TNAG-0350-FCO40-386-Future-of-broadcasting-in-Hong-Kong-1972 — Page 101

CONFIDENTIAL

RTV (HK

1. Mr Dennis, Chairman of the Far East Divisional Board of Rediffusion Limited, called to see Mr Wilford at his own request on 11 April. Mr Laird was present. He had previously called on Mr Wilford on 3 March when he had informed him of the situation affecting their Hong Kong subsidiary, RTV (HK), in respect of the Hong Kong Govern- ment's plans for extending television services in the Colony following consideration of a report by a Govern- ment Working Party on the Future of Broadcasting. At that time, RTV (HK) had decided to make written represen- tations to the Colonial Secretary about what they believed to be unjust treatment to which they feared they might be subjected by the Government. Mr Dennis had specifically asked that no action should be taken by the FCO in respect of his call because he feared that this might only make worse the situation of RTV (HK).

2. On this occasion he made clear that he was coming on behalf of Rediffusion Limited to speak about what they believed to be very unfair treatment being meted out to RTV (HK), a British-owned subsidiary company, which had pioneered television in Hong Kong, had invested large sums in the Colony, provided what was technically an "essential service" and now looked like being killed by the Govern- ment of the Colony. He explained that following the report of the Working Party (which was a confidential docu- ment which he had not seen) it was widely rumoured - and he could not substantiate this that Executive Council had decided not to accept one of the Working Party's recom- mendations that RTV (HK) should be awarded one of the new licences for a TV service and that a second should be put out to public tender. Executive Council had decided, he had heard, that no licence should be awarded except after the procedure of going to public tender. This had been at the demand of the Financial Secretary. Mr Dennis said that this could produce a situation, if his information was correct, which would be nothing short of disastrous to RTV (HK)'s and, he thought, the public interest. If all contestants for the licences were starting from the same base it would be a perfectly satisfactory arrangement, but this was not the case. RTV (HK) had held a licence for many years and it would certainly not be equitable if their considerable investment and services over the years were not taken into account; for their licence not to be renewed seemed unthinkable, but a tendering process was bound to be something of a lottery and was always subject to a determined contestant cutting prices or bidding high on royalties deliberately to get started.

3. Mr Dennis then suggested that the Hong Kong Government had done considerable damage to RTV (HK)'s interest in the past. First there had been the setting up of TVB because

CONFIDENTIAL

/the