******************************
The following is issued on behalf of the Broadcasting Authority:
In May 2008, the Broadcasting Authority (BA) issued a directive to Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB) and TVB Pay Vision Limited (TVBPV) that certain conditions under their respective domestic free and domestic pay TV licences shall cease to have effect following changes in the shareholding structure and directorship of TVBPV which led to TVB no longer exercising control over TVBPV.
In view of the dominant position of TVB in the local television market and to minimise the impact of TVB exercising control over TVBPV as a disqualified person (Note 1), the Chief Executive in Council, in granting TVBPV a domestic pay TV licence in 2000, imposed a set of special conditions (firewall provisions) in the licences of TVB and TVBPV which impose restrictions on the management and control, programme deals and transactions of TVB and TVBPV, etc. The BA has the power to lift the firewall provisions if it is satisfied that the TVB group cannot and does not exercise control of TVBPV or vice versa.
The BA noted that TVB has restructured its interest in TVBPV in January 2008 by reducing TVB group's voting control of TVBPV to less than 15%. Furthermore, all the directors of TVBPV who are also directors or principal officers of the TVB group have resigned from their positions in TVBPV since February 2008.
The BA also noted that the market dynamics in the local television market have changed since 2000. Apart from the domestic free television services of ATV and TVB, there are now altogether four pay television operators and the aggregate subscriber number is over 2 million, compared with only two pay television operators and about 580,000 subscribers in 2000. Furthermore, TVBPV currently holds only a modest position in respect of market share and influence. Removing the restrictions under the firewall provisions should enhance the competitiveness of TVBPV in the pay television market, which in turn will benefit viewers by offering an additional choice of pay television service. This will stimulate competition in the local television market.
Having carefully considered the submissions from TVB and TVBPV and taking into consideration all the relevant factors including the meaning of "exercise control" under the Broadcasting Ordinance (Cap 562), the BA is satisfied that the TVB group no longer exercises control of TVBPV within the meaning of the ordinance. Accordingly, the BA has decided to direct that the firewall provisions shall cease to have effect, subject to the conditions that TVB and TVBPV shall be bound by the statements, representations, assurances and undertakings in their submissions to the BA (e.g. including undertakings that TVB will not hold more than 15% of the voting shares of TVBPV and appoint directors to TVBPV) that the TVB group cannot and does not exercise control of TVBPV or vice versa. The BA noted that both licensees shall continue to be subject to the competition provisions under the ordinance.
The BA in May 2008 considered one complaint case concerning 148 public complaints. The case was about the television programme "Super Trio Wonder Trip" broadcast on the Jade Channel of TVB on March 9, 16 and 23, 2008 from 8.30pm to 9.30pm. TVB was given an advice to observe more closely the relevant provision in the Generic Code of Practice on Television Programming Standards. Please see Appendix for details.
The BA noted that in April 2008, the Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing (CTEL) dealt with 87 cases (120 complaints) under her delegated authority, of which one case (four complaints) was classified as minor breach, and 66 cases (94 complaints) as unsubstantiated, under section 11 of the Broadcasting Authority Ordinance (BAO). Twenty cases (22 complaints) were outside the ambit of the BAO. The monthly complaints figures dealt with by the CTEL since January 2008 is shown in Figure 1. A breakdown of the unsubstantiated complaints by nature is at Figure 2. Please refer to the BA website: www.hkba.hk for details of the complaints.
Note 1: Under the Broadcasting Ordinance (Cap 562), a television programme service licensee is disqualified from exercising control of another licensee unless approved by the Chief Executive in Council (CE in C). Since TVB and the common directors of TVB and TVBPV are "disqualified persons" as defined in the ordinance, they require special approval by the CE in C to exercise control of TVBPV.
Appendix:
Summary of the Substantiated Complaint Case
Case - Television programme "Super Trio Wonder Trip" broadcast on the Jade Channel of Television Broadcasts Limited on March 9, 16 and 23, 2008, from 8.30pm to 9.30pm.
148 members of the public complained about the television programme "Super Trio Wonder Trip" broadcast on the Jade Channel of TVB. The main allegations of the complaints were that the games in the programme were cruel, in bad taste, dangerous and unsuitable for broadcast at the scheduled time slot on Sunday. They invited imitation by children and exerted a bad influence on children and youth.
The BA noted that (i) the programme was a slapstick game show; (ii) the programme was broadcast right after the family viewing hours (FVH) and the card game segments under concern were broadcast at around 9pm; (iii) the programme was classified as "PG" (Parental Guidance Recommended), with a prior warning that "Parents please note that parts of the programme involve dangerous acts which should not be imitated"; and (iv) the programme was intended for a general audience which might include children and young viewers.
Regarding the allegation on bad taste, the BA considered that having regard to the slapstick nature of the game show and that the games were designed to be fun, the games under complaint were unlikely to be considered by the general audience as bad taste.
Regarding the allegation on dangerous behaviour, the BA considered that the programme was well known as a slapstick game show and the audience would not treat it seriously. The punishments under concern were unlikely to cause grave bodily harm. Besides, the instruments used in the games were not offensive weapons or articles. The presentation of the games/punishments had not breached the Generic Code of Practice on Television Programme Standards (TV Programme Code) concerning dangerous behaviour easily imitated by children.
Regarding the broadcast time of the programme, the BA noted that TVB had already labelled the programme as "PG" and scheduled it after FVH and the problematic segments were found at around 9pm which was about half an hour after FVH. As such, the BA considered that the scheduling of the programme had not breached the relevant TV Programme Code on Family Viewing Policy.
The BA, nonetheless, noted that the programme itself was one intended for a general audience including children and young viewers; that the punishments appeared to be the focus of the game segments concerned and that the artistes being punished looked as if they were suffering and in pain on screen. The BA, thus, considered that the four types of punishment, viz. to pick nasal hair with tweezers, to pull off laundry clips clipped to different parts of an artiste's face, pulling ping-pong balls tied with thick elastic bands against an artiste's forehead and chin and to remove leg hair with thick scotch tape, as presented in the card game segments in the first and the third episodes of the programme amounted to infliction of pain upon others for pleasure which were unacceptable for broadcast at times when there was a large audience of children and young viewers. The depiction of the punishments causing pain rendered the programme in breach of the relevant TV Programme Code.
TVB was given an advice to observe more closely paragraph 4 of Chapter 7 of the TV Programme Code regarding the above prohibition.
Ends/Friday, May 30, 2008
Issued at HKT 16:30
NNNN
