bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

SCMP Reporter

What is wrong with our public administration? Supporters of the SAR Government have argued that the bird flu saga, red tide and the Asian economic crisis were all beyond the administration's control. But clearly the airport chaos cannot be blamed on external factors.

 Arguably, the sluggish way in which the Government responded to the various problems demonstrates it is facing a crisis.

 It has tremendous problems in projecting an image of a competent and strong administration, let alone one of crisis management.

 There has been a pattern in the way the SAR Government responds to a crisis.

 First, officials shy away from admitting the seriousness of the problem. Then, public criticism becomes so severe it is forced to be more responsive and take measures to address the problems.

 With this, the Government's image is eventually damaged, leading the public to feel it lacks leadership and is incompetent.

 The 1980s saw a wave of privatisation or corporatisation of public services. At the time, there was a view that the colonial government was trying to shift the political burden of dealing with public criticism on to the corporate world.

 In the 1990s, the reality is that mistakes made by these corporate bodies, including the Hospital, Housing and Airport Authorities, also directly undermine the image of the Government.

 For the public, it is the Government's responsibility to supervise the management of these bodies. Unfortunately, they have been operating like 'independent kingdoms' without sufficient checks and balances from the public and elected politicians.

 It is legitimate to question whether the Airport Authority has regularly reported to the Airport Consultative Committee, comprising professionals and elected politicians, on the progress of the construction of the new Chek Lap Kok airport.

  The SAR has spent a huge amount of money on education, housing, hospital services and the construction of the new airport.

 However, there has been no guarantee on the effectiveness of the delivery of such services.

 Education is the best example. Despite high-sounding slogans like 'mother-tongue education' and projects such as the Quality Education Fund, this quality of education leaves much to be desired.

 Many parents complain that the SAR's policies are disastrous, forcing them from time to time to adapt to a constantly shifting horizon.

 Unless there are reforms at the top and a change in the style of policy-making, the communication gap between the Government and the public will become more serious.

 The recent drop in public confidence in the Government is a dangerous sign that the SAR may plunge into political instability.

 What are the urgent solutions to tackle the crisis of governance in the SAR? First, Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa needs to change his leadership style from emphasising harmony to adopting a more proactive approach in dealing with crises. Mr Tung's low-profile approach to crises conforms with his ruling style, which unfortunately is outdated in an era of democratisation.

 Second, the leadership should be reshuffled and retrained to adopt a more democratic approach in tackling public and political demands.

 The Executive Council may need to take in new blood to help Mr Tung respond to public pressure. What is more, senior civil servants need to be trained in the areas of public relations, democratic culture and crisis management.

  There was actually a myth of civil service excellence created by former Governor Chris Patten, who sought the support of senior civil servants to promote his political reform agenda and thus exaggerated the quality of their performance.

 It must be pointed out that senior Chinese civil servants had their crisis management skills untested under colonial rule, although they effectively implemented policies formulated by the British and the Executive Council.

 British expatriates usually made the final decision in crisis management, including pegging the Hong Kong dollar to the US dollar in 1983 and deciding to build a new airport in 1989 - both undertaken as measures to restore public confidence.

 Civil service excellence was a myth generated by colonial rulers extremely sensitive to public opinion.

 However, the current SAR Government appears to be not sensitive enough.

 There is a need for a new style of public administration which welcomes and encourages public participation. For example, the Education Department could revamp itself in such a way that it regularly taps the opinion of parents' associations, students, teachers and school principals.

 At present, the Government's policy-making process still has a top-down approach mirroring that of the colonial era. A new style of public administration should embrace the democratic demands of the public and absorb their ideas into government proposals.

 If the SAR does not adopt a more innovative and democratic style of leadership, the governability crisis will persist mostly likely affecting political stability in the years to come.

Lo Shiu-hing is associate professor, Department of Politics and Public Affairs, University of Hong Kong 



A crisis of government