Following publication of the government's consultative paper on the role of advisory and statutory bodies, and in light of public discussions on constitutional change, it is timely to examine the role of advisory boards and committees. How is it that there are so many and how did the system evolve?
The system grew from the post-war period, when no reform had taken place of the political structure to make it more representative. The legislature was small and wholly appointed. There were no district boards and the Urban Council had to work within its statutory boundaries and limits. The New Territories was the only part of Hong Kong which had something akin to an elected responsibility to advise the government.
There is an axiom that in countries where the political party system is weak, committees proliferate - this has affinities with Hong Kong's situation.
The colonial government was slow to introduce representative government. Nevertheless, there was an obvious need for it to consult and seek advice as the population grew, and society and its requirements became more complex. Advisory committees were appointed to fill the gap.
The system has been aptly, and not unkindly, described by Ambrose King, a professor at Chinese University as the 'administrative absorption of politics'. And so it was. It was hoped that the fuse of political time bombs in the community would be snuffed out by the creation of committees as a sort of political warning system. Representatives of the public would advise on subject after subject which were puzzling or testing the government's political antennae.
The riots of 1966 revealed a dangerous weakness in Hong Kong. A swelling population and a crowded city environment had led to the government being out of touch with its citizens. It responded by extending the New Territories' district officer system to Kowloon and Hong Kong, to open shop fronts on the streets and to make the government accessible. This worked for a time and gave the government some breathing space.