My article about Allen Lee's anti-NPC remarks on his radio programme, carried in the China Daily Hong Kong Edition last Saturday, aimed to remind Mr Lee that what he had been doing was not commensurate with his capacity as an NPC deputy.

The article was based on facts - what he had said ever since he took up the job as a talk show host on the radio. There was no exaggeration nor misrepresentation.

Instead of explaining why he had made those anti-NPC remarks, however, Mr Lee defended himself by saying that he had already informed the NPC before taking up the broadcasting job and had obtained its consent to do so. What he meant was that he had been "licensed" to do what he was doing.

As a matter of fact, his very action of seeking such prior consent shows that he himself worried the nature of the job might somehow contradict his NPC capacity. That the NPC gave him the green light is a testimony of the NPC's faith in him.

It goes without saying, however, that the consent was not a blank cheque. It did not support him to do whatever he pleases on his show.

It is certainly all right for an NPC deputy to act as a watchdog and criticize government departments for flaws in their administration. And during NPC sessions, he has every right to give dissenting opinions on bills the legislature is working on and even to cast his vote against them.

Yet when the NPC has passed a resolution its decision becomes law and its members have the duty to respect and abide by it. What Mr Lee has been doing is making use of his radio programme as a platform to criticize the NPC's recent interpretation of the Basic Law and its subsequent ruling on the chief executive's report on constitutional development in Hong Kong.

Most of all, he has called upon Hong Kong people to go against the NPC's interpretation and ruling and ignore the constitutional consultation the SAR government has launched.

It is understood that these hosts of phone-in radio programmes tend to adopt unique styles and make sensational remarks so as to boost the ratings of their shows. Albert Cheng and Raymond Wong, whose recent stand-downs from shows became the talk of the town, started this trend when they co-hosted a TV talk show back in 1993.

Nevertheless, although these broadcasters are not "journalists" in the stricter sense of the term, they do dwell upon current and public affairs. They do have some social responsibilities to fulfill.

As such, their programmes should be informative and educational, and their views objective and impartial as far as possible. They should help their audiences gain a better understanding and a balanced picture of what is going on in the government and society with a view to enhancing civic awareness and social cohesiveness.

In the case of the NPCSC interpretation and ruling, these programmes should help Hong Kong people acquire a better grasp of these documents and come to terms with the new political situation they have brought about.

(HK Edition 05/19/2004 page2)