Leung must explain HKTV snub
It is good to see that our chief executive, Leung Chun-ying, retains a sense of humour.
It is good to see that our chief executive, Leung Chun-ying, retains a sense of humour.
In saying that politics were not a factor in the government's decision to reject Hong Kong Television Network's (HKTV) bid for a free-to-air licence, he obviously speaks with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek, knowing full well that no one will believe it. Also, in proclaiming that Hong Kong has a transparent government, what he means is that you can see right through the excuses which are presented as reasons for the decision.
The problem is that although the decision is laughable, we, the long-suffering citizens of Hong Kong, do not find anything amusing in this, the latest symptom of dysfunctional government and the complete breakdown of the Executive Council system. It serves only to increase the lack of trust and even the sense of despair.
The so-called rule of collective responsibility in Exco, which in any event is not a requirement under the Basic Law, has been shot to pieces by one Exco member calling for an explanation of the decision, which suggests that she does not know what the explanation is, and another suggesting that HKTV could appeal, which suggests that she disagrees with the original decision.
Given that collective responsibility (or cabinet responsibility) is a concomitant of a system where the government is formed by the party or coalition in power, which is not the case in Hong Kong, this rule can and should now be abandoned while the current conditions apply.
As for the rule of confidentiality, which is also not prescribed by the Basic Law, it is being used by the chief executive as a fig leaf to hide his nakedness and the absence of rational decision-making.
Under Article 48 of the Basic Law, it is the chief executive who carries the responsibility for making decisions on government policies and the issuing of executive orders.
When even the civil servants are telling the public that the paperwork for the issuing of three licences had all been done, who should step forward to explain in detail why three licences were not issued except the chief executive?
