  It was also decided that in the future, no work of art will be listed as an indecent article.

Meanwhile, the Hong Kong blogs are forming a ring in which they are posting photographs of artisitic nudes.  Here are some examples:

The last blog post by Diuman Park is funny because the painting of Cupid and Psyche was 'purified' with Photoshop.  All the worse because it was deliberately done in a crude fashion.

Yesterday, Hong Kong Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority commissioner Maisie Cheng Mei-sze addressed the press for the first time over the incident of <Love Mythology>.  She insisted that TELA had clarified on opening day that <Love Mythology> was carrying photographs of art that was not indecent material.  As such, this clearly illustrates the standards of TELA with respect to works of art.

Maisie Cheng also pointed out that on the day before the opening, TELA was invited by the Trade and Development Council to offer advice at the exhibition.  During the process, they had discussions with certain booksellers but they did not indicate anything was indecent.  She emphasized: "You cannot say that anything was wrong with the handling procedure," because TELA does not demand that its workers should express their views about publications right there at the scene.  The proper procedure is to take the suspected publications back to the office to study.  She admitted that the frontline inspectors require more support and training, with a better reporting system so that they can obtain directions from their supervisors quicker and easier.

Yes, but you know proper journalism requires the other side of the story.  Here is what some of the booksellers said.

Cosmos Books distribution manager Lee Fok-nan said that before the book fair opened, TELA workers told him that certain books might have "stepped over the boundary," mainly the books of mainland Chinese writer Mu Zimei.  In order not to affect participation at the book fair, he removed the books.  "Mu Zimei's books are relatively daring, but we have been selling these same books in past years.  I don't know why it should be so sensitive this year."  [Note: You can walk into any bookstore in Hong Kong (e.g. Joint Publishing, Popular Books, Cosmos Books, Commercial Press, etc) and Mu Zimei's books should be on sale without any warning or plastic wrapping.]

Crown Press marketing manager Chen Kin-yan said that the translation of Patrick Süskind's <Perfume> received the "attention" of TELA because the female in the oil painting on the front cover bared her nipples.  "This was clearly a tasteful work of art."  To avoid trouble, she pulled up the accompanying book wrapper from the bottom and covered up the female.  "Once we covered up the nipples, TELA was quiet."

Yuan-liou (Hong Kong) Publications Limited manager Alexander Chan Kwok-wah was unhappy with the response by the TELA commissioner.  He stated frankly that the TELA manager is dodging responsibility.  He said that when the TELA workers came around that day, they said that they followed department rules to advise him to remove <Love Mythology> or else the book would be sent for classification.  "Now the managers are shifting responsibility and blaming the frontline workers for making mistakes.  But those people were only carrying out orders from above.  If the TELA decision-makers do not reflect on what they are doing, these types of things will continue to occur!"

What was the issue about?  It was something or the other about the budget for something or the other.  But will this make the ABC/CBS/NBC national news broadcasts in the USA ... ?


 
Q1. Do you think that there is a problem with the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority classifying books with nude art as indecent?
55% (n=199): their standards are very problematic
22% (n=82): their standards are alright
23% (n=84): No opinion
 
Q2. The Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority does not prosecute libraries for having books with photographs of nude sculpture and paintings.  By contrast, the book seller was advised at one point to withdraw their books.  Do you think that the way in which the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority assess indecent materials is problematic?
50% (n=182): Highly problematic (because this is practically double standards)
30% (n=108): Somewhat problematic because people find the standards to be ambiguous
15% (n=56): No problem, because these are two different things
5% (n=19): No opinion
 
Q3. Do you think the execution of the "Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance" by the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority is suitable for these times?
60% (n=218): It is behind the times
15% (n=56): There is no problem with the standards of the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority
25% (n=91): No opinion