Face the facts before it's too late

Two weeks ago, in the discreet ambience of the Club Lusitano, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce announced the results of its 2005 Hong Kong Sustainable Development Index. The subjects covered ranged from democratic development to air pollution, from Tamar to education reform. Speakers included Anson Chan Fang On-sang, Otto Poon Lok-to, convenor of the Council for Sustainable Development's renewable energy group, and the charismatic Yale academic Dan Esty. Politicians were conspicuous by their absence.

Yet, there were relatively few column inches devoted to the event. Why did such important issues receive such inadequate coverage?

The local media is partly to blame, but then again, 'sustainable development' is not exactly a phrase to stiffen the sinews and summon up the blood. 'Worthy but boring' would be the verdict of maybe 70 per cent of our citizens (like other those in other countries, I am guessing). So what is sustainable development, and should it interest or worry us? The Canadian chamber uses a definition coined in 1987 by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, namely: 'development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs'. The ambiguity and political correctness of those words bear the UN hallmark.

A more authoritative source, the Oxford English Dictionary, does better. To 'sustain' is 'to bear [the] weight of, keep from falling or failing, enable to last out'. To 'develop' is 'to bring or come from a latent or rudimentary state to ... greater size or completeness'. There's no conflict there: both are common sense.

In other words, sustainable development is not about putting the brakes on economic growth in the interests of human well-being. It is about the increasing interdependence of different policy areas - education and employment, pollution and public health, security and personal privacy - and prioritising our limited economic resources to reflect these public needs.

The role of the government is to maximise economic growth, ensure internal and external security and foster social stability. It must judge quality-of-life issues only as they affect these tasks.

The Canadian chamber's work shows how better-informed judgments could be made about relative policy priorities and the trade-offs they imply. It uses a sophisticated model to learn what Hongkongers really value - and where they think we are falling by the wayside.

Our discontent is clearest on education and air pollution. The government must take heed of this malaise if it is to maintain its newly regained 'feel-good factor', and the social stability that goes with it. But how is this to be done?

The Sustainable Development Council, set up in 2003, was in theory a step in the right direction. It has researched, or is researching, waste management, urban planning, renewable energy, air quality and population policy. But this grand and gradual programme has not filtered down to the working level.

Measuring popular aspirations is only a first step. Facts do not necessarily, or even frequently, back up popular opinion. Reality checks are essential.

How bad is air pollution, and how much of it is really the result of activity in the Pearl River Delta? How much open space does Hong Kong have and how does that really compare to other world cities? What effect would a sales tax actually have on small and medium-sized businesses? Good performance indicators for these and many other issues are essential - and absent. Why did the government abandon the publication of success and failure rates for its announced targets to coincide with the annual policy address?

But while the dangers of not taking heed of sustainable development are great, the dangers of misusing it as a mantra are greater. Modish talk of a 'holistic approach' can paralyse urgent policy decisions. Badly chosen indicators lend themselves to mockery. Facile comparisons with UN welfarist favourites like Scandinavia prompt the question of why almost no one wants to live there.

Any sustainable development strategy for Hong Kong must be tailor-made for local realities. Decisions taking account of the groundswell of popular opinion may allow the chief executive's much-touted philosophy of strong government to succeed. If coupled with decisions based on facts rather than on vested interests (think of the cosseted power companies) or self-appointed moral crusaders (think of the anti-smoking mafia), they will allow good governance as well.

All forms of government are worth only a farthing as a means to these ends. What an opportunity for our chief executive, when he is elected to his second term, to confound the do-gooders, ideologues and liberals - with or without democracy.

Andrew Wells is a former senior civil servant and a freelance writer