Policy Address 2006 - 11 Oct, 2006 Policy Address: “Proactive, Pragmatic, Always People First”… thin, light, dissatisfying
Dear Subscribers and Friends
Chief Executive (CE) Donald Tsang (DT) policy address today was like a meal that failed to satisfy. It had little to sink one’s teeth in to.
The lightness must have been by design but DT must have also felt it was sufficient good to roll it out. The feeling of dissatisfaction effective means the effort failed to hit the spot with the people.
Those who say DT couldn’t have said much before his re-election is merely putting forward a lame excuse.
A. What he was not expected to say: DT was not expected to say anything of substance on:
(i) Constitutional reform because he already said the government would make new proposals in March 2007 – after the new CE is selected;
(ii) Political appointments because there is an on-going consultation on deputy ministers.
(iii) GST – because there is a public consultation on-going.
B. What he was expected to say: The public expected DT to say something of substance about something. Air pollution, education and minimum wage were high on the urgent list of things to do.
(a) On air pollution, DT did not lay out a comprehensive strategy even though he said he would focus on an “overall strategic direction”. He couldn’t do it because he did not appear to accept Hong Kong has a public health crisis that needed multi-prong emissions reduction policies stretching across several policy areas, such as logistics, marine emissions, vehicular pollution etc. He was expected to provide an update on the government’s new emissions trading pilot scheme, which he said 2 months ago would be rolled out this year but his silence may indicate problems.
(b) On education, he focussed on helping parents to pay for kindergarten education, which is good but fell short of making kindergarten education an integral part of the education system.
(c) On minimum wage, as expected he announced there would be a “movement” to get business to pay a minimum wage for cleaners and security guards.
(d) On family, he wanted to show he cared about family unity as part of creating a “harmonious society”.
C. His Philosophical side: DT defined again his governing motto “strong governance”; and what he meant when he said “positive non-interventionism” was dead. He obviously felt a need to do this because criticisms of his philosophical prowess had been under attack. His critics are unlikely to let up though.
(a) Strong governance: In his words: “It is our faith in a small, but strong and effective government that can rise up to challenges, operate with transparency and provide effective response at crucial times. The purpose of strong governance is to serve the people. Strong governance means building up a culture of decisiveness as well as effective policy execution in responding to the demands of the people”.
(b) Positive non-interventionism: In his words: “Some mistook our stopping to use the term … as a shift in policy … This is not the case. I welcome [discussion] when and to what extent the government should ever intervene in the market under the rubric of “Big Market, Small Government” and public expenditure not exceeding 20% of GDP. These discussions would be far more profitable than prolonging philosophical debates over abstract slogans or terminology”.
D. Observations – an unconscious lightness of being
It must be assumed DT thought the speech was sufficient and even good otherwise why would he be willing to deliver it? At the end, he wanted to appear to make some unscripted remarks, which however seemed rehearsed – the content was not important because what he said was unmemorable and lacked feelings. If people felt unsatisfied, how could it be regarded as a success? If he really felt it should have been good enough, he was way off mark.
CHRISTINE LOH
Civic Exchange – HK’ s independent think tank
www.civic-exchange.org