An empty ritual is not worth keeping
In making the annual policy address, Mr Tung has continued a colonial tradition, one which Hong Kong's British-appointed governors used to outline their agendas for the upcoming year. He has also been trying to make it his own.
His first speeches were three hours long, and were encyclopedic in their coverage of Hong Kong's economic and political landscape. In the early years, there were bold initiatives. His inaugural address in October 1997 brought the proposal to build 85,000 flats a year in order to make home ownership a reality for more middle-class people. Two years later he announced the Disneyland and Cyberport deals. In the years following that, the speeches stayed long but increasingly were empty of new ideas, even though Hong Kong faced such serious challenges as rising unemployment and a burgeoning budget deficit.
The past two speeches have seen Mr Tung speak for only one hour - and have been moved from October to January, shortly before the financial secretary delivers his annual budget. The idea has been to give a 'presidential' feel to the address. Mr Tung could display his charisma and leadership by laying out broad ideas, while his ministers filled in the details for the media and the public. At least, that was the idea.
But even these abbreviated policy speeches have left much to be desired. This year's address expresses some fine ideas, including tackling the deficit, moving towards a knowledge-based economy and bringing more varied public participation into government advisory bodies. The most definite proposals included adding $2 billion a year to infrastructure spending in order to stimulate job creation in the industry, extension of the government's temporary jobs programmes and setting up a self-employment programme for youth. On the political front, there is the creation of the taskforce on constitutional reform.
Yet many other elements of the speech are just loosely phrased statements of intention, with few details on how they can be carried out. There are also anodyne statements on where Hong Kong has been in the past and where we might go.
The less-than-inspiring hour that resulted raises questions about the relevance of the annual speech. Has the exercise become an empty ritual that needs to be eliminated? If we keep it, are there ways of doing it better?
Mr Tung and his successors should not feel constrained by the past. The governors, usually speaking to lawmakers who were not elected, did not have to inspire the public, as Mr Tung now has to do. For the policy address to retain any meaning, it has to be more than a collection of fine intentions. Statements of intention are not policies; a speech that fails to go beyond stating aims and principles is not a policy address.
