The list of ideas for revitalising the Hong Kong economy, the product of Donald Tsang's Yam-kuen's Task Force on Economic Challenges, made depressing reading for two reasons. First, the good ideas in it have been bandied around for years without being implemented. Second, the assumption is that the government should do more, rather than less, to stimulate desired sectors.
Between 1999 and 2002, I participated in annual off-the-record forums titled 'The Servicing Economy' bringing together the government, business, consultants and academics in discussions about spurring high-value-added services in Hong Kong. Some of the sessions were interesting and showed up ways in which relatively small changes in policy could have a potentially big impact.
Yet, regular attendees gradually became frustrated. The report for 2002 noted that, although certain issues were repeatedly raised, 'action by government was painfully slow due to bureaucratic inertia and vested interests'.
That year, health care got particular attention from the perspective of both local needs to narrow the gap between the public and private sectors and of the potential to develop Hong Kong as a medical tourist centre by encouraging private hospital development. Seven years on, the government has taken this up - but only in principle and assuming that vested interests who want to limit competition do not stall the process.
Education, secondary as well as tertiary, was another perennial at the forums. Since then, there has been only a very modest rise in non-local university enrolment; the public universities remain very high-cost, highly bureaucratic institutions; and private secondary education has attracted very few students from overseas.
Another issued raised at the forums was getting the right migrants from the mainland. While a few very highly qualified people are allowed in, the vast majority of the daily quota are unskilled and unsuitable for the jobs Hong Kong should be creating. So, many end up in remote estates unemployed or in low-paid jobs. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of skilled mainlanders able to contribute their talents cannot come. Why is migration not a topic that can be discussed?
The government is now acknowledging that high land cost is a major problem - but not just for schools and hospitals. Yet it persists in trying to maximise land revenue, not merely by limiting land sales and indulging in a pretence of market forces, but through policies that hinder revival of old industrial areas. Now we are told that it would be good to 'facilitate the conversion of underused industrial buildings for the cultural and creative industries'. Why only them? And what is the definition of 'creative'?