Advisory bodies should open their doors

Official advisory bodies are ubiquitous, covering the work of practically every government department or bureau. Yet as an institutional holdover from the colonial era, they risk becoming anachronistic and marginalised.

When even a Home Affairs Bureau spokesman seems to endorse critics' calls for the bodies to open up and become more transparent, it is clearly time to bring them into the modern era.

There are some 400 statutory and advisory bodies, yet only 67 open their meetings to the public and 70 have a policy of posting documents on the internet. Clearly they are not a transparent institution. The function of advisory bodies, as conceived under colonial rule, is to provide the government with expert advice or consultations with interested groups within the community. In reality, government officials - back then and now - rarely have difficulty obtaining the information they seek, which is available through many different channels.

What the bodies have traditionally provided is a degree of legitimacy or political cover for policies the government wishes to pursue. They have helped to build consensus, or gauge the levels of resistance by allowing influential people into the decision-making process. It is not unusual for the government to cherry-pick recommendations and conclusions, especially in relation to controversial policies, and to publish them only when this serves an administration's political ends. Now, it is the legitimacy-conferring function of the advisory bodies that is failing. It is doing so at a time when a politically maturing society demands greater democracy, accountability and transparency in all aspects of government. This has little to do with the quality of expert advice or how narrowly or extensively an advisory body carries out a public consultation.

Two recent incidents clearly demonstrate the issue. The first is that the Advisory Council on the Environment has been dragged into the controversy over CLP Power's plan to build a liquefied natural gas terminal on South Soko Island as a result of endorsing an environmental impact assessment report. The involvement of the advisory body has not prevented controversy. The second example came when government engineers began to dismantle the iconic Star Ferry pier. The Antiquities Advisory Board released a statement saying it endorsed the demolition plan. The incident made it look as if the board and government were working hand-in-hand.

The Basic Law guarantees that 'the previous system of establishing advisory bodies by the executive authorities shall be maintained'. But this does not mean the system cannot evolve and adapt to changing circumstances. Our advisory bodies should become much more transparent and accountable. Only in this way can they offer sound advice without becoming a source of public controversy.