2006年12月13日 星期三

出人意表的突圍「工程」

(本文收錄在 吳靄儀、陳伯添編 有得揀 你至係老闆 一書內,香港, 博益出版社. 20075, 56-59)


在眾多界別的選委選舉中,工程界是事前最多人看淡,事後最多人驚訝的界別。


事實上,整個民主派在工程界的競選工程,不過是短短兩個多月的籌備過程。


在開始組班的階段,令我印象最深刻的是一個週五的黃昏,相約一位從來不談政治的工程師校友在港大見面。當我陳述了民主派今次參與選委選舉的利害之後,滿以為這位一向謹慎的校友會婉言相拒。然而在數分鐘的沉默之後,我卻聽到一個「置個人風險於度外,為民主堅定上路」的答覆!由於這位校友是私人機構的合約工程師,職業風險特別大,他的堅定信念令我深受感動。


一輪游說之後,最後由八位工程師合力組成了「選舉工程連線」。本來還有多幾位曾經表示考慮加入,但最終沒有成事。最有趣的是其中一位原本是自由黨黨員,但卻認同我們的理念,最後被自由黨高層勸阻而不能不退出。


在正式報名參選的頭一週,黨友Christine Tanya 同時兼任我們的競選代理人。但大家都被繁瑣無比、模棱兩可的選舉條例嚇怕,結果我最後只能忍痛割愛,請Tanya 退下火線,專注她個人的参選活動,免得偶一不慎時拖累她辛苦得來的大律師執照 。


很多人稱讚「選舉工程連線」的標誌設計、網頁及印刷品極具專業水平,這當然是拜我們的競選經理Christine 和網頁專家Freeman 所賜。我們八位工程師清一色男子漢,卻被不眠不休、在廣告界拼搏多年的「俠女」Christine ,往往指揮得暈頭轉向。


工程師的長處是分析細緻、組織力強、鍥而不捨,在這次選舉工程中可以說是發揮得淋漓盡致。由於這是民主派第一次在工程界參選,我們事前完全沒有選民資料;但在群策群力下,短短三個星期內合共取得四千多個電郵地址,超過全數七千多選民的一半。此後一個月的競選期,我們就是利用四次電郵,兩次直接郵遞與選民聯絡,加上永不言倦地四出拜訪,發放「選舉工程連線」只為公益、不求私利和敢於求變的信息,成為今次勝負的關鍵。


在為時兩個月從組班到選戰的過程中,「連線」的團隊最少每週聚會兩至三次,經常需要下班後邊吃邊談。為了激勵士氣,有饞嘴成員說:「大家要狠狠地吃一頓呵!」,但卻招來另一位成員抗議,並引用毛主席的教導嚴正指出:「革命不是請客吃飯。」成為了我們今次選擧過程中一次小小的「內部路線鬥爭」!


1210投票日本應是最緊張的一天,但是由於選舉規例的荒謬,使我們無從接近投票站,反而變成最清閒的一天。投票日後的凌晨,大家好整以暇,到會展觀看點票過程。工程界的點票結果,最終在11日早上7時多完成,「選舉工程連線」大獲全勝,八位成員全部高票當選。我當時雖然難掩興奮,但內心卻預感到這是一條新戰線的開端 --- 它不僅是特首選舉角力的序幕,更是如何凝聚專業界別求變力量的一場持久戰。


漫漫長路,總會令並肩上路的好友背上或多或少的個人風險。一念及此,在激昂中難免帶點滄凉。


 


 


2006年10月30日 星期一

A leader tied to outdated thinking

(Originally published in South China Morning Post, 2006-10-30 , p. A13)


In 1972, world leaders from 113 nations were confronted with a serious challenge at the United Nations Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm : how to reconcile the conflicts between environmental protection and economic development. Could the knot be untied?


When Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen delivered his policy address last week, he sounded dangerously close to one of those troubled world leaders 34 years ago. He mused about the public aspiration for a better environment: To attain these progressive goals, however, we must keep up the momentum of economic growth, otherwise this is all empty talk and we shall lack the resources to make things happen.


This may be empty talk for Hong Kong . But for world leaders in 1972, it was different: they established the UN Environment Programme and began to search for an answer. It was not until 15 years later that they found one. It came from the Bruntland Report - the concept and practice of sustainable development, that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.


Since then, environmental quality, social well-being and economic prosperity have no longer been seen as inevitable conflicts. With innovation, good science and community efforts, these objectives can become mutually reinforcing. The Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 vastly expanded the body of knowledge in putting theory into practice.


But there is one catch - sustainable development can happen only where there is vision and good governance.


Mr Tsang's world view was more clearly exposed when he debated with legislators the day after his address. He regarded public calls for a better environment and heritage conservation as the root cause for slowing development, offering the examples of the West Kowloon , Kai Tak and Central-Wan Chai harbourfront developments. That is, delaying development means less revenue for the public coffers; hence the progressive goals for a quality environment must wait until money can be found.


Barely a week before the policy address, Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen delivered the world's first city-wide sustainability report to a global conference of more than 1,100 people in the Dutch city. The report espouses the aim of turning Amsterdam into a liveable city by proclaiming that investments in our existing living environment are contributing significantly to the sustainable development of Amsterdam .


Not only does the Amsterdam government not shy away from investing for the future, it also acknowledges that by accepting our social responsibility in proper environmental care, biodiversity and sustainable poverty alleviation, we also expand our own knowledge.


By aiming towards a clear vision, the city, its boroughs, departments and enterprises share an ambition to do more than is required or expected. The city's power company has just completed a world-first in using the temperature differences in a deep-water lake for a district cooling system, for example. New businesses are attracted by this sort of innovative project, which cuts greenhouse-gas emissions by more than 60 per cent when compared with using air conditioning.


In such cases, environmental concerns become a competitive edge and the quest for a better environment is a growth engine.


Officials looking for easy solutions may find a thousand reasons to brand the many concerned groups and citizens who make similar suggestions as Luddites with an anti-development agenda. But, in the end, who will suffer?


If Hong Kong is embroiled in practical politics under the guidance of an outdated development philosophy, we can hardly lead in innovation and governance.


We must move quickly from a three-decade old ideology to a 21st-century vision. The public has moved forward; what about our leaders?


Albert Lai is chairman of the Hong Kong People's Council for Sustainable Development and the Civic Party's vice-chairman.


 


 


2006年10月1日 星期日

曾蔭權的環保理念

(本文原載於200610月「經濟一週」雜誌)


1972年,全球113個國家領袖齊集瑞典首都斯德哥爾摩,召開聯合國「人類環境」會議,討論一個嚴肅的課題:經濟發展與環境保護是否必然對立?如何能解開這個死結?


特首曾蔭權在上週發表施政報告時,他的腔調與34年前的多國領袖出奇地相似。當談及社會大眾對提升環境質素的訴求時,他認為:「要實現這些進步的目標,經濟必須持續增長,否則一切都是空話,沒有本錢去實現。」


背後的理念其實很簡單:「先發展、後保育」;「先污染、後治理」。按照曾蔭權的發展觀,期望把環境關注轉化成發展動力的人,均變成反發展、拖後腿的障礙,影響庫房收入。


實踐可持續發展理論


參與1972年會議的各國領袖可並不滿足於這樣的「空話」,他們經過15年的努力,終於找到答案──聯合國的「白切朗報告」提出了可持續發展的概念,致力實踐一種發展模式,既可滿足現今世代的需要,卻不會削弱子孫後代滿足其需要的能力。


經過1992年里約熱內盧的「地球高峰會」及2002年的「可持續發展及世界首腦會議」後,把可持續發展的理論付諸實踐的經驗已經俯拾皆是。


但是,要有如曾蔭權的要求,同時提升環境質素、社會和諧和經濟繁榮,除了需倚賴創意、科技與社群協作之外,更需要良好管治和清晰的城市發展願景。


把環境制約轉化成優勢


就在施政報告發表前一星期,荷蘭阿姆斯特丹市市長提交了世界上第一份涵蓋全市的「可持續發展報告」。報告明確指出「投資於居住環境是該市可持續展的動力」,「接受環境關顧、生物多樣性及滅貧的社會責任,可以擴闊我們的知識視野」。


舉例說,阿姆斯特丹的電力公司利用一個深水湖頂部和底部的溫差,建造了全球第一項地區空調工程,不但減少了60%的溫室氣體排放,更吸引了大企業在該區落,成功地把環境制約轉化成經濟競爭的優勢。


在香港,我們難道不可以因應中環─灣仔海濱過度發展的現況,促成一套創新的交通方案?或在啟德新規劃區創建零排放的運輸系統?又例如因應昂船洲污水廠缺乏擴建空間,可以採用最新的省地設計和流程,加快排污計劃第二期的建設。


若果曾蔭權擁抱的「務實政治」,仍然受制於超過30年前的發展觀,願景貧乏、因循苟且的代價,最終只會由我們的子孫後代承擔。


 


 


Exposed: A three-decade old ideology

In 1972, world leaders from 113 nations were confronted with a serious challenge at the United Nations Conference on Human Environment at Stockholm : how to reconcile the conflicts between environmental protection and economic development. Could the deadlock be untied?


When the Chief Executive, Donald Tsang, delivered his policy address last week, he sounded dangerously close to one of those troubled world leaders 34 years ago. He mused about the public aspiration for a better environment: “To attain these progressive goals, however, we must keep up the momentum of economic growth, otherwise this is all empty talk and we shall lack the resources to make things happen.”.


Empty talk for Hong Kong it may be. But for world leaders in 1972, they established the United Nations Environment Programme and began to search for an answer. It was not until 15 years later that they found one from the Bruntland Report – the concept and practice of sustainable development, a kind of development that "meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."


From then on, environmental quality, social well-being and economic prosperity are no longer seen as inevitable conflicts. With innovation, good science and community efforts, these objectives can become mutually reinforcing. The Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 vastly expanded the body of knowledge in putting theory into practice.


But there is one catch – sustainable development can only happen where there is city vision and good governance.


The Chief Executive’s world view was more clearly exposed when he debated with Legislative Councillors on the next day. He regarded public calls for better environment and heritage conservation as the root cause for slowing down development, offering examples in West Kowloon , Kai Tak and Central-Wanchai harbour-front development. Delaying development means less revenue for the public coffer; hence the “progressive goals” for a quality environment must wait until money can be found.


Barely a week before the Policy Address, the Mayor of Amsterdam, Job Cohen, delivered the world’s first city-wide sustainability report to a global conference attended by over 1,100 participants in the Dutch capital. The report espouses the aim of turning Amsterdam into a livable city by proclaiming that “investments in our existing living environment are contributing significantly to the sustainable development of Amsterdam ”.


Not only does the Amsterdam government not shy away from investing for the future, it also acknowledges that “by accepting our social responsibility in proper environmental care, biodiversity and sustainable poverty alleviation, we also expand our own knowledge”.


By aiming high towards a clear vision, the city, its boroughs, departments and enterprises share an ambition to do more than is required or expected. In waste management, its waste-to-energy plant handles 900,000 tons of waste and sewage slurry annually with raw materials reclaimed in the process. It is also constructing a new high-yield waste-fired power plant with an electrical efficiency of 30%.


As a response to the challenge of global warming, the city’s power company has just completed the world’s first district cooling system by utilizing the temperature difference between the bottom and the top of a deep water lake near the city. New businesses are attracted to the district because of this innovative supply of energy which reduces greenhouse gas emission by over 60% compared to conventional air-conditioning.


Quite simply, environmental concerns are being turned into Amsterdam ’s competitive edge. The quest for a better environment is an engine for growth, not an obstacle.


There may not be deep water lakes in Hong Kong . But what about finding an innovative transport solution for the over-built Central-Wanchai harbour-front, or an emission-free people-mover system in the long strip of land in Kai Tak? In our drive to clean up the harbour, should we not turn the space constraint in the Stonecutter’s Sewage Treatment Plant into an opportunity for developing the most land-efficient technology and speed up the stage two development of the Harbour Area Treatment Scheme?


Officials looking for easy solutions may find a thousand reasons to brand the many concerned groups and citizens who made similar suggestions as luddites with an anti-development agenda. But in the end who will suffer the consequences?


The Italian film director Federico Fellini once said: “the visionary is the only true realist”. Many in Hong Kong would perhaps agree.


If Hong Kong is embroiled in “practical politics” under the guidance of an outdated development philosophy, we can hardly lead – in innovation and in governance. We must move quickly from a three-decade old ideology to a 21st century vision. The public has moved; what about our leaders?


Albert Lai is the Chairman of Hong Kong People’s Council for Sustainable Development and the  Vice-chairman of the Civic Party


 


 


2006年7月10日 星期一

Quality, not quantity

(Originally published in South China Morning Post, 2006-7-10 , p. A13)


Hong Kong is on the verge of a significant demographic shift - declining fertility rates and an ageing population are only two of the more obvious features. Whether these trends turn out to be threats or opportunities will depend on how we, as a community, respond to the challenges.


We need a serious public debate on some important, but long-neglected, policy issues. A good starting place is the document Enhancing Population Potential for a Sustainable Future, published by the Council for Sustainable Development last week.


It notes that Hong Kong 's population is projected to increase from 6.9 million to 8.4 million by 2033, and the proportion of the elderly is likely to increase from 12 per cent to 27 per cent. But our fertility rate is expected to stay under one child per woman - far below the replacement level of 2.1 - in the years to come. It would be easy to take a doomsday view of these figures and predict the decline of the city's competitiveness. Such alarmists might advocate quickly curbing spending on future retirees and relaxing the entry requirements for foreign talents.


But such reactions may jeopardise a sensible debate on population policy. After all, there is scant evidence from experience worldwide that a city's competitiveness suffers from an ageing population. Furthermore, the overall dependency ratio - the 65-and-over population as a proportion of the 15-64 population - projected for 2033 will be no higher than that of the early 1970s, when Hong Kong went through a period of sustained rapid growth.


The primary objective of a population policy is to safeguard and improve the quality of life of the entire population despite demographic changes and the brutal forces of globalisation. A vibrant economy is needed to serve the population, not the other way round. With this objective in mind, there are four areas in particular that warrant public debate.


First, as the demographic profile changes, there is a need to create a more diversified job market in order to make full use of the available human capital. This means job-sharing arrangements for both men and women who want to devote more time to the family; more switching opportunities for those who desire a second career in mid-life; and friendlier work environments for people of retirement age who want to continue working. How should we design public policies to encourage such changes, soon enough to make a difference?


Second, all work and no play is no joy for anyone, especially the family. Our work environment has deteriorated to such an extent that an entire population's enjoyment of life is under threat. Relieving work pressure would remove a potential deterrent to people having children. But what action can the government take to redress the balance without incurring protests from business? Should we rely on voluntary corporate social responsibility, or should there be new regulations on work conditions?


Third, while the government has no place in bedroom decisions, it can help Hongkongers feel more secure. The legislature's endorsement last week of a universal retirement scheme will go a long way to provide better security for all, encouraging people to have families.


Fourth, keeping talented people in the city requires a liveable environment. How can we reverse the trends of environmental degradation and destruction of natural and built heritage, and nurture a vigilant civil society to safeguard their future? Let us grasp this chance to formulate a strategy for a sustainable community.


Albert Lai Kwong-tak is chairman of the Hong Kong People's Council for Sustainable Development and a member of the Commission on? Strategic Development.


 


2006年2月24日 星期五

Paying the price for distorted incentives


The city is moving towards the dawning of a new electricity market in 2008 - or so the government tells us. But will this be an era in which the perverse incentives of the past - arising from an obsolete regulatory regime that has cost the public dearly - are reversed?


Any regulatory framework for public utilities creates operational incentives for the market players. Yet, when these incentives are not consistent with the prevailing social objectives, the purpose of regulation is lost. Such incentives invariably lead to an awkward situation, where the corporate behaviour of the utilities comes into conflict with the public interest.


Sadly, this is what has happened in Hong Kong 's electricity sector: despite major shifts in the economic structure and public expectations, the regulatory framework under the scheme of control arrangement has remained largely unchanged over the past four decades.


Under that agreement, the city's two power companies are allowed to earn a return on assets of 13.5 per cent plus an additional 1.5 per cent return on shareholder equity. In practice, this translates into an annual return on equity of over 25 per cent after debt financing. The two power companies responded to these powerful incentives and adjusted their corporate behaviour accordingly.


One may argue that their behaviour is entirely rational - though not exactly likeable - for sophisticated market players. Yet, such corporate behaviour produces odd distortions that are obvious on three fronts.


First, resources are allocated to areas where they generate negligible marginal gains. For instance, the reserve capacity for power generation of the two companies has fluctuated between 30 and 40 per cent in recent years - far above the international standard of 20 per cent.


Furthermore, although power-sharing links between the two companies have been in place for many years, they are used only in emergencies. This exposes the rationale behind building such overcapacity: more power-sharing would deprive both companies of the chance to expand their own generating capacities.


Second, neither company seems to have much concern for resource efficiency. Many cities adopt a sliding tariff to encourage customers to use less power during peak hours, shifting to low-demand periods of the day. The purpose is to get a more consistent level of power use during the day. This is, however, a non-issue in Hong Kong .


If Hongkongers could be persuaded to endure higher indoor temperatures - or simply dress more cooly during a few of those summer days when we hit peak demand levels - we would avoid annual increases in peak load.


That would delay, or even avoid, the need for new power plants.


Hongkongers find no joy in energy conservation. The more we conserve electricity, the less efficient the power supply system becomes: then power companies demand higher tariffs to maintain their permitted return on assets.


Third, the regulatory framework also encourages the failure to account for the external cost of environmental pollution. According to the department of community medicine at the University of Hong Kong , the direct medical costs attributable to air pollution amounted to $1.3 billion in 2002.


The preliminary government proposal for a new regulatory regime does not seem to recognise the huge costs that Hong Kong business and consumers have paid in the past.


The litmus test for the new regulatory regime is whether it can create for the power companies incentives that are aligned with our long-term social objectives - fair for all stakeholders, healthy for the environment and efficient for our economy.


Albert Lai Kwong-tak is vice-chairman of the Civic Party.


(Originally Published in South China Morning Post, 2006-4-24 , p. A15 )


 


 

2006年2月13日 星期一

社會公義:新興的發展議題

「民主、法制是社會和諧的基礎。如果一個社會的財富只集中在少數人手裏,那是不公道的,也是不會持久的,社會也不會穩定。要實現社會公義,就要把社會公義提到制度上來看待。」 說這話的不是一個社會運動街頭鬥士,而是在本月走訪日韓的溫家寶總理。


儘管香港與中國內地平均的經濟發展水平並不一致,但弔詭的是:在全球一體化格局下,我們同樣面對嚴峻的貧富差距和社會不公的問題。


更加弔詭的是:溫總理明確指出必須通過制度改革來解決社會公義的問題。曾特首卻在上月的特首辯論中語帶激憤地表示,突顯貧富不公等同宣揚階級鬥爭。除非你相信溫總理會跑到日韓宣揚階級鬥爭,否則只能懷疑曾特首的管治思維與國際思潮完全脫節。


單從反映貧富差距的堅尼係數來看﹙數字越高、差距越大﹚,香港是零點五二五,內地則稍高於零點四。香港的貧富懸殊遠甚於內地。


固然、判斷貧富差距不應該只以堅尼系數作為單一指標。但是、只要再檢視一些宏觀現象:低收入人口的比例持續上升,三份一的老年人口生活於貧窮線下,四份一的兒童生活於清貧家庭,甚至中產階層的收入也有向下流動的趨勢,我們便不能不憂心貧富懸殊對社會發展的影響。


其實、近年來很多社會上引起爭議的議題均牽涉到社會制度是否公平的根本課題。


例如、中小企業面對激烈競爭,生存空間愈趨狹窄,卻缺乏公平競爭法的保障,大企業的壟斷行為無所顧忌。缺乏公平競爭的市場環境,已經變成窒礙經濟發展的因素:個人創業的意欲減低,創意萎縮,消費者的權益卻得不到保障。長遠來說,只會使香港推行知識型經濟的願景變成一紙空談。


就連市民最貼身、往往牽涉一生積蓄的物業買賣,空談多年也未能就銷售面積落實保障買家的定義,發水樓層出不窮。消費者和地產商只能在一個不對稱的球場上對拼,公平制度又從何談起?


即使是空氣污染等環境問題,其實也是一個社會公義的議題。試想、個人健康最受空氣污染影響的是什麼人口?日夜在路邊擺賣、呼吸汽車廢氣的小販和推銷員;在工廠區邊緣的住宅人口;在一些偏遠的污染地區、例如元朗、天水圍和東涌的居民。每年香港因為空氣污染而提早死亡的人口約有一千六百名,難道弱勢社群和貧窮社區不是首當其衝嗎?


改變不公義的制度不是一場零和遊戲。弱勢社群得到更好的保障,享有更佳的發展機會,不但能促進社會和諧,更可以加快社會整體的可持續發展。我們倚靠自由市場的無形之手創造財富,但必須同時以政府的有形之手保障弱勢社群的最低生活水平,並維持一個公平的競爭體制。


不管是商業特權或政治特權,都是破壞社會公義的元兇。改革進步只會損害少數特權份子的免費午餐,這是階級鬥爭嗎?


溫總理要求把社會公義提到制度上來看待,特區的領導班子是否能夠不負所托?


 


 


2006年1月1日 星期日

Tripartite Partnership: Myth or reality?

一直以來,城市基礎設施項目均以追求公眾利益作為發展的理據。如今,隨著可持續發展的大趨勢,我們是否應該重新審視並定義公眾利益?利用傳統的投資評估工具,例如成本-效益分析,能否全面反映出基建專案需要考慮關於資源保育、社會公義和跨代公義等多層次領域的價值?這些問題的答案直接影響基建項目的認受性。建立一個透明的機制,讓公眾擁有獲取資訊及參與決策的管道是至為重要的。


不少人認為公共-私營的夥伴關係是利用更少公共資金建設更多基礎設施的捷徑。近期的經驗顯示,此種模式只有在特定的條件下才能取得成功。


兩個關鍵的條件包括建立獨立的機制以平衡公共和私營利益;和建立公眾參與機制,以便在項目計畫和運行中充份反映社會價值取向。一個成熟及擁有足夠資源的公民社會是建立一個有公信力及有效機制的必要條件。由於基建專案的生命週期較長,公共-私營夥伴關係是否穩定,往往取決於是否有一套完備的公共機制及高質素的公務人員。


Ever since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, there has been a loud voice of concern in the international community. It concerns the gap between what the heads of state committed on paper in pursuit of sustainable development, and what actually happened around the world. The worsening trends of climate change, deforestation, biodiversity loss, desertification, resource depletion and poverty all pointed to a widening gap between vision and action.


Amidst the call for renewed efforts to tackle the mounting challenges, forging partnerships among the three major stakeholders – government, business and civil s oc iety, seems to offer a glimpse of hope. In the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 – the first such event attended by both government and non-governmental delegations from Hong Kong , the concept of tripartite partnerships was given a seal of approval by the international community.


Whilst there have been many attempts to forge partnerships at the global level, for instance, the Marine Stewardship Council established as an operational partnership between World Wildlife Fund and Unilever in 1999, or the “Choose Positive Energy” Campaign launched as an awareness partnership between Greenpeace International and the Body Shop in 2001, let us today focus at the local level, and use Hong Kong as a case study to examine whether partnerships are making real impacts at the community.


Local Partnerships


Despite the adoption of Local Agenda 21 – an initiative to develop sustainable communities by means of broad-based public participation – by over 7000 cities around the world in over a decade, progress has been painfully slow in Hong Kong . Up to now only one out of 18 districts, namely the Central & Western District – with the help of our organizer today, Centre of Urban Planning and Environmental Management at the University of Hong Kong - has attempted to develop a comprehensive sustainable development strategy. And only three weeks ago did we witness another district – Wanchai, the district where we are located today – launch the first ever public process for Loc al Agenda 21.


On the other hand, in the last few years the Hong Kong government has been pumping resources into the community to encourage partnerships through public funds, the most notable of which include the Sustainable Development Fund and the Community Investment and Inclusion Fund. These funds are administered by government-appointed committees and open for applications by NGOs. Have they succeeded in nurturing partnerships in the community?


To answer this question we have to revisit a more fundamental question. What exactly are tripartite partnerships at the local level?


Partnerships are meant to fill a gap in the current system of governance. Within each of the key stakeholders there are institutional weaknesses which render each of them a deficient player in the pursuit for sustainable development. Governments are hampered by bureaucratic inefficiency and the low trust factor with people. The private sector is unable to deliver comprehensive solutions because of the structural problem of market failure and the void in corporate social responsibilities. The civil society, though ideals-driven, suffers from a lack of resources and the absence of policy-making authority.


To put it simply, improving governance is the overarching objective of partnerships which can be used to stimulate economic vibrancy, strengthen s oc ial cohesion and improve people’s quality of life. Partnerships, if carried out to its full potential, should improve the ways s oc iety collectively solves its problems and meets its needs – for this and for future generations.


Partnership Characteristics


It can be argued that genuine partnerships have two essential characteristics.


First, partnering is a horizontal relationship.


The essential feature of partnership is mutual dependence. Neither party can achieve the desired results by working alone. Even though the partners may be vastly unequal in some aspects of their relationship, at some level their core interests are linked. This gives them the right and duty to speak freely about issues of mutual concern and to make joint decisions. The degree to which the partners can discuss matters as equals is a litmus test for whether the relationship can be called a partnership.


Second, partnering builds synergy.


Partnership brings expertise to the table that the partners lack individually. By jointly harnessing their respective skills and experience, the partnership can accomplish more. By the same token, a partnership will fail unless it provides clear and compelling benefits for each party.


Partnering Principles


For partnerships to function effectively there are some key principles which must be observed:


1. Shared values


Partners have many things in common, but also many unique elements to their work. It is almost impossible that all of the partners' goals and values line up together; it is however important that there be significant common ground, a shared mission, for joint action. Partnerships need to articulate what are important to them, and understand where their shared purpose and interests lie.


2. Shared Governance


Despite the imbalance of power between partners, there must be a mechanism which enables each partner to have largely equal voice and appropriate representation in decision-making. This is the starting point for building trust, taking risks, showing care, honouring commitments and creating a culture of mutual support among partners.


3. Shared resources


Each party to the partnership brings a different set of resources. A truly effective partnership utilizes all of its collective resources based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. For instance, governments and business may contribute the bulk of financial resources whereas NGOs may provide much-needed public trust and network. Withholding of resources is a common organizational phenomenon, so a positive climate must be built in which partners are encouraged to offer all that they bring to the larger whole.


4. Shared accountability


Partnership involves shared ownership of risks, benefits, and responsibility for outcomes. One of the great stumbling blocks in partnering is fear of being held accountable for the mistakes of others, or conversely not receiving recognition for success. In successful partnerships the partners clarify roles, make commitments, and devise ways to hold each other mutually accountable. Not only are partners accountable to each other, but they should also share the same commitment to make the partnership accountable to whom they mean to serve, and the community at large.


Rethinking Partnerships


If the above partnering principles are used as yardsticks, many of the projects which have grown out of the Sustainable Development Fund and the Community Investment and Inclusion Fund appear to have fallen short of the definition of tripartite partnerships in both spirit and substance. Whilst these projects are often worthwhile initiatives per se, they are more appropriately classified as an alternative mode of service delivery with largely government funding and sometimes a small dose of corporate philanthropy. They do however cover a wide scope ranging from elderly and child-care services, employment creation for disadvantaged groups, to environmental improvements in the urban or rural setting.


Although we can identify what qualifies as a tripartite partnership, when theory is put into practice, too often the outcome is distorted by each stakeholder’s perception of what one may gain potentially from the success of the partnership, as well as the opportunity costs of its failure. Good intentions of collaboration are often no match for die-hard habits of control and maneuvering towards one-sided outcomes.


Urban Renewal


Consider, for instance, the many cases of urban renewal now taking place in Hong Kong . Due to the level of resources needed in each project, government intervention is a norm. Stakes are high in every case as new funds are injected, new plans are produced and new opportunities are capable of being created in old districts. These are ideal opportunities for partnerships in which the government can fulfill its s oc ial objectives, the private sector can contribute its commercial expertise and local stakeholders can seize the chance to revitalize the neighbourhood. In fact, if managed well, urban renewal can give a much-needed push for a sustainable community.


Sadly, instead of becoming breeding grounds for innovative partnerships, local urban renewal projects, such as the H15 project involving the wedding card street in Wanchai, often end up in conflicts among developers who f oc us on their bottom-lines, residents who deplore the loss of community fabric, an urban renewal authority which seems to have been constrained by self-imposed business logic, and government policy-makers who are all too happy to stay out of the controversies despite the pr oc laimed s oc ial objectives.


Planning for Victoria Harbour


Another example is the ongoing debate on the conservation of Victoria harbour and the enhancement of the harbourfront areas. For those of you who come from overseas, I trust you would not disagree that the harbour is one of the most precious assets for Hong Kong . Yet for nearly a decade this natural asset, far from becoming a centre point for vision-building, has become a subject of much attrition among administrators, politicians, professionals, developers and green groups and the public at large.


The latest controversy surrounding the planning of the newly-reclaimed Central habourfront and the use of the Tamar site for government headquarters is a good illustration of the elusive nature of partnerships. Whilst all stakeholders seem to have agreed on a shared vision, there is no agreement on a structure for shared governance, let alone any willingness to consider shared resources among potential partners from the government, business and civil society. The statutory town planning process – considered by many as long overdue for reform, is incapable of building consensus or generating constructive partnerships.


The Chief Executive, putting emphasis on procedural correctness rather than good planning, is apparently on a personal crusade to build a new government headquarters on Tamar. The business sector is keeping its skepticism under wraps despite its unease about the proposal’s negative impact on the vibrancy of the Central District and certain developers’ fortunes. The civil society is aggrieved on the lack of a holistic view and a sacrifice of good urban design over administrative expediency.


Here is the irony: when the logic for partnership is strong, the will for partnership is weak. The ideal of tripartite partnership seems to be as elusive as ever.


New Trends


Can we ever nurture a set of healthy conditions under which the cool-headed calculation of self-interest by each stakeholder will strengthen, rather than weaken, tripartite partnerships?


Whilst there is no magic formula to fit all local conditions, perhaps there is one direction worthy of our collective effort. Lately there are emerging interests in developing international standards in collaborative partnerships. These standards offer several advantages to the development of cross-sector collaboration, such as greater sustainability, enhanced legitimacy, transparency, accountability and good governance. An example of this is the PGA Framework on partnership governance developed by an U.S. group, AccountAbility.


If local standards can be developed on the basis of these international initiatives, and if these local standards can gain formal recognition from key stakeholders in the government, business and civil society, local actors may feel compelled to use these standards for partnership building. There will thus be an enabling environment to facilitate genuine partnerships.


Yet these are two big “ifs”. Many have observed that partnerships are more common in societies where there is a balance of power among stakeholders. Perhaps the ultimate solution here lies with the partner embracing the most ideals but the least resource: civil society must work hard to increase its persuasive power so that partnerships will be seen as a necessity rather than a luxury.


“Hong Kong Air Challenge”


To conclude this speech and to test out Hong Kong’s commitment to partnerships, may I invite the keynote speakers today – from Hong Kong ’s environment regulator and the largest power company, to consider this tripartite partnership with the civil society: the “Hong Kong Air Challenge”.


Given the worsening air quality and the public outcry, we all have a shared vision for a Hong Kong where we can breathe freely without fear of SOx, NOx or involuntary particulates. This “Hong Kong Air Challenge” will be a “partnership beyond compliance” – working together to develop implementation plans to reduce Hong Kong ’s pollutant emissions beyond the announced 2010 air quality targets, and to continuously improve air quality beyond 2010. None of these has been attempted by any group before.


Civil society groups are ready to invest their expertise and credibility in this all-important partnership. Will the government be ready to invest its administrative resource and political capital in this partnership, and to adopt a structure of shared governance? Will the private sector be ready to invest with technical expertise and financial resource, and be accountable to its partners?


Let us keep our fingers crossed for the birth of a partnership that everyone in Hong Kong may benefit. Thank you.


 


 


人口質素還是生活質素?

可持續發展委員會上週發表了有关人口政策的文件,讓公眾参與制訂表長遠的人口發展策略。這份文件羅列出很多久被忽略、卻影响深遠的議題,值得社會各界深入討論。


香港正面臨人口結構的重大变化: 出生率下降與高齡人口的增加只是其中兩個表徵。究竟這些变化是香港未來發展的威脅還是机遇,卻取决於我們現在如何回應這些挑戰。


根據政府多番修訂後估計,香港人口將會從目前的690萬增加至2033年的840萬。高齡人口的比例將會從百份之12上升至百份之27。由於我们的生育率維持在一以下(即每名婦女平均生育少於一個孩子,遠低於自然補充所需的2.1),即使加入新移民,兒童所佔的人口比例將會從百份之15下降至百份之11


單從這些數字看來,有些人很容易感染到「末日論」的惶恐而驚呼香港競爭力下降,從而馬上提出如何引入專才、如何節省未來供養退休人口的開支等等。其實,輕率地作出這些簡化的推論只會使我們喪失了認真思辨的机會。


根據全球眾多正在經歷人口老化的國家的經驗,沒有證據顯示人口老化會促使競爭力下降。事實上,香港2033年預計的總供養比率只會与七十年代初相約。而七十年代正是香港經濟穩步增長的時期。


究竟甚麽才是人口政策的主要目標?若果我们真正恪守「以人為本」的方向,主要目標應該是在人口結构不斷变化、在全球化趨勢加劇的格局中,持續地提升整体人口的生活質素。我們不能把人矮化成只為經濟服務的工具。


要持續地提升各階層市民的生活質素固然是相當大的挑戰。在眾多的議題中,相信有四項特別值得公眾深入討論。


其一、為了在急劇轉變的人口結構中充份運用所有的人力資源,我們必須培育一個多元化的就業市場。例如、為了照顧家庭需要,僱員是否有權向僱主要求將一份工作彈性分割、靈活調動?如何讓一些希望提早開展第二份事業的人士有更順利的轉職安排或創業環境?如何使將來擁有更佳健康、精力充沛的高齡人士有更多選擇、繼續貢獻他們的專長?回應這些挑戰必須企業的配合,政府應該制定甚麼政策加快促成這種市場轉變?


其二、日益增加的工作壓力己經使很多香港人的生活質素直線下降。既然香港的人均產值高於全球九成的國家,克盡己職的港人卻被工作壓得透不過氣來,實在難言公平。若果能夠創造條件,使港人在生活與工作之間取得平衡,有可能消除不少家庭養兒育女的其中一項顧慮。但若果工作壓力源於全球化趨勢下的市場壓力,試問政府應該如何部署,整合商界與家庭的不同訴求?


其三、政府固然對於任何家庭在睡房內的决定不應過問,但若果社會能為每一名成員增加生活保障的安全感,對於成家育兒的决定自會有正面推動的作用。上週立法會通過了設立全民退休保障的議案,不但是「家庭友善」的建議,更能夠減輕政府將來照顧退休人口的財政壓力。


其四、無論是挽留人才或吸引人才均有賴於一個良好的居住環境。如何扭轉環境惡化的趨勢、保育「買少見少」的自然遺產和文化遺產,培育一個敢於為子孫後代作出承担的公民社會,己經是迫上眉梢的議題。


社會各界應該利用這個契機,從人口政策起步制定長遠可持續發展的策略。


 


*              *              *


黎廣德     香港可持續發展公民議會主席及策略發展委員會成員