29 August 1999

Wish List of the public for the Policy Address
("Letter to Hong Kong", Radio Television Hong Kong)

(Keywords:- Policy Address, environment, food safety, heath care reform, Legislative Council, Executive Authorities)

          In a few weeks' time, our Chief Executive will be delivering his third Policy Address. With our economy still not out of the woods, every one will be looking forward with eagerness the number of hat tricks Mr Tung can pull to help refloat our economy. But that will not be all.

          Needless to say, every citizen in Hong Kong will have his/her own "wish list". In his usual show of concern, Mr Tung has called on members of the legislature to express their views. This is no doubt a commendable gesture. Regrettably, the very short time allotted to each makes a mockery of the exercise. Furthermore, many doubt whether their views, albeit brilliant, will be able to be taken on board, let alone appear in print in the Policy Address at this eleventh hour. The sincerity and usefulness of the exercise is thus cast in doubt. Little wonder some politicians are planning to boycott the encounter. This is regrettable, for irrespective of the result, as people's representatives, LegCo members have to reflect the views and the needs of the society to the Administration for the betterment of Hong Kong.

          It would be foolhardy, if not impractical to expect the Policy Address to cover too many areas of change. Yet there re three areas that Mr Tung must address, failing which it would be an injustice to the public -- the environment, the relationship between the Executive Authorities and the Legislative Council, and the health care reform.

Environmental Protection

          If typhoon Sam has brought any good to Hong Kong, it must be that it helped temporarily to clean up the air that we breathe. For almost a week prior to the typhoon havoc, our air pollution index has reached some all time high, and persistently high both in the urban and sub-urban areas. Nor is this an isolated incidence. But what has Government done or what will Government do to alleviate its citizens the imminent danger of suffocation?

          Yes, Government will say that a whole set of measures to reduce air pollution are ready for the offering -- diesel to liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) for taxis and light buses, a more stringent control of smokey exhaust through changing the law etc. Regrettably, the bullock cart pace that Government is adopting to implement the policy of diesel to LPG is totally unacceptable in this high speed society, especially when the reasons cited are completely unconvincing.

          But if Government is genuinely convinced that implementing diesel to LPG for taxis and light buses will be the panacea for our air pollution, then it is being over simplistic. Worst, this may well be the Government's intended tactic to pull wool over the public's eyes to the belief that here lies all the problems. Let our Government be reminded that taxis only count for 4% of all vehicles on the road. What about the heavy goods trucks, the many buses and others that run on diesel?

          What about the continuous puffing from the exhaust of idling vehicles? Yes, education may help. Yet with education for some 10 years, it is high time to combat this through legislation with heavy penalties.

          Nor are we any safer drinking our water. Reports of high bacterial colony counts of our water have stirred up severe worries over the safety of our drinking water. Are we actually drinking from sewers? The problem must be tackled at the source. As the main bulk of our water come from the Mainland, Government should concentrate its effort. There is thus a dire need for more practical and frequent meetings between relevant officials of the two areas, with results made public. Perhaps Hong Kong could consider investing into ways and means of preventing uncurbed contamination of the Dongjiang water by untreated sewage and industrial discharges. Let the Chief Executive show his determination in his Policy Address.

Food Safety

          The food we eat are far from total hygienic. There has been no shortage of food borne infectious diseases, and mass food poisoning are regrettably not too uncommon. The saga of the avian flu has brought shame. Regrettably, our Government has not learnt from these problems.

          There has been a consistent call for the establishment of a "Centre of Disease Control" type unit -- to collect and collate local and overseas data, to take up comprehensive disease surveillance -- but to no avail. There has been a call to set up a food and drug centre under the Department of Health. Instead, Government is considering setting up a new bureau and a new department to deal with food and environmental hygiene. How effective this will be for prevention and control of infection from food only time can tell, suffice it to say that again the study and monitoring of infectious diseases will fall into the ambit of two bureaus and two departments instead of centralising it into one for better coordination of work.

          Infectious diseases associated with fowl such as avian flu has gone, but it will return in one form or the other. It is high time our Government puts its foot down to a central slaughtering station for all fowls. Yes, it may well be against our culture of eating freshly slaughtered chickens and there will be protest, but it is for the good of Hong Kong, so be it!

Relationship between Executive Authorities and Legislature

          In the last two years, it is a well known fact that the relationship between the Executive Authorities and the legislature has been courteous but strained. Yet, the problem has never been addressed, nor attempts made to ease the tension. Let us do not forget, a harmonious relationship between these two tiers of government is the essence of good governance. Yes, the Basic Law has stated that the Special Administrative Region government will be an executive-led government and so it should be. Yet, it also implies that checks and balances must be in place between these two tiers. The legislature is not opposing to executive-led government, but we abhor an executive demand administration.

          The controversy of interpretation of Article 74 of the Basic Law highlight the conflict. Article 74 of the Basic Law states that "the written consent of the Chief Executive shall be required before bills relating to government policies are introduced" by legislators. The Legislative Council accepts this and endorses that this article applies to the introduction of Members' bills, but not to Members' amendments to Government bills.

          Regrettably, Government interprets it otherwise. In essence, therefore, any amendment to Government bills, other than perhaps technical ones, will be related to Government policy and could not be introduced without the Chief Executive's consent.

          All over the world, be it a democratic or autocratic government, the legislature scrutinises and amends the bills and ultimately passes them into law with or without amendment. When this "sacrosanct" function is remove, what role other than a "rubber stamp" does the legislature play?

          This conflict has been in existence since the sovereignty changeover. The ball is in Government's court!

          It is vital for Government to settle this dichotomy once and for all. It has sent disarray not only through the public, the legislators, but perhaps brought bureau secretaries into stages of schizophrenia!

Health Care Reform

          In his two previous policy addresses, Mr Tung made reference to the need for health care review, if not reform. This is visionary although nothing has been set in concrete. The appointment of the Harvard consultants to look into our health care and financing system should be applauded, not that the recommendations are acceptable to all, but that the exercise is a catalyst for the Government, the public and the health care professions to have a look into themselves and for them to suggest a better way for the future.

          The appointment of a health care professional and an "outsider" of civil service to take up the helm of the Health and Welfare Bureau is another innovative step in the right direction in particular when a health care reform is underway, where genuine knowledge of health care is essential.

          For these initial, but important, steps to bear fruit, it is imperative that Mr Tung takes a personal lead to instigate the whole Administration to be behind the reform. It will not be easy, for any reform will involve financial changes where the users may have to bear a bigger burden of responsibility, something that may be an adversity in this political climate.

          Yes, the Government will be publishing another consultation paper on its stance later in the year on how health care reform could be brought forward. On this basis, Mr Tung might not have anything definite to say in his forthcoming Policy Address. Yet, the least he could do would be to reaffirm the Administration's stance on the principle that: "Every resident should have access to reasonable quality and affordable health care. The government assures this access through a system of shared responsibility between the government and the residents where those who can afford to pay for health care should pay."

- END -