In sponsoring debate about governance reform in Hong Kong, the administration frequently exhorts the community to become involved, make suggestions for change and commit to the process. For some time now, Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa has presented himself as the consummate listener. Calls for public engagement thus emanate from prominent bodies like the constitutional development taskforce, headed by Chief Secretary Donald Tsang Yam-kuen. Moreover, there is evidence that those calls are being heard. In its second report, released in April, the taskforce noted that in its first six weeks, the constitutional development website had received nearly 150,000 hits. However, one critical area of Hong Kong governance is so shrouded in secrecy that it is very difficult for outsiders to know what is going on, and thereby make proposals for change. That area is the very heart of government, where Mr Tung and his senior ministers and advisers take the most important decisions affecting society. Only the most general information about what happens at the core is ever released to the public. There are policy committees, apparently chaired by Mr Tsang and serviced by officials from his office. However, matters like the precise number of committees, the names of individuals who sit on them, and the terms of reference they are given, all remain a mystery. It could perhaps be argued that at the very core of government some degree of secrecy is necessary and even desirable. Otherwise, it might become impossible for government to go about its business. However, elsewhere in the world, information about the heart of government is routinely displayed on websites. In Australia, Canada and Britain, full lists of cabinet committees, including memberships and terms of reference, are made available online. The best foreign government websites also provide supporting information to explain how the administration works. Nowhere is this information entirely comprehensive, but it does offer valuable pointers to the process of decision-making at the pinnacle of government. In Hong Kong, by contrast, very little equivalent information can be found on the government website. Indeed, notwithstanding commitments to transparent and accountable government, the administration continues to preside over a significant information deficit. The irony is that Hong Kong is regularly placed near the top of international e-government league tables. Accenture, a private-sector consultancy, ranked Hong Kong's e-government 10th in the world in 2001, eighth in 2002, and seventh last year. Other surveys have reached similar conclusions. Hong Kong's e-government is indeed excellent and trendsetting in some domains. It is possible to submit a tax return online, book a leisure facility, arrange a wedding ceremony, and so on. Many dealings with the government have been made a great deal simpler and easier. However, the domains in which Hong Kong's e-government excels tend to be oriented towards customers or consumers. In citizen-oriented spheres, focused on how society is governed, it falls behind. As Hong Kong feels its way forward to a new constitutional settlement, it is important that the apex of government be subjected to scrutiny. No one can claim that the government is working so well that no change is necessary. Rather, there are clear problems at the core that need to be examined openly. No technical or logistical barriers prevent the release of information routinely made public elsewhere. Only a culture of caution and secrecy stands in the way. The Tung administration should take steps now to reveal the secrets of its most central workings, and to shed light on the mystery of what goes on at the heart of government. Ian Holliday is a professor of policy studies at City University of Hong Kong
