'OPEN AND ACCOUNTABLE Government' developed into a catchy cliche among local bureaucrats after the last Governor, Chris Patten, raised the idea upon his arrival here in 1992. Over the years, there have indeed been subtle changes in the way government works. Officials are in general more responsive now, and information officers in the various departments are more likely to provide meaningful answers to reporters' questions. But there is still a long way to go. The involvement of the public, or their elected representatives, in the Government's advisory mechanism is still minimal - not to mention public involvement in, or monitoring of, the actual decision-making process. Cheng Hon-kwan, the chairman of the Transport Advisory Committee, was criticised by legislators last month for engaging in 'black-box operations', after he announced he would no longer reveal the results of committee votes on public-transport operators' fare-rise applications - reversing a longstanding practice. Dr Cheng said the news blackout was in deference to the Executive Council, the Chief Executive's quasi-cabinet, which makes the final decision on fare rises. He said it would be better if Exco members announced their decisions themselves. Exco is appointed by the Chief Executive, Tung Chee-hwa, and the contents of its discussions are kept strictly secret. Because Dr Cheng also chairs the Housing Authority, his change of heart raises questions about whether a similar practice will be adopted by the authority, a statutory body that advises the Government on public-housing policies potentially affecting half the SAR's population. As it is, the authority is hardly known for its transparency. Until 1995, it even kept attendance records secret, refusing to release them without the consent of all authority members. Only after a month-long probe by the South China Morning Post did the authority back down and agree to allow the public to inspect the records. Even so, they are still sent in advance to members for formal confirmation, according to Lawrence Chow Yim-lam, the authority's committee secretary. Some critics condemn this as 'prior censorship'. From time to time since 1995, there have been revelations that some members of the authority have dismal attendance records, but the overall trend has been towards improvement. Recently, however, attendance again made headlines when it was revealed that Joseph Lian Yi-zheng, a member of Mr Tung's high-level think-tank, the Central Policy Unit, attended just three of 10 meetings held last year by the authority's Home Ownership Committee. The Housing Society, another statutory body, keeps its operations even further from public scrutiny. A spokeswoman said: 'The reason the meetings of our board and its members' attendance records are not made public is that we are a private organisation.' Established more than half a century ago, the society is a non-profit-making entity managed by a group of founding members with a mission to provide low-cost housing for lower- and middle-income families. But its role has evolved. It is now tasked by the Government to help manage the multibillion-dollar home-starter loan scheme to help people buy flats, and it is offered cheap land on which to build public-rental housing. So it is highly disputable whether the Housing Society can legitimately treat itself as a private club not subject to public monitoring. By comparison, the Hospital Authority is more open. Its board meetings are open to the public, so people can know what is happening within its sphere of responsibility. Minutes of meetings, discussion documents and attendance records are all available on the authority's Web site. About 370 advisory and statutory organisations, with a total membership of 5,500, offer the administration advice in various policy areas, according to the Home Affairs Bureau. The system of advisory committees can be traced to the 1950s and 1960s, when the then-colonial Government's system of 'consensus politics' needed channels for consulting the people. 'There is no policy governing whether any of these advisory committees has to release their attendance [records] or make their documents public,' said a spokeswoman for the Home Affairs Bureau. 'Each of the committees can work out its own policy to suit its individual needs.' The bureau is not aware of any plans to change this practice. Ho Hei-wah, director of the Society for Community Organisation, has proposed that members of advisory bodies be subject to a minimum-attendance requirement. 'It is not going to be very harsh, say, 50 per cent to 70 per cent [of meetings],' said Mr Ho, who is also a member of the Housing Authority's Home Ownership Committee, for which he said his attendance rate last year was 60 per cent. 'If someone thinks he might not make it, he should not accept the appointment or he should be removed from the committee.' But just being present for meetings is not necessarily enough. 'Being physically present does not necessarily mean one has contributed a lot,' said Mr Ho. 'It is not uncommon in the Home Ownership Committee meetings to see some members just sit there and say nothing, and then raise their hands to say 'yes' to whatever the Housing Department proposes.' The People's Council on Housing Policy has called on the Government to make advisory and statutory bodies more accountable to the public by having more elected representatives. Opening seats to representatives elected by the public probably would not solve the problem of poor attendance, but it would increase transparency and allow greater public participation and inspection. Appointees to advisory and statutory bodies are drawn from a list of possible candidates, but a government spokesman declined to say how that list was compiled. It is understood, however, that most people on it are identified as suitable by the Chief Executive's office. 'When the Government appoints someone to an advisory committee, it is natural that he is expected to be willing to devote his time to the job,' a spokesman said. 'But there may be individual cases in which some unforeseeable circumstances may prevent him meeting expectations.' Li Pang-kwong, an associate professor of politics and sociology at Lingnan University, agreed that public involvement in, and monitoring of, the Government's advisory mechanism remained disappointingly low, despite the cliche of 'open and accountable Government'. But he expected the significance of the advisory committees to diminish with the change in the SAR's 'political ecology'. 'I won't say the transparency of the advisory committees is not important,' said Dr Li. 'But now, the major scene of political struggle has moved to the Legislative Council. All eyes are on our legislators now.' As officials often say, it takes time for the Government to change and it is gradually opening. But since most members of the Government's advisory committees are appointed by the Chief Executive, perhaps Mr Tung could at least tell Hong Kong people what criteria he uses to choose these appointees. Ng Kang-chung ( kcpost@scmp.com ) is a staff writer for the Post's Editorial Pages