Hong Kong's 'accountability' system backfires
Like many of his grand initiatives in the past six years, the so-called accountability system introduced by Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa has been marked by a wide gap between the ideal and the reality.
While the idea of making ministers more accountable and strengthening team-building sounds sensible and progressive, the new system instilled more despondency and discontent among people. Just one year on, the new system has not only failed to bolster the authority of the Tung administration, but arguably has deepened a political crisis and created more friction within the government.
According to a survey conducted by the Chinese University's Institute for Asia-Pacific Studies this month, public ratings of the accountability system have dropped by about five points to 38.1 out of a total 100, its lowest since August last year. Other polls show the popularity rating of Mr Tung and most ministers has remained at last year's low levels.
This is despite the painstaking efforts by Mr Tung and his teammates to reach out to the people, directly and through the media, in making and explaining policy. It has become routine to see Mr Tung flanked by senior ministers when he announces major decisions as a show of solidarity. Those improvements, however, pale into insignificance, if not irrelevance, when the 'accountability system' is tested on difficult issues and decisions. Mr Tung's decision to reject the resignation of Financial Secretary Antony Leung Kam-chung in the wake of the 'car-gate' scandal makes a mockery of the avowed goal of holding officials more accountable for their blunders and improper behaviour.
A separate decision to appoint Health Minister Yeoh Eng-kiong - who bore the brunt of the attack on the government for its handling of the Sars crisis - to head a review committee on Sars has caused a furore over alleged conflict of interest.
Even though Mr Tung admitted last week the government was passive and ignorant early in the crisis, he stopped short of putting any blame on his officials. Dr Yeoh has said he was prepared to stand down if Mr Tung was not happy with his work.
Shortly after the 'car-gate' case erupted, reporters asked Mr Tung what circumstances would force him to sack a minister. He replied that appointments and dismissals would be made 'at my own pleasure'.
The way Mr Tung handled the 'car-gate' incident and the Sars crisis have given credence to one of the major criticisms made before the accountability system formally went into effect in July last year. Critics and cynics warned that constitutional change would result in a situation under which all ministers will only be accountable to Mr Tung, who, in reality, is not accountable to the people. Their warnings are not far from the truth.
If the public had high hopes that the new faces would inject new ideas and style of work into the bureaucrat-led government, most are likely to feel disappointed with the dismal record since. On the economic front, the signing of the so-called closer economic partnership arrangement with the mainland tomorrow, may create new job and business opportunities for some sectors. But new ideas to address such fundamental issues as competitiveness and engines of economic growth remain lacking.
The confusion over a spate of decisions concerning the Tamar redevelopment plan, a four-year university plan and property market stabilisation strategy has raised serious questions about the government's decision-making capability and processes.
Moreover, friction between some ministers and bureaucrats has created instability and uncertainty in policymaking and implementation. Hopes were high that the accountability system, first floated by Mr Tung in 2000, could bring fresh air to the uninspiring political scene and structure. Many people have already lowered their expectation to a more modest and realistic hope that Mr Tung's constitutional initiative will not cause irreparable damage to the governing system.
Chris Yeung is the Post's Editor-at-Large
