The government speaks with forked tongues on bureau re-organisation. Senior officials insist that removing 'technology' from the title of the proposed Commercial and Economic Development Bureau, which will still have oversight on technology, does not signal a belittling of the importance of the hi-tech sector in the government's economic vision. However, executive councillor Anthony Cheung Bing-leung rightly said in a recent article that the reorganisation as a whole reflects the administration's concepts of governance.
Sure, one can say: 'What's in a name? A rose by any name smells as sweet'. But whether on a personal, corporate or governmental level, a name change usually signifies a new direction, a policy shift, or a new ideology. Such changes often spark strong emotions. The debate in Taiwan over the renaming of the National Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall is a case in point.
Our history offers plenty of examples of name change and restructuring presaging a major policy initiative. In the 1970s, the establishment of the Independent Commission Against Corruption marked the government's determination to wipe out graft. The firebrand approach of the first generation of leaders, commissioner Sir Jack Cater and operations director John Prendergast, who took up their task with messianic zeal, together with the tough legislation, made a world of difference. More recently, though with much less fanfare, upgrading of the commissioner for administrative complaints to the status of the Ombudsman was partly to strengthen Hong Kong's accountability system. A name change is never simply a matter of semantics.
In the light of these precedents, critics may be forgiven for concluding that the disappearance of 'technology' from the title of the new bureau responsible for technology matters is no accident, but betrays a subconscious, yet definite, downgrade of the hi-tech sector in the overall scheme of things. It also reflects the difficulty decision-makers have long had in coming to grips with technology's place in our society: in the past two decades it had been placed in the recreation, culture and broadcasting branch; the information technology and broadcasting bureau; and now the commerce, industry and technology bureau. In the worst configuration yet seen, technology is banished from the title.
This runs counter to national trends and to global developments. As a clear indication of technology's importance to China's future development, Beijing has not one but two agencies - the Ministry of Science and Technology, and the Ministry of Information Industry. Other countries have adopted similar measures. Finland, which makes innovation its national credo, has a Science and Technology Policy Council headed by its prime minister. Ireland set up Science Foundation Ireland in its 2000-06 National Development Plan. The policy emphasis on science, technology and innovation of dynamic Asian economies such as South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan is well known. Among developed economies, Hong Kong stands alone in its underemphasis on technology and innovation as the driving force of growth and is ruling itself out as a possible player.
This is bewildering and disappointing. Global developments in recent decades have shown technology moves the world. Technology underlines the competitive advantages not only of industry, but also of services and of the economy as a whole. All industries, be they logistics, retail, tourism, transport or the much-touted financial services, need to constantly make greater use of technology to improve productivity. With the exception of Hong Kong, technology is seen by developed or developing economies with international savvy as the defining asset of any society aspiring to be creative, inventive and vibrant.
