It was just the mix of generalities and tinkering that has characterised all Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's policy addresses. His legacy speech proved simply a longer version. But it has the merit of stealing nothing from the still- unknown policy agendas of the rivals to his throne. Can they show the vision to address the fundamental issues we face? Or will they stay in the same cautious mode, offering some tweaks to the system but nothing that would upset entrenched interests, nothing that could make Hong Kong into a leading-edge city, not one stuck in 1970s thinking.
The restart of the Home Ownership Scheme was simply a knee-jerk response to public opinion and is marginal to the overall housing situation. Even what is presented as a longer-term plan for making more housing land available is a statement of general intent, not a firm promise that 'X' number of hectares will be available for the private sector. The government will tinker with actual supply according to the cycle of developer and public pressures, all the while believing the myth that high property prices are a good thing rather than, as is actually the case, a drag on other sectors. Nor was there any indication that the government will even try to get to grips with one of the key land issues - the use and misuse of New Territories land, thanks to the power of local interests to spit in the eye of good governance.
Nor was there any suggestion that the government cared that the construction industry was using antiquated methods and being guided by outdated building codes, which contribute to the massive waste, energy loss and environmental damage for which Hong Kong is now renowned - or that competition among developers be enhanced by selling smaller lots to reduce the dominance of the main players. Least of all, Tsang made no suggestion that the government should itself reduce its revenue reliance on property prices which condemn so many to miserable living conditions.
In his various capacities, Tsang has now spent 16 years tinkering with tax rates and allowances but achieving nothing towards the long-stated goal of making the system more stable and more equitable. The proposal for a sales tax was abandoned in the face of public and business opposition but has not been replaced by anything, although easy-to-collect, high-yield and environmentally friendly taxes such as a tax on power consumption are available, not to mention road-use pricing which Singapore introduced - and Hong Kong retreated from - over 30 years ago.
No one can object to the announced additional help for the elderly and rent relief for the (mostly) lower-income inhabitants of public housing, but these do no more than offset the inroads of inflation. More 'fruit money' here, more one-off concessions there, do not make a policy for reducing the income gap or securing for the majority of the population a fair share of economic growth.
Stagnation of real income for the average household is not unique to Hong Kong. It lies behind the appeal that the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement has to so many ordinary workers in the US, for whom bankers have become the focus of a broader discontent with the system. Hong Kong is not immune from such a trend. Indeed, despite a year of declining unemployment and the introduction of the minimum wage, there is evidence of a sense of popular dissatisfaction that could become acute if 2012 proves as difficult a year for the world economy, and for China, as many are forecasting.
