The key to better government
I found it painful to watch Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food Yeoh Eng-kiong finally step down last week after the Legislative Council select committee published its report on Sars. I felt the same way when Hospital Authority chairman Leong Che-hung did the same a day later. I have worked with both men, and I know our health system is losing valuable expertise.
Of course, to some extent that is politics. The pressure for Dr Yeoh to quit was understandable. The Legco election is in September, and politicians would exploit the issue. But the departures are more likely to damage Hong Kong than help it. How has 'accountability' turned into a force that could hurt our interests?
When Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa announced his accountability system in 2001, he wanted to strengthen his own authority. However, Legco, political opposition, the public and the media have seized on 'accountability' as a way to exert at least some influence over our unelected leadership. The result is not very pretty. In the past 12 months, three ministers have stood down under widespread calls for their resignation. At this rate, the entire government of 15 principal officials - including the chief executive - would quit during a five-year term. Of course, senior officials must be held to account. But we seem to have developed a culture of looking for scapegoats.
I believe this is part of a bigger trend in Hong Kong politics. It is a pattern of negative action; opposition for its own sake; deliberate attempts to hinder the work of the executive, whether it is good or bad. It is not a constructive approach. Indeed, if it forces talent away, it is destructive. We see it in Legco when parties vote against sound government policies. We see it when politicians and commentators oppose official plans with harsh words. We see it when criticism of the government becomes personal and insulting.
Some of this is just ordinary political activity. But I think it goes beyond that. It is not accompanied by constructive suggestions and policy alternatives, let alone praise or recognition for officials when things go well. Pure, negative opposition, even if it harms Hong Kong, has become an end in itself. It is as if our people do not even want the government to succeed.
To conservatives, this may be an argument against greater democracy - it shows the immaturity of Hong Kong politicians and voters. But there is another possibility. Our political process deliberately excludes most of the community from serious involvement. The administration has no popular mandate. Could it be that people are tempted to take a negative and hostile approach because they feel they have no alternative way to exercise any influence?
In April, the National People's Congress Standing Committee ruled out the introduction of universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008. But it left scope for changing the composition of Legco and the Election Committee, and it did not reduce our leadership's ability to open up senior positions to a broader range of people.
Although the community is being asked to propose ways forward for political reform, our leaders must ask themselves a basic question about sharing political power. How much influence and responsibility are they willing to pass to outsiders?
A lot depends on their answer. We could go on having a government that faces public hostility and which no one wants to help. Or we could get an administration that more people see as 'their' government, deserving their support and co-operation; a government that large numbers of people will want to join and work for. The people of Hong Kong, and the central government, surely expect political reform to deliver the latter.
Bernard Chan is a member of the Legislative Council, representing the insurance functional constituency
