More than 5,000 members of the Hong Kong public serve on some 500 advisory and statutory bodies, a fair number of which are important in policy formation. In July 2002, Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa announced a review of these arrangements, and he gave it a further push in this year's Policy Address. A few weeks ago the Home Affairs Bureau issued a progress report. Key concerns have been appositely identified. We must now wait to see what recommendations emerge for improving the system.
High on the list for attention ought to be the question of transparency. According to a Home Affairs Bureau survey three years ago, almost one quarter of the committees opened their meetings to the public, but these were almost exclusively district-level bodies. Elsewhere there is rather less glasnost - not that open meetings would generally be the answer. Granted, the bureau maintains an online listing of these bodies, and many have their own websites, so we can readily discover their membership and terms of reference. A small number even upload agendas and pro-forma minutes, and some release relevant papers. Others may issue press releases on the occasion of particularly momentous decisions.
But that is not quite enough. Ideally we need a broadly based commitment to provide, on a regular and systematic basis, information on the topics discussed, the arguments deployed, the reasons underlying eventual advice, and even the contribution and attendance record of individual appointees. The Home Affairs Bureau advised committee secretariats in 1999 to disclose information such as attendance records if requested, but one is hard pressed to find any which do so voluntarily. And a Legco paper last year noted that members of the public may request meeting papers and minutes, which ought to be made available, if not classified.
Therein, of course, lies the rub. Officials are inclined to confidentiality, which the rest of us are powerless to overturn. It is hard to believe that anything more than a small fraction of business would really fall into that category but, if you are not allowed to see a document, how can you prove it should be declassified?
Fuller and automatic disclosure could redress some of Hong Kong's democratic deficit, by reassuring the public that policies are scrutinised intelligently and thoroughly, and even demonstrating that officials do not always get their own way. It would help identify issues deserving to be probed further. It would keep the committees on their toes, and perhaps hasten the demise of any which have passed their sell-by dates. Moreover, it would reduce grounds for the typical Hong Kong complaint, that a privileged few enjoy advance notice of policy direction.
As an illustration of the benefit of openness, consider the Monetary Authority's regular release of its record of the clumsily entitled Exchange Fund Advisory Committee subcommittee on Currency Board operations. Carefully crafted though these texts may be, they provide useful factual summaries as well as some valuable insights into, and reassurance on, key decisions. The process has, over time, raised the level of debate and comprehension of monetary matters. By publishing with a slight time lag, any problem of market-sensitivity is largely avoided. And, if you read between the lines, you see that the external members are astute enough to keep the officials in check. The benefit might be greater still if more supporting papers were available.