18 October 1998

Policy Address harbour disappointments in political and health fields
("Letter to Hong Kong", Radio Television Hong Kong)

(Keywords:- Policy Address, Legislative Council, Executive Authorities, civil servants, professional minister, food safety)

          The lack luster Policy Address was finally delivered amidst wide sectorial disappointments. Yes, it would have been foolhardy to expect too much. Yet in these days of economic nose-dive, the public yearns for some direction, some leadership to maintain, if not sustain, at least their morale.

          Amongst the main areas of comments, three criticisms stand out loud and clear, namely: (1) the insincere approach to the problem-plagued relationship between the legislature and the Executive Authorities; (2) the complete lack of soul searching, self assessment and self censorship on the part of the Administration on the many saga that had become international laughing stocks; and (3) the ill considered plan for a new bureau to centralise policies formulation and implementation of food safety and environmental hygiene.

Failing relationship between

Legislature and Executive Authorities

          Let me elaborate. That the legislature and the Executive Authorities are not sounding a cord of unison is obvious to all. Examples abound that the Administration has shown a total lack of understanding, if not respect, of the work and constitutional position of the legislature. In two occasions in 1998, members of the legislature have spoken extensively on the relationship, or the lack of it.

          Yet, inspite of the increasing pleas of the Legislators for the Administration to come out with solutions to mend such failing relationship, the Chief Executive gently brushed away the issue -- commenting that channels exist for communication between these two tiers of government and hope that a better working relationship will follow. Such nonchalant response by the head of the Executive Authorities symbolises either the lack of understanding of the rapidly widening chasm of the working relationship between the Executive Authorities and the legislature; or, worse, the lack of concern for this very much needed relationship that is so vital for proper governance.

Lacking of Self Assessment

          1998 has been a bad year for Hong Kong. Our health scene has been scandalised by the emergence of the avian flu; our economy has tumbled at an unprecedented rate; our supposed pride and joy -- the New Airport -- became an international laughing stock. It may well be said that some of these disasters are unavoidable: the financial crisis is part of a global economic nose-dive; the avian flu might well have been "imported" from the Mainland.

          Yet, is our Government completely absolved from blame? Could some of the happenings be averted if our civil servants were more alert to the changing situations? Could the magnitude of the disasters be reduced if our civil servants worked in better coordination? Could damage be minimised if there was better leadership? The least the Administration could do would be to take on a self assessment, accept the portion of the blame, and take stock of the lessons learnt to improve performance for the future. This is what any responsible government is expected to do! This is how the public confidence in the Administration could be sustained and improved.

          Regrettably, such was not forthcoming in the Policy Address. Instead the Chief Executive gave the thumb up sign of approval saying, for example in the avian flu saga, that "don't forget, we finally got rid of the bird flu, and had approval from international bodies".

Bring in Professional Ministers for better governance

          But is the Chief Executive that oblivious to the shortfalls of the Administration? Some have taken comfort from the reshuffle of top civil servants so soon after the Policy Address as a positive sign that Mr Tung is not only well aware of the situation, but is also taking leadership in amending the flaws. Let us hope that the recent reshuffle is not just a routine musical chair but rather a move to skimp out the weed and improve the efficiency of our still very much respected civil service.

          Yet this is not quite far from enough. Yes, our administrative officers have often times demonstrate they can assume "overnight experts". Yet there is a deficiency of professional expertise and market experience so very much needed to face crisis and to come out with in-depth solutions.

          Furthermore, whilst our civil service has consistently vow their political neutrality, the fact that top civil servants formulate policies, stand by such political decisions and lobby for their support make a farce of their "neutral" stand. In short, our senior civil servants are "ministers" in their work, with no public mandate, but civil servants in their appointments and responsibilities. Is this the best dichotomy for the modern Hong Kong?

          It might, therefore, be appropriate for the Chief Executive to bring in "fresh air" and professional expertise" to his constitutional structure by considering political appointment for ministers. Let the best man for the job instead of relying on outdated mechanism of seniority exercise.

          The next to be established bureau on food and environmental hygiene, if it is a must, may well be a pilot study to introduce a minister with professional expertise.

No place for officials' personal preferences

in structural reform for food safety

          The call for a better coordination and thus better control of food safety and environmental hygiene is not new. For some time, the medical profession has been appealing for a Food and Drug Administration type of controlling body. The aftermath of the avian flu must have woken up many, including our civil servants, that there is a lack of departmental and bureau coordination. A centralised body will no doubt help to bring healthier and cleaner food from farm to the connoisseurs table that few, other than those with vested interest, should object.

          The question of course is how, in particular, to create efficiency, without yet creating a further bureaucracy. In short, should a new bureau and department be created to tackle the issue, or should the task be placed under an existing bureau and department.

          Rumours have been that the Chief Executive had severe headache in deciding which bureau to take up the new domain of centralised food safety. Rumours are that existing bureau heads are reluctant to shoulder additional responsibilities. Rumours are that some bureau or departmental heads are choosy in accepting only the "glittering" jobs.

          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 -- and unfortunately it seems so in the Government's latest proposal, it would only demonstrate that either our top officials are being irresponsible, or our Chief Executive is losing his leadership.

          In any rational reform of governmental or constitutional structure for public good, there is no place for personal preferences of our incumbent officials.

Proposed structure fails to address problems of

overlap and coordination

          In any case, the decision as announced in the Policy Address is in my mind the worse of all evils. As a start, the new body will take under its wings the Environment Protection Department, the Agriculture and Fisheries Department, the work on waste collection and disposal services from the municipal departments, food hygiene and disease control aspect from the Department of Health. Yet, the Department of Health will still be under the remit of the Health and Welfare Bureau.

          At a recent briefing session, Legislators were being told that the Administration expects to improve efficiency of dealing with infectious diseases in the future by putting them into the charge of two separated departments -- those related with food will be the responsibility of the new department; and the others fall back into the downscaled Department of Health.

          To use specific examples: an epidemic of cholera will be under the charge of the new department; an epidemic of flu would be under the Department of Health, unless perhaps it is avian flu because it originates from chickens and therefore food related. How hilarious! How ridiculous!

          What does centralisation mean when handling of infectious diseases would still be under two bureaux and two departments?

          It is high time for Government to re-examine the proposal. It may be much more tidy to put the handling of food and environmental hygiene under the Health and Welfare Bureau to be executed by an expanded and reformed Department of Health. Or if a new bureau is a must, split the Health and Welfare Bureau to form a new Health Bureau to take charge.

          A good start is half way to success. We should set off with the best possible option for any reform!

- END -