The Urban Council is to hive off two of its three performing companies, the Hong Kong Repertory Theatre (HKRT) and the Hong Kong Chinese Orchestra (HKCO). Or is it? Such a decision was made by the council in early 1989, but the Urban Services Department claims the plan has been shelved even though it cannot produce a document to support this. Incumbent councillors are puzzled and officials in the Urban Services Department appear to be equally baffled. Based on a decision by members of the performing companies sub-committee, culture select committee, finance select committee and administration select committee of the council in March 1989, they had agreed in principle to the department's proposal to hive off HKRT in 1992-93 and the HKCO in 1993-94. But to date, nothing has happened. Ada Wong Ying-kay, incumbent member of the performing companies sub-committee, said: 'The department told us that they vaguely remembered that councillors had discussed shelving the plan, but when we asked whether there are any minutes or a paper confirming it, the officials said they couldn't find any written document.' Noting that the plan was shelved in around 1991, Assistant Director of Urban Services Tony Ma Kai-loong said: 'From the records that I've seen, it seems that at the time, members looked into the subject and concluded that the timing was unsuitable for taking the move, so they shelved it.' Sub-committee chairman Daniel Wong Kwok-tung, who also served on the sub-committee during the last term, said he couldn't recall any detailed discussion on the subject in the last few years. Many people would believe it unthinkable for such confusion over a matter that involves taxpayer's money. This is not a subject on which members could casually reverse their position without good reason. Nor is it something that you can just change without going through proper procedures. It is a decision that affects the well-being of those serving the performing companies. And as the budget for the groups is drawn from the Government's rates revenue, it also involves the question of whether public money is being properly spent. While a proper explanation has yet to come from the department, it is obvious officials are less enthusiastic now in pushing the plan through than when it was proposed seven years ago. Mr Ma said that at present, the culture select committee of the council was putting together a five-year plan and that priority should be given now to considering a long-term cultural development strategy. The five-year plan, due to be published in mid-August for public consultation, will touch on several aspects of performing arts, including education, venues for performances and storage of data and information. 'The department hopes to formulate a comprehensive policy on performing arts, set out our goals and objectives, and then identify ways to achieve these aims,' he said. Ms Wong, a keen arts supporter, had personally taken the initiative to put together a discussion paper to review the future operation of the groups. Her present thinking is in line with the department's original proposal in 1989 which envisaged corporatising the companies so that the council would remain as the companies' sole public funding body, while their management should be made independent of the department. It was the department's advice then that of the council's three performing companies, the HKRT and HKCO had already fully established themselves in respect to artistic standard and audience support. But corporatising the Hong Kong Dance Company (HKDC), which was only established in 1981, was considered to be more risky. The department also said that forbidding the HKRT and HKCO from standing on their own feet would hamper their further progress and development. But today, officials appear to be far more cautious. Corporatisation of the performing groups was not their goal, according to Mr Ma, maintaining that it's just one of the many possible ways for running the performing companies. 'We've got to think about consequences and consider whether the groups could actually survive if they were to stand on their own feet,' said Mr Wong. But Ms Wong was more positive, maintaining that hiving off the companies would help to streamline the present operations. 'If they can operate independently, the companies will be in a better position to reach out to the community,' she said. Citing the examples of performing groups in the United States and Europe, Ms Wong said about 80 per cent of their budgets were from commercial or individual sponsorships, and public funds only paid for about 20 per cent of their expenses. But in Hong Kong, the Government fully subsidises the groups with tens of millions of dollars being drawn from public coffers to fund the performing companies every year. According to statistics provided by the department, the three companies have taken up a total budget of close to $80 million in the 1995-96 financial year, an increase of more than 70 per cent when compared with the total in 1991-92. The HKCO is the most expensive to keep, with its budgets in the last five financial years soaring by 85 per cent, from $18.5 million to $34 million. In the past five financial years, only the HKRT has managed a consistently high turnout in local performances, with average attendance rates ranging from 85 per cent to 95 per cent. During the same period, the HKCO's performance was less satisfactory with average attendance rates standing at between 60 and 77 per cent. Least impressive is the HKDC whose average turnout rate stayed between 56 and 71 per cent. In the dance group's first programme for this financial year, the attendance rate nosedived to below 20 per cent. The figures are far from impressive and provoke questions over whether it is worth keeping these groups under government auspices. Perhaps it is time for an overhaul.
