bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

sponsorType

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

factSheets

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

copyrighted

customTimezone

liveContents

Jake Van Der Kamp

'We are not doing it in response to criticism. We just hope to make it better and bring more significant results.'

Yeung Tak-keung

Assistant commissioner, Innovation and Technology Commission

AND IT IS certainly apparent in the commission's latest proposals for turning its leaden efforts into gold that it does not accept official criticism for having been one of the starkest money wasters our government has ever conceived.

Only recently, an auditor's report revealed that its Applied Research Fund had lost $247 million of an initial $461 million, with 32 out of 50 investment projects having lost all their money and a further 18 having lost at least 90 per cent of it.

But leaf through the 83-page consultation document it has just published on how to make things better and not a whisper of a hint of this will you find. When it talks of its record, it prefers ratios per project of patents filed and technologies generated.

No mention is made of how much money they generated for our investment in them and I can guess why. The total sum of it plus an Octopus card will get you a ride on the bus.

Here is the only concession that you get to less than astronomic success: 'However, it is also noted that since the ITF [Innovation and Technology Fund] has largely been based on a bottom-up approach, i.e. mainly initiated by individual researchers and research groups, it is not very conducive to building significant focus and clusters.'

Take note of how this was phrased. Did they say 'we admit' or 'we confess'? No. The most they could bring themselves to utter was a mealy-mouthed 'it is also noted that ...'

Translation: 'We scattered money wide and far without any real plan or idea of what to do and we were sold a hodge-podge of duff ideas by wolves in sheep's clothing looking for an easy meal.'

Very well, this is water under the bridge now and the commission has resolved to do better with focus and cluster. It has identified 13 technology sectors on which it wishes to concentrate in the future.

I shall not list them all here but a free bottle of Scotch goes to the first person who can cite any conceivable area of technology that the list does not cover. These people still want it all. The only two things they do not have here is focus and cluster.

Let me cite just two gems. You will find this hard to believe but high on the list is Automotive Parts and Accessory Systems.  They think we have a future in the car-making business.

Now let me give them their due. Being government people, they have necessarily caught the Pearl River Delta bug and it makes perfect sense to them to spend our money on things that will only help people across the border - '... long-term developments and benefits', you understand, as the one I quoted above went on to define the commission's goals, i.e. the sort of excuse you might try on the boss when you are desperate not to be sacked for losing him too much money.

More immediately, the cars idea would require 'substantial input from local research institutions, possibly with support of overseas experts'. You bet it would, not much less than if we got into the man-on-the-moon business.

The other gem takes us from the distant future to the distant past. They have Textiles and Clothing on the list. Hong Kong, you see, should really make a transition from the opium business but shipping is not enough to fill the gap. Where shall we look? Ahhh ... got one, perfect idea for 1904, dawn of a new century for us. What is more, this garment trade will have a secure and lengthy future right up to January 2005 when the abolition of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement completely robs us of our artificial competitive advantage in it. No more guaranteed export quotas for us after that date but why worry? It is still a hundred years away.

This is not to mention, of course, that Hong Kong is 'not strong in fabric technologies and lags behind the US and Europe in 3D fabric design/simulation and innovative fabric evaluation'.

What a hoot. Listen fellas, your focus and cluster has already been discovered. It is called the internet and its discovery says that where people live has got little to do with how they focus and cluster themselves. They will live where the living is congenial, the weather is good, the taxes are low and the law is fair.

If you want that to be Hong Kong, then shut yourselves down, return us the money and go back to the natural functions of government.



Enough of our hi-tech money wasters