Value for money
Hong Kong's much maligned but unbowed technology sector suffered more blows to its reputation recently. The fledgling Applied Science and Technology Research Institute (ASTRI) took a beating from a Director of Audit report, which revealed that it had misspent public funds on fung shui consultation and entertainment. Charges of maladministration at ASTRI flew thick and fast, leading to the resignation of its chief, Robert Yang Jih-chang. The chief executive of the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation, Carlos Genardini, followed suit, for 'personal reasons'.
It is worth examining the nature of the 'offences' involved, based on the information available. Let's take a look first at the charge that ASTRI spent HK$180,000 on fung shui consultation. Two criticisms could be made here: that a scientific institution should not have followed common superstition and sought fung shui advice; and that public funds should not have been spent.
On the first, it remains a fact that faith co-exists with science. In the most scientifically advanced countries, people do strange things in the pursuit of faith. In this part of the world, the belief in fung shui is so pervasive that many rich and poor individuals, local firms or multinationals, government departments and quasi-government organisations have consulted fung shui experts about their homes or offices. Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen is said to be a great believer in fung shui. Stories abound of how every detail of his official residences, including the fish pond, is laid out according to fung shui advice.
So ASTRI could be forgiven for seeking fung shui advice. But its chief should be chided for not being smart enough in procuring such advice. I am pretty sure that numerous heads of government departments have sought fung shui advice, the only difference being that they ended up out of pocket, or secured it for free.
As for the second cardinal sin of excessive entertainment, the charges made are more debatable. One claim is that ASTRI had paid for entertainment attended by 27 of its staff when there were only nine guests or so. Was Dr Yang aware that civil service rules stipulate that civil servants must not outnumber guests at official paid-for entertainment, and that the price per head must not exceed a certain amount? After each meal, staff painstakingly complete forms detailing the total spent, and on a per-head basis, the names of the guests and officials, and the purpose of the event. While this may sound cumbersome for someone from the freewheeling private sector, these are well-intentioned rules to ensure that civil servants do not spend public money on expensive meals for themselves.
Yet, how do you measure cost-effectiveness in an institution like ASTRI? What if it exceeded the official limits in laying on entertainment for, say, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, but managed to persuade him to establish an applied research and development centre with ASTRI - a first in China. Would that not be money well spent? As for the headcount of official staff, I am not even sure that the number of officials present should always be fewer than the number of guests. Take my own humble think-tank. If I succeeded in inviting a technology guru, like one of the Google co-founders Larry Page or Sergey Brin to be my guest, I would definitely want to bring along all the board members. The question remains: how do you measure value for money?