-
2
It was recognised that the three options were:
(a)
to proceed without informing the Chinese in any way;
(b)
to inform the Chinese of what we proposed to do, but to proceed anyway;
(c) to go for full consultation.
All concerned recognised that if we went for (b) the Chinese would instantly demand (c). They also recognised that at this delicate stage in our discussions with the Chinese on the nature of consultation it would have a disproportionate effect if we were to embark on a major structural change of this kind with no attempt at consultation. Most concerned accepted that it was not unreasonable that the Chinese should be consulted about a matter
of this importance. On the other hand it was recognised that if we did consult the Chinese there was a strong chance that they would not like the proposal, and would want things left as they
are now.
A.
After a good deal of discussion, the general conclusion was that it made no sense to try to deal with the matter in any way other than by option (c). The corporatisation of or non- corporatisation of RTHK was by no means a life and death matter for the Hong Kong Government. The main risk of an unsuccessful consultation would be the magnification of the lame duck image. On the other hand a failure to do anything because we were frightened of consultation would lead to an even lamer duck. The best thing therefore would be to work up a proposition to put to the Chinese setting out the advantages, particularly in managerial and financial terms of the corporatisation proposal. It would not be realistic to leave out of the picture entirely the editorial control arguments: probably the best way to deal with them would be to take the view that this aspect was of little importance to HKG, because even under present arrangements they had no effective editorial control. For the benefit of the Chinese we would stress the intention that the Board of Governors should be appointed by Government after corporatisation.
5. Recreation and Culture Branch, who I must say have a very sensible and pragmatic approach to all this, now intend to draft a policy paper, on which we shall have an opportunity to comment. I think the conclusions of the meeting were entirely sensible, but I think it is also possible that when the matter goes to a higher level more hawkish and less carefully thought out lines of thought may be introduced.
6.
You may wonder as I did why we have to be pursuing a structural change of this kind only a few years before hand over. I think the answer is that if we were starting from scratch no-
ÞO 398d
21:21 11-OT TE.
ONOX SNOH
3SNOH INAWN3709
000