Think-tanks need careful thought
In a self-evaluation of his governance not long ago, Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa admitted failures in two of the so-called three P's. He insisted he has done well in policies, but poorly in politics and public relations.
Critics argued it was indeed failures in policy, namely flaws, inconsistency and unpredictability, that had deepened the crisis of governance.
In the wake of the July march last year, Mr Tung appears to have come to grips with the reality about the relationship between policies and governance. He underlined the importance of policy standards in his policy address in January. The Central Policy Unit (CPU) has been asked to study ways to promote public policy research.
Speaking at a CPU conference on policy research on Saturday, the unit's head, Lau Siu-kai, said the government must enhance objectivity, rationality and the base of evidence for its policies. This will help win support from the Legislative Council and society in general on government policies.
He hoped the development of policy research capacity in various institutions such as universities and think-tanks would create an 'ideas market' that helps raise the quality of policies. Compared with the United States where think-tanks came into being in the early 20th century, the development of public policy research in Hong Kong has been a recent phenomenon.
That said, it has become apparent that there is a sense of growing awareness within society about the importance of a diversity of ideas and evidence-based, rationality-driven policy-making. This is particularly the case at a time when people have a greater sense of civic consciousness and participation on political issues.
As Chan Wai-kwan of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce said at the symposium, a culture of 'discussion on politics and policies' has flourished in society.
Another speaker, Shiu Sin-por, executive director of the One Country Two Systems Research Institute, said think-tanks would become more important because the government could no longer formulate policies behind closed doors, as it had done in the colonial era.
Despite the consensus on the importance of think-tanks, views were divided over the best way forward. There were concerns over an idea for the government to set up an independent group that conducts studies on a range of long-term policy issues. Questions have been asked on whether such a body would be free from government influence, and be seen as such.
Most academics and think-tank members argue the government should play the role of facilitator to provide funding and create an environment conducive to policy research. Professor Lau cautioned against calls for the government to take an active role, in light of people's mistrust in it.
As some speakers have said, there has been no shortage of talent on policy research. In the case of universities, it is more a question of whether funding and recognition could provide incentives for academics to conduct research.
Corporations must be able to see the mutual benefits of greater inter-flow of expertise with government and think-tanks when economics and politics became closely intertwined.
Given the potential resources for research in society, the idea of a government-led initiative to set up a large-scale think tank has to be examined carefully.
There is no doubt, however, the government can set itself as a good model promoting public awareness of the importance of a rational, empirical and objective approach to policy-making.
Chris Yeung is the Post's editor-at-large
