2004年6月1日 星期二

Erosion of Hong Kong's values

(Originally published in South China Morning Post, 2004-6-1 )


Every community defines itself by the intrinsic core values it believes in. Hong Kong is no exception. It prides itself on being a modern, cosmopolitan city which has grown from its Chinese roots. It thus shares, or at least aspires to, many universal values common to modern societies: freedom of expression, the rule of law, democracy, social equity, fair play, tolerance and intellectual honesty.


There are also a host of other, evolving values essential to sustainable development: diversity, reconciliation with nature, equity between generations, and the right for individuals to have access to decision-making in public policies.


In our social, political and daily lives, these core values are not only the yardstick of what is right or wrong, they even shape the relationship between the governing and the governed. Hence, any erosion of these values has the potential to change the nature of Hong Kong as we know it today. A couple of recent cases may help explain the gravity of the matter.


First, there is the controversy over the sale to developers of the seven high-rise residential buildings in the Hunghom Peninsula . They were built under the Home Ownership Scheme, the original intent of which was to use public resources to assist families who could not afford private housing. Under much pressure from developers, the scheme was discontinued to make way for the sale of private properties.


While it is debatable whether this policy may be justified by the spin-off benefits for society at large, it was never intended that the public resources allocated to subsidise low-income families should be diverted in any form to benefit private developers. Yet this was exactly what happened with the sale of the 2,470 brand-new flats to two major companies. Has the core value of social equity been upheld here?


Further, under the guise of a pre-existing public-private partnership arrangement, the flats were transferred to the developers with no open bidding process. Is the core value of fair play a loser in this case?


The developers are now sounding out the possibility of demolishing the buildings to make way for luxury flats, in order to make more money. If this scheme gets the go-ahead, taxpayers may have to foot the bill of more than $25 million for the disposal of building waste. Ultimately, this will mean more landfills and speedier environmental degradation in the New Territories . If paying due respect to nature is a core value, the creation of 200,000 tonnes of construction waste is a most effective way to go against this.


Second, take the ongoing controversy over the government's insistence on lumping cultural, commercial and residential elements of the West Kowloon Cultural District project into a single tender. The issue is not whether one or more of the developers will get a slice of the profits, but whether the core value of fair market competition enjoys any status. More important, given the size of the project, the level of public participation in the decision-making process has been abysmal.


And what about the rationale behind other incidents, such as the Harbour Fest fiasco, inaction over the destruction of many streams in the New Territories, and uncontrolled and illegal dumping in Lam Tsuen? The picture is truly dismal.


Many observers have said that intellectual honesty, equitable due process, the rule of law and freedom of speech are the latest casualties in the central government's newly defined relationship with Hong Kong . These core values are inseparable from those essential to good governance.


With constitutional development suspended, it can only aggravate the tendency of cronyism, which will grow at the expense of the core values we treasure.


Albert Lai Kwong-tak is chairman of the Conservancy Association.


(Originally published in South China Morning Post, 2004-6-1 )


 


 


沒有留言:

張貼留言