揭開「西九」意識形態的面紗 —「華盛頓共識」的謬誤

2004年12月18日

各方對特區政府推出的「西九龍文娛藝術區」發展計劃批評得體無完膚，無論是文化藍圖、規劃建築、發展機制等均備受爭議。但「西九」的發展邏輯其實一直有跡可尋，完全符合特區政府自97年以來越陷越深的一套管治哲學。

要解讀「西九」，必須先要了解這套管治哲學的意識形態 — 香港版的「華盛頓共識」﹝Washington Consensus﹞

「華盛頓共識」是泛指三個以美國首都華盛頓為基地的機構 — 世界銀行、國際貨幣基金會及美國政府財政部。自90年代初以來一直在全球致力推廣的一套意識形態。這套意識形態強調政府必須遵守嚴格的公共財政紀律、減低赤字、控制通漲、收縮政府的角色、公共資產私營化、改善外商投資環境、開放資本市場、推崇貿易自由化。

簡而言之，「華盛頓共識」可以歸納為兩點 — 「政府退出市場」和以「企業力量主宰社會發展」。

在97年亞洲金融風暴的時候，國際貨幣基金在美國政府的大力支持下，受影響的國家必須按照「華盛頓共識」的思路調整公共政策，才可以獲得「國基會」的財政支持。以諾貝爾獎得主及世界銀行前首席經濟師史特﹝Joseph Stiglitz﹞為首的經濟學家，則對這些政策作出深刻的批判，指出「華盛頓共識」實際上使很多亞洲國家及拉丁美洲國家受金融風暴的禍害越演越烈，解藥其實是毒藥，妄顧了市民大眾在貨幣大幅貶值、企業大量倒閉、貧富懸殊急速惡化時所深受的傷害。這些政策保住了國際資本的損失，在實質上卻是劫貧濟富，把企業利益與重商輕民的價值觀凌駕於對環境、人權、民主與社會公義的關懷。

在亞洲金融風暴一役中，香港有幸藉著豐厚的外匯儲備而毋需接受國際貨幣基金會的緊箍咒。香港不幸，因此沒有對「華盛頓共識」的管治哲學作出深刻的反省，再加上本土特有的政治土壤，「商人治港」的格局，「華盛頓共識」潛藏的意識形態滲透到公共政策每一個領域而未受挑戰。「政府退出市場」的原則演變成「政府退出公共管治」而不自知；「企業力量主宰社會發展」異化成「利富損民」而不自省，終於釀成今天「西九」騎虎難下的局面。

「華盛頓共識」的意識形態其實貫穿著近期一連串的爭議。

政府要把「中區警署古跡尋」的產權招標變賣，交由旅遊事務署以價高者得的形式轉讓給地產商，美其名曰市場主導，實質上是把文物保育的權益拱手交給企業，香港人的文化遺產為何要受企業支配？我們的歷史認同為何要受商業利益主宰？

新推出的「自然保育政策」也受了這潛藏的意識形態所支配，環保團體協助甄選出全港十二個最具生態價值的保育地點卻變成優先考慮「公私營伙伴合作發展」的地點，潛台詞是「先發展，後保育」，「不發展，不保育」。政府代表公眾利益以保育大自然作為公共財產，這顯淺不過的道理，已經湮沒在港版「華盛頓共識」的「以商為本」的邏輯之中。

旅遊事務專員上月宣佈準備邀請私人發展商提交建議書興建郵輪碼頭，發展商可以自行選址、自定規模，變相把城市規劃的管治權交由私人企業代為行使，是否特區政府已經在「華盛頓共識」的魔咒下，喪失了管治的意志？

香港在全球化的格局下，低薪職位大量流失，貧窮問題日益惡化。按照堅尼系數計算，香港的貧富懸殊程度已在全球排名第五，香港四份一成長中的兒童，生活在貧困家庭。正當結構性轉變成為不可逆轉的現實，需要倚賴公共資源支援的人口逐日增加之際，政府卻在「華盛頓共識」的支配下縮減福利開支。在「保持競爭優勢，有利營商環境」的大棍下，我們還要讓多少兒童的潛能被犧牲、多少婦女遭受倫常慘變、多少家庭在貧困的壓力下支離破碎才覺醒過來？

掌握這一連串的脈胳，解讀「西九」便毫不費勁。

根據這些含糊不清卻毋容置疑的邏輯，交出香港文化政策的管治權是要退出市場，單一招標是要遵守嚴格的財政紀律，不能按民意而變更是要保持營商環境。再加上香港在一國兩制下特有的「商人治港」格局，特區官員震懾於商賈潛藏的威權，縱有良好意願，又如何能挺直腰板，捍衛公眾利益？

國際社會其實早已流行一套對付「華盛頓共識」的解藥，即是特首董建華在1999年施政報告上宣佈追隨的「可持續發展」道路。

針對「利富損民」的公共財政紀律，可持續發展提倡社會公義及以人為本的發展策略；針對「退出市場」和對私營化的崇拜，可持續發展提倡企業社會責任，建立「官、商、民」三方對等的伙伴關係；針對「重商輕民」對公共政策的扭曲，可持續發展提倡透明、開放、多方持份者的參與；針對無序發展對環境的踐踏，可持續發展提倡跨代公義，強調保護大自然的預防性原則。

在「華盛頓共識」的掩護下，特區主要官員本著自身榮辱，方便施政的考慮，在城市規劃、環保、古蹟保育以至扶貧等政策範疇自我設限，公共管治空間正逐步退縮。已經獲得中央政府祝福而坐享政治特權的商賈，又如何能夠抵受誘惑，不乘虛而入？

未知是否「沙士」的後遺症，特區正患上一種前所未見的「區格分裂症」。政府明明公開宣稱追求可持續發展，暗裏卻受盡「華盛頓共識」的百般擺佈。更有甚者，異化後的公共政策摧毀了公平競爭環境，催生了市民的厭商情緒，很多願意肩負企業社會責任的商界精英也只得搖頭嘆息。

「西九」是深化公民社會的重要契機，更是批判「華盛頓共識」的序幕，推動可持續發展的里程碑。

 

 

Heritage first, then tourism

(Originally published in South China Morning Post, 2004-11-13 )

Does our government have a split personality? This is the question that springs to mind most often if one has been closely following the controversy over the development of the Central Police Station site, a collection of 18 buildings which also includes the former Central Magistracy and Victoria Prison.

There is no dispute about the historical significance of the complex. The government has vowed to preserve the compound, saying it is an invaluable part of Hong Kong 's heritage. Logically, one would expect the government to hold on to the property, as a trustee for the public. But instead, the administration proposes to transfer it to the private sector using a 50-year land lease.

Is there a good justification for the action? Having owned the property for the past 163 years, the government says there is an urgent need to develop it as a heritage tourism project. This begs a fundamental question: is this a heritage project with tourism benefits, or a tourism project under heritage constraints? When one realises that the champion of the project is the Tourism Commission, under the Economic and Labour Affairs Bureau, and not the Home Affairs Bureau - the heritage authority in the bureaucracy - it is easy to guess the answer.

To be fair to the commission, it does intend to make it mandatory for any chosen developer to preserve the buildings in accordance with the requirements laid down by the Antiquities Advisory Board. Yet this is exactly where the problem lies: meeting minimum preservation requirements is essentially what it takes to get full marks for the heritage section under the tender marking scheme; the real test is how much land premium a developer is prepared to offer.

There is a public consensus that the project should be conducted with the help of private expertise and private capital, be they commercial developers or charity trusts, and that the selection process should be transparent and competitive. Yet three fundamental changes are required.

The first is to adopt a concession model similar to a build-operate-transfer scheme used in many infrastructure projects. The successful bidder will enter into a 30-year concession contract with the government, along the lines of a public-private partnership. The government will retain the property title but the successful bidder will have operational and management rights, under strict conditions. This will allow the government tighter control and more authority to intervene, if necessary. Full control will revert back to the public at the end of the concession period.

Second, the selection mechanism needs to be changed from a pro-development to a pro-heritage process. Bidders will compete on how best they can enhance the site's heritage value, for example. They should be required to demonstrate the financial sustainability of their proposals so that no long-term public subsidy is needed. But the tender marking scheme should be revised so that land premiums paid to the government carry the same weight as broader economic benefits.

Third, continuous public participation should be allowed in the planning, assessment and operational stages. It is absurd to exclude members of the community from the project - so far, the public has been barred from visiting the site - when it is claimed to be in the name of public interest.

An independent heritage trust with broad-based participation should be set up to monitor the project and manage the concession contract on behalf of the public. If Hong Kong is to go down the path of sustainable development, we need more than new models for heritage projects - we need new institutions as guardian angels.

Albert Lai Kwong-tak is chairman of the Conservancy Association and a member of the Central Police Station Heritage Taskforce.

 

 

A Job for all Hongkongers

(An edited version of this article was published in the South China Morning Post on 18 June 2004)

Ever since the Declaration on Hong Kong ’s Core Values was published on June 7, the enthusiastic public discussions have surprised even the signatories. Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa should also be commended for an unusually swift response by arranging a meeting with some of the campaign’s initiators in less than a week.

While it is encouraging that Mr Tung and senior officials repeatedly reaffirm the government’s commitment to upholding Hong Kong ’s core values, two questions remain: are we talking about the same set of values? And, what next?

The fear in most people’s minds is that the core values treasured by the government are a set of pro-business values, which may leave out a lot of other values deemed essential by the community. While the importance of overseas investors looms large in the government’s media statements, core values such as social justice, fair play, equitable due process and democracy are noticeable by their absence.

The danger of pro-business values is not that it encourages unfair privileges to the business sector but that, by its very nature, only a select few businesses would be favoured. Under the guise of boosting the economy, a chosen few who could exert more influence on the administration would, in the absence of due process, benefit at the expense of all others.

Sadly, there were too many recent cases to illustrate that a distorted set of pro-business values would breed only money politics and cronyism. Public confidence in the integrity of the system has been undermined. What Hong Kong needs instead is a set of pro-market values which emphasises fair competition, transparent rules and equitable due process that allows all players to participate as equals. While this may sound too ideal to many, the first step is for us to recognise that we are going down the wrong path.

When asked in the recent meeting, Mr Tung specifically endorsed all the core values listed in the declaration, although he said he would like to add more, such as filial piety. This is, we hope, a sign that the administration is beginning to recognise that Hong Kong is more than just an economic city.

Many people queried why no solution was offered in the declaration.  Although many of the 294 co-signatories hold various positions in their respective sectors, we do not purport to represent the community at large. Indeed, it would be wrong to suggest that we have more credible solutions than many others who are equally concerned about the state of affairs in Hong Kong .

We explained to Mr Tung that what is needed most is not goodwill gestures to reconcile with a minority of elites, but a broad-based, open and transparent public participatory process through which members of the community can voice their concerns and propose the way forward.

For Hong Kong to get going again we need not only to recommit to a common set of core values, but also to embark on a partnership between the government and civil society. As Mr Tung rightly pointed out: “ Hong Kong ’s core values can be maintained and realised only through the joint efforts of the government and the community at large.” It is essential that Mr Tung’s newly found confidence in the community be translated into an empowerment of the people. This entails a switch of the government’s role from an aloof controller to a facilitator of core values in all policymaking.

To paraphrase the words of America ’s third president, Thomas Jefferson: “The price of upholding our core values is eternal vigilance.” And civil society must be the source of that vigilance.

 

Albert Lai Kwong-Tak is one of the convenors of the Hong Kong Core Values Declaration

 

 

VICTORIA HARBOUR It takes a team to build a new waterfront

 After months of silence, the controversy over harbour reclamation emerged again last month. Oddly, the issue this time is not reclamation itself, but whether the information issued for public consultation by the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee taskforce is merely another government attempt to push through its own agenda.

To assess whether this claim holds any water, it is first necessary to understand the make-up of the committee; a unique institution which straddles the government and the community at large.

In October 2003, when the reclamation controversy was at its peak, 16 civic organisations, including universities, professional bodies, environmental and community groups, got together under a new coalition - Citizen Envisioning @ Harbour. The coalition's preferred solution was to set up a harbour round table, whereby all stakeholders, including the government, business and civil society could gather on an equal footing, and set up an impartial platform for the public to develop a consensus for the way forward.

At that time, it proved too drastic a move for the government. Instead, it was agreed that the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee would be a compromise solution - an advisory committee within the government structure but with an independent chairman, a majority of nominated representatives from different concern groups, and relevant officials, all having equal status. It was an attempt, however imperfect, for a genuine tripartite partnership.

Over the past 10 months, members have worked hard to iron out their differences as they set about devising a model for public discussion. Integrated planning principles were debated for months, and an agreement is close. A fresh planning review for Kai Tak began four months ago. A harbourfront enhancement review for Wan Chai and its adjoining areas has just begun in earnest. More are in the pipeline.

The challenge should not be underestimated. Two committee members, Alvin Kwok Ngai-kuen and Ng Mee-kam, said the cultural gap was so wide that the officials had a different vocabulary from the other members: consultation versus engagement; top-down versus bottom-up; solution versus process; and clients versus stakeholders. The level of trust in the public also differs widely: officials prefer to stay within the safe haven of expert advice, whereas other members have more faith in the public to deliver innovative solutions.

With such a daunting challenge, can the committee fulfill its mission of engaging the public, building a consensus and delivering to Hong Kong a vibrant, accessible and sustainable harbour for all? As yet, no one has the answer. We do know, however, that the chances of success will be enhanced with practical changes in three areas.

First, the committee's internal working arrangements must be revamped to allow it to function as a co-ordinated body with equal contributions from all members. Essential measures would include giving all members independent secretariat support, equal access to information, and resources to undertake impartial research.

Second, it must empower the public with impartial, digestible and unfiltered information. In this regard, officials have an extra responsibility to ensure that their "wish list" and perceived "constraints list" are laid bare for the public to debate.

Last, the community should respond to the committee's call with a new mindset. Now that a platform is being set for genuine public engagement, it will be up to all stakeholders to not just participate in the process, but also to help improve it. The committee process is worth our support not because it is perfect, but because it may bring about significant community benefits if given the chance to succeed.

Albert Lai Kwong-tak is convenor of Citizen Envisioning @ Harbour.

 

 

 

Standing Firm on Hong Kong's Core Values

Worsening governance and rising frustrations: We are deeply concerned

It has been almost seven years since Hong Kong was returned to China . During the July 1st march last year, Hong Kong people witnessed a strong sense of being a community, sharing the same destiny and collectively expressed great concern about the city's future. However, one year on, our worry about Hong Kong 's future has only increased. We are greatly disturbed by the increasing erosion of Hong Kong 's core values. The goals pursued by our community are becoming more distant. The community is filled with a strong sense of helplessness and rising frustration. Our core values are being shaken. The city's governance and business environment has deteriorated and our society's institutional rationality and social cohesion has been weakened. We have come to a critical moment. The alarm is now ringing for us to defend Hong Kong 's core values.

Our core values: Hong Kong 's advantages; Building blocks for modernity

Hong Kong had accumulated a long history of fighting for a better system. The incessant efforts made by the Hong Kong people have produced a unique local culture that is underpinned by some core values most treasured by them and in line with the global modern civilization. These core values include: liberty, democracy, human rights, rule of law, fairness, social justice, peace and compassion, integrity and transparency, plurality, respect for individuals, and upholding professionalism. More and more Hong Kong people are convinced that in their pursuit of a higher quality of life, we must also adhere to the core values essential to sustainable development: broad-based community participation in public affairs, inter-generational equity, economic development with a human focus, environmental protection and reconciliation with nature.

Losing our core values is losing “ Hong Kong ”

We believe that Hong Kong is more than an economic city. It is where over six million people search for a greater meaning in life and build a better home to live in. By losing its core values, Hong Kong will become a city without soul and her people will then lose ' Hong Kong '. We, therefore, cannot afford to keep silent. Defending these core values is not just for the sake of preserving Hong Kong 's way of life, it serves to continue the cultural mission of modernizing the Chinese nation as a whole.

We are deeply distressed, but not in despair. We sign this Declaration in order to give support to each other and convey a key message to everyone and various organizations in Hong Kong : Let us stand firm on our core values. Let us work together, across different sectors and parties, to build our future together. Let us live out Hong Kong 's core values in the social, political, cultural and other aspects of our daily life. Let us act now so that tomorrow our children can take pride in what we are defending today!

維護香港核心價值，我們不能沉默！

眼看管治每況愈下，市民挫折感日增，我們憂心忡忡

香港回歸中國七年了。去年 「七一」大遊行，港人表達了強烈的命運共同體意識，表達了對香港未來的無限關切 。可是，近月來，我們對香港未來的擔憂卻有增無減。眼看著香港社會的核心價值備受衝擊，港人所追求的目標似乎離我們愈來愈遠，市民的無力感與挫折感日趨沉重，我們憂心忡忡。 核心價值的動搖，正在削弱香港的管治質素與營商環境 ， 並破壞社會的制度理性與凝聚力 。我們認為，關鍵時刻已經到來，捍衛香港核心價值的警鐘已經響起。

 香港優勢 ， 與現代化文明接軌 ， 有賴核心價值

香港在過去發展過程中積累了一些成功的經驗，港人不懈的追求造就了有香港特色的地方文化，而支撐這些經驗和文化的，是港人引 以自豪、也與全球現代化文明接軌的一些體現香港優勢的核心價值， 它們 包括： 自由民主、人權法治、 公平公義 、和平仁愛、誠信透明、多元包容、尊重個人、恪守專業 。 愈來愈多港人亦已認同， 在追求生活質素提升的同時 ， 也應本著可持續發展的目標價值 ， 強調公民參與 ， 致力跨代社會公義 ， 尋求人本的經濟發展 ， 並重視環境保護及人與自然的和諧。

失去核心價值，也就失去了「香港」

我們認為，香港不只是一個經濟城市， 也是六百多萬港人安身立命、追尋生活意義、為下一代建設美好家園的地方。失去了香港的核心價值，這座城市便變成失去靈魂的軀殼，港人也就失去了「香港」， 我們因此不能沉默。維護香港核心價值，也體現港人在中國現代化進程中的文化使命。

我們憂慮，但我們並不悲觀。我們以此宣言，互勉互勵，並向香港市民及各團體作出呼籲： 讓我們不分階層界別、不分黨派，皆能在社會、政治、文化及個人生活上的每一個層面，以言論及行動去 維護香港的核心價值 ，並為我們的子孫後代負起薪火相傳的責任！

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 )

 

 

The Conservancy Association Annual report 2003-2004 Message from the Chairman

As this report is published, Hong Kong is entering a critical period because the core values of this modern society are under threat. Without these core values our mission for environmental protection and sustainable development is but a distant dream.

These core values include, inter alia, the freedom of speech, effective public participation in policy-making, respect for fairness and diversity, pursuit of social equity and the rule of law. In our submission to the Chief Executive for his annual policy address last January, we stressed the need for a Big Reconciliation – the first principle of which is the reconciliation with the cores values of a modern society.

Unfortunately in the past year we are seeing more evidence for the erosion of Hong Kong ’s core values. Recent and more tangible examples include the controversy concerning the low-cost transfer and proposed demolition of the Hung Hom Pennisula estate, the continuing destruction of freshwater streams because of either corrupt behaviour or official inaction, the increasing problem of illegal dumping on good agricultural land, the systematic bias in favour of large developers in West Kowloon Cultural District development and other town planning decisions. When examined closely, the decisions leading to such outcomes not just cost the environment dearly, but also contravene sustainable development principles of equity, diversity and transparency.

What is more worrying: these systematic failures are being reinforced by an undemocratic, pro-big-business governance structure which is largely frozen by the recent decisions of the Central Government on constitutional arrangements.

How should civil society organisations react to this situation in such a trying time?

There is perhaps only one answer: to mobilise the public to mount a civic defence against further erosion of Hong Kong ’s core values in their social, political and daily lives. As a first step, civil society organisations which are ideals-driven, the Conservancy Association included, must articulate to the public how these core values are linked to their missions, and why the erosion of such core values will lead to the failure of their missions. If we are serious about pursuing our missions, we must be ready to stand up to defend Hong Kong ’s core values.

I hope that members of CA and members of other civil society groups can stand together for what they believe in during the days to come. As the saying goes, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. And the only source of vigilance is the civil society.

Albert Kwong Tak Lai

Chairman

23 May 2004

 

 

Let the people decide

(Originally published in South China Morning Post, 2004-5-14 )

The inauguration of the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee last week is symbolic of Hong Kong at a crossroads. It can either withdraw into the old habit of closed-door trade-offs among vested interests, or embrace the new path of open and community-based partnerships. Nothing is certain at this stage and much is at stake.

On the face of it, the committee is no small triumph for the government. After more than a year of legal battles and a series of protests against the Central and Wan Chai reclamation, it has succeeded in persuading nearly all opposition groups and those concerned about the harbour to join after winning the latest court battle on the Central reclamation scheme.

Despite continuing, albeit dwindling, public protests against reclamation, many sceptics claim that the establishment of the committee signals the end of a civic movement because most of this energy will now be absorbed into a government institution which is only advisory in nature. Such cynicism is understandable, as it is an age-old government tactic to absorb opposition voices into its bureaucratic maze, but change nothing in the end.

However, optimists believe a new path will be taken this time, for two reasons. First, public hopes have been built up during the past year, so that institutional change is now a necessity, not an option. Second, a number of officials have begun to appreciate that embracing changes is the only way to a smoother administration and better governance. These two factors alone, however, are no guarantee of a more promising future.

In the first Harbourfront Enhancement Committee meeting last week, there were three seemingly small, but important, breakthroughs initiated by civil society members. The first was an expansion of the committee's terms of reference. Transport and infrastructure are now explicitly listed as areas that it may cover. Given the current pitfalls of transport-led planning and the sensitivity of who makes the decisions among policy bureaus, this is not an insignificant step. The second breakthrough is the adoption of sustainable development principles, while the third is an open and transparent mode of operation from the very first meeting.

The committee's most urgent task is to review transport and land-use planning along the harbourfront, from Central to Causeway Bay . The work is being carried out by the Territorial Development Department, with the help of engineering consultants. If past practice is any guide, the committee will only be invited to comment on the findings at the conclusion of each stage of the review. A final decision on any outcome of the review will be made by the government.

The legitimacy of the committee does not rest on the representativeness of its members, but on the undertaking that it will champion a broad-based public participatory process as an integral part of decision-making. This requires officials to work with the public, through the committee, in an honest, transparent and whole-hearted manner.

In order to make strategic decisions that reflect community values, there is only one legitimate decision-maker: the public, via a widely accepted, broad-based participatory process. The government's rightful role is, therefore, to assist the public in making an informed decision. If a partnership between the government, the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee and civil society cannot be established, Hong Kong will miss the chance to build a long-overdue institution for public policymaking.

Albert Lai Kwong-tak is chairman of Hong Kong People's Council for Sustainable Development and a member of Citizen Envisioning @ Harbour.

 

 

Stop fighting, start talking

(Originally published in South China Morning Post, 2004-3-27 )

Have Hong Kong people lost the most important legal battle over environmental protection since green groups fought to save Sha Lo Tung valley, more than a decade ago, and Long Valley in 2000? This was the question on many people's mind when two weeks ago the courts allowed the government to proceed with the third phase of the Central reclamation project.

On close examination, some important lessons have been learned from the controversy, and Hong Kong can only win if the people's energy from the anti-reclamation campaign can be channelled into a pro-harbour institution-building process.

Three developments have become apparent. First, thanks to years of relentless efforts by green groups to put environmental protection on the mainstream agenda, and the heated debate in the media in recent months, the public has a much-heightened awareness of the importance of Victoria Harbour as a precious asset for this and future generations.

Second, the court battle launched by the Society for Protection of the Harbour has succeeded in extracting a more stringent interpretation of the Harbour Protection Ordinance. The Court of Final Appeal now requires that an overriding public needs test must be satisfied before any future reclamation work can proceed.

Third, a diverse coalition, Citizen Envisioning @ Harbour, comprising 16 organisations from universities, professional bodies, environmental, social service and community groups has been formed. Valuable social capital was built through this coalition after it launched an innovative public participatory process involving exhibitions, hearings and round-table meetings in October.

However, to benefit fully from these positive developments, we must be realistic about what constraints we are facing - the first of which is the limitation of the courts.

A court can clarify certain ground rules, but it cannot help us design a world-class harbour, nor can it put in place a plan for sustainable development. Court battles also use a lot of public resources. Therefore, we must ask: given the urgency to find the best solution for our harbour, is a further court battle the best way to use public resources and public energy? A level-headed observer will conclude that the costs far outweigh the potential benefits.

This is not to say that the mission to protect the harbour has been accomplished. Far from it, this is just the beginning; a chance to make some fundamental changes, including setting up new institutions, implementing sustainable development principles, amending the Town Planning Ordinance, and reviewing the chief executive's role in the ordinance. The most productive way to achieve this is for all stakeholders to embark on a consensus-building process and collectively improve the system.

A new institution is needed to take the momentum forward. The best option is to set up a multi-stakeholder Harbour Round Table, comprising equal numbers from the government, business sector and civil society.

It should have two clear missions. First, it should champion an integrated approach to the sustainable development of the harbour district, taking into account the principles enshrined in Agenda 21, the United Nations document endorsed by China , with 177 other countries, at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.

Second, it should champion an impartial public participatory process for planning and developing the harbour, with particular reference to Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, which emphasises the public's access to information, and participation in decision making.

It should operate in parallel with the statutory planning process, providing public input and reflecting community value in all zoning plans considered by the Town Planning Board. To succeed, there must be active participation from all relevant government bureaus and departments, in particular the Environment, Transport and Works departments. Although without executive power, the Harbour Round Table would serve one important function: to satisfy the overriding public needs test.

The government has announced its intention to set up a Harbour Front Advancement Advisory Committee. But given the traditional model of advisory committees, this is a grossly inadequate response. More innovation, greater independence and a broader mandate are needed.

For Hong Kong to achieve sustainable development, the only choice is for government, business and the public to work together. Of course, there are big differences among the various sectors. But the experiences from the more than 6,400 cities which adopted Agenda 21 programmes have shown that society can move towards sustainable development, provided there is an institution which allows open, inclusive public participation and encourages a wide perspective in decision-making. The movement started by Citizen Envisioning @ Harbour six months ago has demonstrated that a solution is possible.

Instead of using our precious harbour as a centre of dispute, why not focus on putting in place a world-class planning process for a world-class harbour?

Albert Lai Kwong-tak is chairman of Hong Kong People's Council for Sustainable Development and spokesman of Citizen Envisioning @ Harbour.

 

 

 

Hong Kong Declaration on Sustainable Development for Cities

1.                  We, the representatives of national and local governments, community groups, the scientific community, professional institutions, business, and the United Nations and other international agencies, having met at the Asia Leadership Forum on Sustainable Development for Cities, reaffirm our commitment to the goals, targets and recommendations contained in Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation.

2.                  We are keenly aware that close to one billion people in the world live in slum settlements, with 550 million of them in Asia .  We renew our commitment to achieving a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers in the world, a Millennium Development Goal reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

3.                  We firmly believe that sustainable development is the key to the future of cities in the Asia-Pacific region and the world at large.  In the coming decades, population growth will occur largely in urban areas, especially in the Asia-Pacific region, which will be home to two-thirds of the world’s mega-cities.  We emphasise that national, regional and local governments, civil society groups, business and other stakeholders must redouble their efforts to meet the mounting environmental, social and economic challenges arising from the growing urbanisation trend.

4.                  In an era of accelerating globalisation, cities are confronted with both challenges and opportunities.  More than ever, cities represent the nexus of commerce, industry, finance, culture, transport and communication, possessing the potential for connecting all areas, rural and urban, and all segments of society, into a productive force conducive to a fair, equitable and sustainable globalisation and urbanisation.

5.                  We have heard inspiring examples of cities in the region playing a leadership role in securing the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. We are convinced, therefore, of the need to enhance collaboration between cities, including capacity development initiatives, and to encourage the exchange of experiences and lessons learned between cities of the Asia-Pacific region. In this context, we underline the contribution to sustainable development of networks between cities, as well as the potential for new networking opportunities in the region.

6.                  By focusing on integrating sustainable development into city and regional planning and identifying new mechanisms for implementing sustainable development measures, we have agreed upon a range of policy measures and actions as set out below.  It is our shared belief that these measures and actions, implemented in a spirit of partnership, including partnerships among cities, and through a participatory approach, will take us forward in our common journey toward a sustainable future.

Leadership and urban governance

7.                  As centres of civilisation and engines of economic growth, cities often embody both the hub of human creativity and energy.  We call for the implementation of a long-term sustainable city vision that integrates the economic, social and environmental needs of cities and that puts the livelihood of citizens at the heart of urban development strategies.  In this context we underscore the crucial role of integrated urban and regional planning, drawing upon the best scientific knowledge and information available.

8.                  We underline the importance of community engagement and involvement in sustainable development at the local level. We realise that appropriate urban governance is essential to the quality of life in cities.  We recognise the need to find appropriate means to empower cities, within the context of each country’s circumstances, to deal with the sustainable development challenges facing them, including through capacity development. We believe that in order to meet sustainability challenges, local governments need to re-define their roles by providing an enabling local environment, promoting ethical conduct, transparency and accountability in city administration, fighting corruption and encouraging participation of citizens in policy discussion, decision-making and implementation, and raising awareness of sustainable development through education, taking into account the national and local circumstances. We underscore a functioning legal system as an essential component of effective urban governance and as a solid foundation for ensuring citizen participation.

9.                  We call for a renewed emphasis on local leadership in building sustainable cities, with a particular emphasis on empowering women and on increasing women’s role in local leadership. We also call on cities to place people at the heart of development and to involve youth and the elderly in sustainable development programmes and activities.

10.              Aware of the impact of SARS and avian bird flu on cities in the Asia-Pacific, we underline the importance of public health systems to the sustainable development of cities in the region. We emphasize the importance preparation of disaster management strategies to cope with both man-made and natural disasters. We also recognise that cities in the Asia-Pacific are vulnerable to the long-term effects of harmful climate change and call on the international community to support the development of regional and local adaptation and mitigation plans and strategies.

11.              Sustainable cities could establish procurement partnerships to create economies of scale for innovative technologies, such as hybrid and fuel cell buses, photovoltaic systems, and wastewater treatment systems.

Economic growth and job creation

12.              In the Asia-Pacific region, as in many other regions, cities are the nerve centres of national economies, as well as locations of wider economic disparity and concentrated poverty and unemployment.  We call for specific measures to promote growth in both formal and informal sectors and to implement employment strategies for the poor and vulnerable groups.

13.              The diverse and rich experiences in the Asia-Pacific region offer important lessons on how to stimulate urban economic growth.  We call for strengthened collaboration among local governments and local authorities in the region by sharing experience, best practices, and lessons learned and by identifying obstacles and constraints to progress.  We urge both national and local governments to work together by initiating and targeting policy reforms, as appropriate, at removing barriers to sustainable urban development. 

14.              We call upon national and local governments to undertake common endeavours, with international support, to improve the infrastructures required for sustained economic growth, in such areas as power, transport and communications, including information and communication technologies, as well as in financial and technical services and human resources.  In this regard, we highlight the potential contributions of inter-city cooperation and collaboration, especially in infrastructural projects of regional impact.

15.              We urge national and local governments to intensify efforts to develop, adapt and adopt advanced and appropriate technologies, including environment-friendly technologies that offer new opportunities for more efficient use of natural resources, more sustainable industrial practices and new sources of employment.

16.              We call upon the international community to promote and facilitate the transfer of environmentally sound technology and expertise in support of local governments in their implementation of sustainable urban development plans and strategies. We further urge the international community to provide financial support to developing countries, with a view, inter alia, to assist cities in these countries to achieve their sustainable development goals.

17.              We stress the importance of public-private partnerships in tapping the potentials of urban economy and in creating income-generating opportunities, and the importance of putting in place participatory processes for stakeholders so that community values and interests, inter alia, can be reflected in planning and implementation, taking into account national and local circumstances. We encourage local governments, in the context of specific local needs and conditions, to put in place policy frameworks for enhancing the competitiveness of the local economy and for facilitating investments and business expansion, including through the establishment of special economic zones, eco-science and industrial parks.

18.              We call for renewed efforts to promote small- and medium-sized enterprises by adopting appropriate and favourable fiscal and financial incentives and by providing technical support services that are currently beyond the reach of such enterprises. We urge local governments and local authorities to make consistent efforts to assist informal sector enterprises and to progressively integrate them into the formal economy.

Planning a better environment for urban housing and land use

19.              With urban population in the Asia-Pacific region totalling 1.4 billion and expected to rise to 2 billion by 2020, cities have to tackle the daunting challenge of providing adequate and affordable housing for all.  We reiterate that every human being has the right to adequate housing, which is essential to an adequate standard of living. We call upon national and local governments to provide for legal security of tenure, equal access to land and effective protection from forced evictions contrary to the law.

20.              We emphasise the need to integrate urban housing with economic, social, environmental, demographic and other relevant policies and for engaging the efforts of national and local governments, business sector, non-governmental organisations, community-based groups and other relevant stakeholders in achieving sustainable human settlements. We underline the importance of community involvement and discussion in the planning process.

21.              We call upon national and local governments to adopt measures aimed at ensuring that women, children, elderly people and other vulnerable groups be given special consideration and protection in housing policy.  We urge national and local governments to take specific steps at all levels to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to public buildings and facilities, public housing and public transport systems.

22.              We urge national and local governments to implement an integrated approach to land use, urban planning and management, taking into consideration housing needs, access to transport by the poor and vulnerable, employment opportunities, environmental conditions and community facilities.

Meeting basic social services

23.              Provision of basic social services, which include not only access to modern energy services, transportation, safe drinking water, sewerage coverage, but also health care, education and other essential services, is a fundamental responsibility of national and local governments.  We call upon governments at all levels, including local authorities, to adopt an integrated approach to provision of basic social services to all, taking into account the links between water, sanitation and health, between urban economic growth and environmental protection.

24.              We stress importance of access to basic education as a fundamental right. We recognise the critical role of education to achieve social and economic development, especially in the transition to a knowledge-based economy. At the same time, we emphasise the need to ensure social inclusiveness and a commitment to skills upgrading and continued learning.

25.              We fully recognise the urgent need for tackling worsening air and water pollution problems in the region and their implications for public health.  We commit ourselves to regional and global cooperation to effectively deal with any other emerging public health challenges. 

26.              We further emphasise the need for harmonizing land-use planning and housing policies, including slum upgrading policy, with water, sanitation, health care, environmental protection and education policies to ensure an integrated and coherent approach to adequate provision of basic social services to all, especially the poor and vulnerable groups.

27.              We encourage national and local governments to promote partnerships with civil society, community-based groups, business and other stakeholders to facilitate their contributions to the provision of reliable, affordable, economically viable basic social services, within the context of their national and local circumstances.

Increasing mobility

28.              Urban transportation is a major challenge facing local governments in the Asia-Pacific region.  The transportation sector has great impact on energy consumption, land use, pollution, economic growth, mobility, and quality of life.  We urge national and local governments in the region to implement integrated transport and land use policy that addresses transportation priorities in the overall context of urban and regional planning and economic activities, taking into account the potential for shortening travel distance and reducing travel demand.

29.              Sustainable urban transport must be implemented in a way that, first and foremost, addresses the social and economic marginalisation of the poor and vulnerable groups. We emphasize the importance of fully addressing the needs of people living in slum settlements and the special needs of women, children, the elderly and the handicapped persons.

30.              We encourage national and local governments to put in place a combination of modes of transport, including walking, cycling, mass transit systems and private automobiles, that reduces energy consumption and negative environmental impacts, while improving accessibility for all, through, inter alia, the development and adoption of environmentally sound technologies, supported by appropriate regulatory and incentive policies.

Tourism and cultural heritage

31.              With a rich cultural heritage, the Asia-Pacific region is a global tourist destination that is witnessing growing numbers of visitors.  Tourism has become an important business sector and revenue source for many cities.  We encourage national and local governments to promote sustainable tourism, protect the rich cultural heritage of this region, and enhance mutual understanding and friendship among the communities of nations through awareness-building activities among both local residents and tourists to highlight the historical significance of such heritage.

32.              We urge national and local governments to maintain and conserve the natural, historical, and cultural diversity and heritage of the region, including its intangible heritage.  We stress the urgent need of preserving historical urban settlement and landscape forms, through appropriate legal frameworks and financial and technical support aimed at conservation and rehabilitation activities.

33.              We call upon national and local governments to integrate heritage protection, conservation and rehabilitation into current and future urban development, at both the planning and implementation stages.  We emphasize that cultural identities of cities are not only a national asset with great cultural and economic significance; they are also an essential element of sustainable development at all levels.

34.              We call upon and support national and local governments to adopt a holistic approach to heritage protection by integrating conservation activities with urban development and tourism and by supporting public and private initiatives and action for rejuvenating and conserving historical neighbourhoods and sites while creating jobs and services and income-generating opportunities.

We express our gratitude to the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the United Nations for successfully convening the Forum and to the Government and people of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China for the hospitality and warm welcome extended to all participants.  Finally, we pledge to work in determined and concerted action to ensure that all cities in the Asia-Pacific region and across the world will have a sustainable future.

Adopted at the at the Asia and Pacific Leadership Forum on Sustainable Development for Cities, Hong Kong SAR, China , 26 February 2004

 

 

Re-defining Public Interest: Institution Building for PPPs

(Address in United Nations Asia Pacific Leadership Forum, Hong Kong SAR, 25-26 February 2004)

By Albert Lai , Chairman, Hong Kong People’s Council for Sustainable Development and Managing Director, The China Water Company Limited

 

Limitations of Traditional Approaches

 

Infrastructure projects require the deployment of public resource. Hence they are always promoted in the name of public interest. But what exactly is “public interest”? Typically governments deal with this question through either one of the two approaches, which sit on the opposite ends of a spectrum.

 

The first approach is to apply traditional evaluation tools such as cost-benefit analysis, discounted cash flow analysis or internal rate of return estimates to assess whether a project is feasible. However in the context of sustainable development the limitations of these tools are obvious. For instance, how can these tools be applied to the impact on climate change? How much value should we place on conservation of water resource for future generations which may require certain sacrifice by this generation? How can we quantify the value of social equity or inequity a project may bring to the local population? Despite the hard work of many economists these traditional tools are still grossly inadequate to cope with the social and environmental dimensions that the pursuit of sustainable development now demands.

 

Hence some governments turn to the second approach: since there are so many intangibles involved in the evaluation of an infrastructure project, why not simply apply a political judgement to what the society needs? After all, many social costs and benefits are long-term, value-dependent and hard to quantify. Who can argue that politicians or governments are not in the best position to make those judgements? Indeed, this is not an uncommon approach adopted by many governments under the pretence of rational analysis. Last October the Chinese Minister of Construction Wang Guangtao, when speaking at the “Human habitat award” ceremony, warned against the huge wastage involved in so-called “Image Projects” undertaken by many local governments. His warning is a testimony to the potential pitfall of this “political judgement” approach to decision-making. Much too often it is a recipe for white elephants.

 

Let us now turn to two recent case studies.

 

Case Study 1: Water Infrastructure in Qitaihe City , China

 

Three years ago in Qitaihe, a medium-sized city in northeast China , the government was planning to upgrade its water supply system, including the construction of a new water treatment plant with a capacity of 100,000 cubic meters per day. Historically its water tariff had been set below the cost-recovery level and hence it badly needed external funding. Its challenge was how to attract sufficient investment of nearly RMB 200 million for the project. Yet no investor would put his money into the project were the water tariff not raised above at least the cost-recovery level, which would be 50% above the prevailing tariff.

 

For its urban population of around 440,000, less than one-third was connected to the central water supply system of the local water company. Half of the population was supplied by another system operated by the Coal Mining Bureau. Still around 80,000 residents living at the city fringes were not connected. They had to depend on expensive but unreliable water vendors, some of which still used donkeys to cart water in reminiscent of an age-old practice. These communities, though often much poorer, paid over RMB10 per tonne of water, about ten times what the connected residents paid to the water company.

 

It is clear that the public interests as perceived by the city centre community and the fringe community are markedly different. The wealthier community with existing water connections would prefer to enjoy continuously low water tariff, albeit with implicit government subsidy, whereas the fringe community would prefer the government to increase the water tariff charged by the local water company, so as to raise sufficient funds to invest in new pipeline network and hence connect them to the central water supply system. Since the city applied an unified water tariff system for all connected residents, the fringe communities, when connected, would be able to enjoy central water supply with more reliable service and a water tariff still seven times below what they were paying to the water vendors.

 

From the government’s perspective, its primary concern was political affordability – whether any increase in tariff would dent too much of its popularity. Its leadership was however also motivated by the political credos it might get by attracting foreign investors to the city. With regard to this infrastructure project there were at least three sets of ‘public interest’ demanding to be heard.

 

Case Study 2: Harbour Reclamation in Hong Kong

 

Now look at a current case in Hong Kong – the controversial harbour reclamation saga.

 

Hong Kong government planners traditionally see the harbour as a “plain of no resistance”. Unlike existing urban areas, once a portion of the harbour is reclaimed the government acquires automatic ownership, allowing it maximum freedom for urban planning and providing it with an immediate source of direct or indirect revenue. For public officials charged with the duty of solving traffic congestions building roads on newly reclaimed land is also the least-resistance solution. Faced with public demand for cost cutting the engineering work generated from the reclamation and other related infrastructure projects also provides an useful defence against job redundancy within many government departments.

 

From the business sector’s perspective its concerns range from contract opportunities, potential development profits, tourism attractions, to economic stimulus in general. Of course different businesses and different developers will enjoy or suffer from different cost-benefit profiles depending on the specific location and zoning of proposed reclamation.

 

On the other hand, civil society groups perceive another diverse set of public interest: protecting the environment, conserving the harbour area for future generations, improving water quality, providing opportunities to re-design the harbour front, enhancing public accessibility, increasing amenity value for disadvantaged communities, or finding sustainable solution to traffic congestions.

 

Public Interest is Public Process

 

The lessons from both cases are evident. Whilst each stakeholder can lay claim to a subset of public interest, no stakeholder, governments included, can monopolise public interest in its entirety. Neither the first “economic analysis” approach, nor the second “political judgement” approach is able to fully determine the complexity of public interest behind a project.

 

The answer is to put in place a public participatory process, backed by professional analysis, to determine the genuine public interest behind any infrastructure project. Public interest is none other than the informed consensus emerged from a legitimate, widely accepted process by all stakeholders. In short, public interest is public process.

 

The ‘public interest’ justification is only as valid as the quality of the public process per se. A poor process, or the lack of a legitimate process, demolishes the ‘public interest’ argument behind any allocation of public resource.

 

Over the last decade many cities around the world have applied sustainable development principles to their decision-making processes in strategic development. In all over 6400 cities have developed Local Agenda 21. It is now time to apply this pool of experience to the decision-making processes of major infrastructure works. The most optimal process for any particular community will of course vary from country to country, from city to city. However, a set of best practice distilled from worldwide experience has been well established and they contain some common principles related to participation, legitimacy, accountability, ownership, flexibility, equity, transparency, effectiveness, good governance and a host of other values. Learning to apply these principles will likely improve the quality of infrastructure projects, and ultimately lead to better quality of life for city-dwellers.

 

Nature of Public Private Partnership

 

Public-private partnerships (‘PPP’) are viewed by many as a means to delivering more infrastructures with less public funds. Recent experience has shown that this model can only succeed under a specific set of conditions. To understand its limitations we must first understand the nature of PPP.

 

Despite the glossy label, PPP is in essence a contractual arrangement between a government and a business enterprise. In an era of globalisation where all governments compete with each other for market-friendliness, this government-business relationship can sometimes be too cosy for comfort.

 

The other feature of PPP is that the contractual arrangement invariably extends over a long time span involving significant resources of the community. As external social or market conditions are bound to change, few contractual arrangements can stand the test of time without re-negotiation or re-structuring prior to the end of the project cycle.

 

The third notable feature in PPP is the unusual change of the government’s role from an umpire to a player, as it becomes a party to the contract, rather than a rule-setter or regulator in most other areas of governance. Most governments and government officials are not used to such change, as it requires a different mindset and a different skillset.

 

Applying SD Principles to PPP

 

Sustainable development will not succeed without the integrated effort of government, business and civil society. It is easy to note that there is a missing partner in PPP – the public as represented by civil society institutions. Just as we have seen in the previous analysis a missing partner will not only distort the representation of public interest but will also make the arrangements inherently unstable because of the lack of legitimacy.

 

From experience worldwide two remedial measures have been proven to work. The first is to establish a platform for civil society groups to participate as partners from project planning to contract negotiation. This way community values can be reflected in the contractual arrangements between government and business. Not only is public interest safeguarded, wider public acceptance will also ensure smoother project execution.

 

The other measure is to set up an independent, ongoing institution to adjudicate between public interest and commercial interest. As external conditions change, the need for an umpire is inevitable. It is neither fair nor conducive to business confidence for the government to suddenly switch back from a player to an umpire role when circumstances require. In the water industry, the Office of Water Services in the U.K. and a similar regulator in Chile are good examples of such institutions. In China the mandatory use of public hearing processes in setting water tariff is also a step in the same direction.

 

From the private sector perspective, in particular for companies conscious of corporate social responsibility, the key to any PPP is not to make profit in one-off cosy deals, but to profit from efficiency gains in a stable environment. Public participatory processes at the planning stage and an ongoing, independent institution capable of taking longer-term perspective than governments normally do will certainly be conducive to a stable environment.

 

 

 Concluding Remark

 

To quote Principle 7 of the Melbourne Principles for Sustainable Cities: Empower people and foster participation.

 

“The journey towards sustainability requires broadly based support. Empowering people mobilises local knowledge and resources and enlists the support and active participation of all who need to be involved in all stages, from long-term planning to implementation of sustainable solutions.”

 

In order for city-dwellers to enjoy better quality of life, let us not be shy to put this into practice in all major infrastructure works.

 

 

 

為什麼普選是香港達到和諧良治的必要條件？

香港目前的公共管治已經呈現了三條日漸擴大的裂痕。由於這些裂痕的結構性本質，只有通過一個包含普選的制度性改革，才可以重新高香港的公共管治水平，達致和諧社會的目標。

 

第一條裂痕是價值脫節：香港市民近年來對於社會發展的方向已經逐步形成普遍的價值觀。這種可持續發展的價值觀與中央提出的科學發展觀基本一致。從近年來社會大眾對於維港填海、城市規劃、污染治理、文化保育、縮減貧富差距等議題的共識上已經可以看到，支持這些價值觀的不單是一般的公民團體，更包括專業人士以及不受特權利益所左右的工商界別（例如在如何規劃維港的議題上商界組成了一個廣泛的Harbour Business Forum，與政府立場迴異；香港總商會亦公開支持公平競爭法等等）。但由於香港政府受制於小圈子選舉的權力來源，以及從港英時代殘留的政務官官僚思維，政府把持的價值與市民形成共識的價值日益脫節，以致衝突不斷。

 

第二條裂痕是誘因失效: 在扭曲的問責制下，主要官員失卻誘因去為公眾謀取最大福祉。不管這些官員上任時是否有良好意願，他們難以堅持一些符合公眾利益、但無助於鞏固自身民望或討好權貴的長遠政策，更無意花精力做好一些跨範疇、跨部門的政策。例如需要有高度整合能力的可持續發展策略，或必須有長遠承擔的氣候變化對策，或促進社會公義的減貧政策，在現行制度下均無從開展。因為這些政策需要投入相當的政治資本，但其政治收益對特首或司局長的個人仕途來說太遙遠、太不確定。

 

第三條裂痕是程序腐蝕: 由於特首的產生欠缺普遍認受性，亦在制度上未能與立法會多數派政黨結盟，政府不惜用合法但不合理的方式侵蝕程序公義。每一次運用政治交易強行通過的政策都變成疏離民心的舉措，長此下去後果堪虞。在保育皇后碼頭一役，政府不惜破天荒地運用民政局長的權力，犧牲古物諮詢委員會的公信力，正是程序被腐蝕的例子; 程序腐蝕，正是行政權力膨脹的溫床。行政權力的過度膨脹，不但不適合香港多元化社會、朝著國際都會的方向發展，更會鼓勵特區首長和主要官員的獨裁傾向。這種獨裁傾向加上與市民脫節的價值取向，造成的效果正好與建設和諧社會的目標背道而馳。