26 September 1998

Time for Chief Executive and Government to show helmsmanship

(keywords:- Policy Address, food safety, air pollution, health financing)

          To those who have been awaiting eagerly for a breakthrough in Government health care policy and health care financing, they will probably emerge disappointed after hearing the Chief Executive's Policy Address. With all eyes on economic crisis, coupled with the fact that the Harvard consultant's report on health financing review are still being awaited, health care policy will again not be in Mr Tung's priority list. Nor is there much for him to say.

          Furthermore, few would believe Government has the political clout or commitment to introduce, let alone push for, the concept of "those who can pay, pay" for health care services -- though it quietly submits that this is perhaps the only solution to maintain Hong Kong's high health care standards -- in these political and economic climate.

          In certain aspects, no news may well be good news. It will be doomsday if the Chief Executive is to stun Hong Kong with a proposal to cut health care spending. Yet nothing is impossible given that rumours abound that suggestions are being made to reduce spending on livelihood issues.

          However, there are that many areas in health care and health promotion that Government can and should embark on without having to stumble into the highly charged controversies of fees and charges.

          For years, Hong Kong has been talking about air pollution. We have bid adieu to our blue sky for a long time. Yet Government seemed to have suddenly woke up from a dream when high level of air pollution was detected recently in Causeway Bay. Ever since Government failed to push through the diesel-to-petrol scheme in LegCo three years ago for which both the Government and legislators then had to be blamed, and all attempts to improve our air quality have been very much a lip service, procrastination seemed to be order of the day. Why did it take so long for Government to come forward with concrete directions for substituting diesel with LPG in taxis and public light buses? Why do we need pilot studies one after the other when they have been used overseas for decades? What controls are there for the heavy duty vehicles that formed over half of the diesel fleet? It would be naive, if not an attempt to pull wool over the public's eyes to assume that since heavy duty trunks and buses usually belong to big companies, they are better maintained.

          It is common, in particular in summer, to find public buses, tourist buses, limousines of business executives and even senior civil servants, with their engines idle, puffing away unnecessarily tons of toxic fumes. Is education alone enough or should legislation be introduced?

          It is not an uncommon sight, in particular in summer months, to find public buses and tourist buses with their engine idly at parking or terminal bays puffing away unnecessarily tonnes of sulphur oxides, particulates and toxic fumes to pollute the environment just to maintain a cool, comfortably surrounding for their clients why they return. Our business executives and senior civil servants are no lesser culprit when they allow their chauffeurs to idle the engine of their luxury limousines while awaiting the bid and call of their masters. What control will be imposed?

          Rather than moving positively to have these eliminated, our policy makers instead come up with a bright idea of warning the public to stay at home when the air pollution index reaches a dangerous level. How ironic!

          Answer to the controversy over abolishing the municipal councils is expected to be found, or at least indicated, in the Policy Address. Hopefully, means to centralise food safety would also be heard.

          The series of food-related infectious diseases in recent years, epitomized by the avian flu saga, are litmus tests or how effectively our mechanisms could coordinate or cope. Regrettably, our fragmented system has failed the test. Now is the time for Government to show its political commitment to press ahead for centralising the policy making and implementation of food safety, despite severe fightback from those with vested interest.

          Rumours are that the Chief Executive is having severe headache in deciding which bureau to take up the new domain of centralised food safety. Rumours are that existing bureau heads are not only reluctant, but also raising hue and cry, of having to shoulder additional responsibilities. Rumours are that some bureau or departmental heads are choosy in accepting only the "glittering" jobs, but not the other "irritating or donkey works".

          Under all circumstances, food safety is no doubt a health issue. In short, it obviously falls into the ambit of the Health and Welfare Bureau, or a new separated Health Bureau.

          These rumours may well be groundless. Yet, there is no smoke without fire. Should our Administration's decisions proven to be in line with these rumours, it will only demonstrate that either our top officials are being irresponsible, or our Chief Executive is having no leadership.

          In any rational reform of governmental or constitutional structure for public good, there is no place for the personal likings of our incumbent officials. It is time for the Chief Executive and Government to show helmsmanship amidst the many current prevailing uncertainties.

(Hongkong Standard)