December, 2006

Another Thankless Policy Address

Rose Wu

Once again the legislature's motion of thanks for the chief executive's policy address has been defeated for the seventh time in nine years. Before the handover, the motion of thanks was always approved under British colonial rule except the final policy address by the last British governor, Chris Patten, which was defeated by one vote.

With only eight months to go before the end of his first term, Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen said he was being pragmatic by only presenting what he could achieve in such a short time. In his speech, he highlighted three challenges: sustaining economic development, building a harmonious society and fostering a democratic political system.

In last year's speech, he listed three major tasks-constitutional reform, the West Kowloon arts hub project and the new government complex at the Tamar site. The political reform debate was driven by the need to make arrangements for electing the chief executive and legislature in 2007 and 2008, respectively, that were not specified in the Basic Law. However, the fate of these three top-priority tasks is now history with only the last of the three objectives being achieved.

Compared with his previous address, Tsang has moved from strong governance to pragmatic politics. As many commentators noted, he intentionally steered clear of some controversial issues, such as health care financing and the proposed goods and services tax. On other contentious issues, such as a minimum wage, he sought to curb the political fallout.

On democratic development, Tsang tried to send a soothing message to the central government and other conservative forces that he will proceed cautiously and not create controversy. Following Chinese President Hu Jintao's guiding philosophy of building a harmonious society for the nation, Tsang wants to demonstrate his loyalty and political correctness to the leaders in Beijing.

In fact, under the present political structure, Tsang is doomed to be a caretaker chief executive rather than a "can-do" government. First of all, his position can only be secured with the blessing of Beijing and the support of the 800-member Election Committee that is responsible for choosing the next chief executive in March 2007.

Another disappointment of Tsang's policy speech was the delay in enacting minimum wage legislation. He has opted for a compromise that will conveniently defer the controversial issue until after the election. Instead of enacting the legislation, he is calling on the business sector to abide by a voluntary scheme to pay wages not lower than average market rates to cleaners and security guards. The government only promised to do a review of the voluntary "wage protection movement" after a two-year trial. Such disappointment aroused the anger of some union leaders who vowed to file a judicial review after Tsang failed to commit his administration to minimum wage legislation. However, they withheld their action after being told that the government would agree to speed up the review on the "wage protection movement" next October-a year earlier than originally scheduled.

The third issue to which Tsang devoted considerable attention in his policy address was his concern for environmental protection. His proposal is to focus on incentives for less polluting goods vehicles and to undertake a consultation on laws against idling engines. Again, however, this part of his speech was disappointing and lacked initiatives.

The only portion of his speech which seems more positive and has been welcomed by the community is the decision to fund kindergartens through a voucher scheme. Currently, the quality of kindergartens in Hong Kong varies a great deal, and many teachers are poorly qualified and underpaid. The subsidy will help improve the quality of teachers and relieve the financial burden of parents.

However, a major problem of the proposed scheme is that it will not benefit parents whose children are enrolled in profitmaking kindergartens or non-profitmaking schools that charge more than HK$24,000 (US$3,077) a year. To the government's surprise, kindergarten representatives and parents strongly opposed the proposal. They argued that many of the kindergartens excluded from the voucher scheme provide quality education to children. They criticised the government for penalising them for being independent or for charging fees higher than its ceiling of HK$24,000 a year instead of recognising their educational contributions. Moreover, they maintained that the revised scheme does not resolve the fundamental problem of fairness and freedom of choice.

Reacting to criticism during a special meeting of the Legislative Council's (Legco) education panel, Secretary for Education and Manpower Arthur Li Kwok-cheung threatened that he might withdraw the proposal and leave it to the next government to decide what to do.

As we review the history of the development of the chief executive's annual policy address, we realise that it is a colonial invention that has evolved into merely a public debate between the government and legislature. Instead of merely making vague promises, the people want the chief executive to be answerable for what he has promised in his annual policy address. This brings us back to the basic shortcoming of Hong Kong's political structure: an absence of accountability due to a lack of democracy. How can we expect the chief executive-elected by just 800 people-to be held accountable by the seven million citizens of Hong Kong when they have no means to support or reject the chief executive and his or her policies at regular intervals?