*******************************************

The following is issued on behalf of the Electoral Affairs Commission:

The Electoral Affairs Commission publicly censured Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) for breaching electoral rules during the election period of a Sham Shui Po District Council by-election on April 6.

"As only one of the three candidates contesting the by-election in the Mei Foo Constituency was invited to be a speaker in its City Forum programme on March 23, RTHK breached the 'equal time' and 'no unfair advantage' principles," the Chairman of the Commission, Mr Justice Woo, said.

These principles are set out in Chapter 8 of the Guidelines on Election-related Activities in respect of the 1999 District Councils Election, which were applicable to the by-election.

Chapter 8 deals with election broadcasting through electronic means (which covers all programmes, including current affairs shows and news reports on radio and TV), media reporting and election forums (see paragraph 8.1).

Paragraphs 8.3 and 8.4 make it clear that candidates may take part in current affairs and other programmes on radio and TV, but these programmes must be conducted on an "equal time" principle.

Paragraph 8.6 requires broadcasters to apply the "equal time" principle and the "no unfair advantage" principle to political parties or political organisations with candidates contesting an election.

RTHK was given the opportunity to make representations to the Commission before it considered whether a public censure was justified .

In its defence, RTHK argued that City Forum was a current affairs programme, not an election broadcast, and as such should not be covered by the guidelines.

The broadcaster further contended that the two other candidates in the by-election were not invited because neither the programme itself nor the particular episode concerned was election-related, and that therefore no breach of the "equal time" and "no unfair advantage" principles had occurred.

"The Commission found that RTHK has either completely misunderstood or it has deliberately flouted paragraphs 8.1 and 8.3 of the Guidelines," Mr Justice Woo exclaimed. "Its explanations are not sufficient to exculpate itself."

"As a public organization, RTHK's breach, whatever the reason may be, is inexcusable and should be censured," he said.

End/Monday, May 12, 2003

NNNN