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 )