Since the handover, the Hong Kong government has adhered to the British colonial tradition of appointing those enthusiastic about social affairs to statutory agencies, public organisations and consultative bodies. During the colonial days, members of public bodies were well respected in society, and given tremendous authority to help settle social disputes and serve the community. Their suggestions or decisions led to little controversy.
However, with the growth of party politics and the introduction of the accountability system for principal officials, public opinion has become so important it has dominated politics.
To be accountable, senior government officials have to consider the views of the public, media and political parties before making any major policy decisions. Even members of public bodies cannot escape criticism and rebuke.
One example is the recent scandal over the government-funded Hong Kong Applied Science and Technology Research Institute. The Audit Commission accused it of spending taxpayers' money on fung shui consultation services and hiring staff without following formal recruitment procedures.
Institute chairman Allan Wong Chi-yun was bombarded with questions from lawmakers and was embarrassed when he attended a meeting of the Legislative Council's Public Accounts Committee on Monday. I do not believe Mr Wong, owner of a multibillion-dollar technology business, has ever been treated like this by his shareholders. Holding public office may bring fame, but it also comes with a price.
The lawmakers were lenient with Mr Wong, compared with their treatment of members from the Committee on Review of Public Service Broadcasting, at an information technology and broadcasting panel meeting. They had no obligation to attend any relevant Legco meetings. Yet, when they did, they were repeatedly attacked by lawmakers.
Ironically, the committee's duty was only to review public broadcasting services in Hong Kong and provide suggestions; it had nothing to do with the future of RTHK.