RE: Policy Address 2021

回覆文章
admin
Site Admin
文章: 513
註冊時間: 2020-07-10, 20:00
點讚了: 32 次
被點讚了: 9 次

RE: Policy Address 2021

文章 admin »

Hong Kong policy address: why the gap between elite and public opinion on the blueprint?
There was much to like in Carrie Lam’s latest policy address, but the difference between its elite and mass reception demands attention
Implementation will be key as the city government tries to balance national development goals with meeting the needs of everyday Hongkongers
Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor’s recent policy address drew applause from many quarters, including two Chinese government offices in Hong Kong, political parties and most elite groups. In quick polling by the Tanner Hill Workshop, we came up with an average score of 60 out of 100.
However, a same-day reaction poll on the public’s satisfaction with the policy address conducted by the Public Opinion Research Institute gave it a score of 34 out of 100. Lam’s policy addresses scored 27 in 2020, 30 in 2019, 49 in 2018 and 62 in 2017. Her 2021 speech received the third-lowest satisfaction rating among all policy addresses since 1999.

This year’s policy address put a renewed focus on long-term spatial planning across a 30-year horizon, something Hong Kong sorely needs. The formal adoption of the Northern Metropolis development strategy should be viewed positively alongside the acknowledgement of the weak links in the Hong Kong government’s organisational structure and procedural bureaucracy. The apparent determination to solve Hong Kong’s much-discussed housing problem is another highlight of the address.

Together with the release of the “Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030” report, it seems that the Development Bureau has come around to embracing people’s aspirations for larger living spaces, perhaps starting with the 10 per cent increase in the assumed average flat size for public housing. Another focus of Lam’s latest policy address was more integration with the Greater Bay Area – particularly with Shenzhen – to help foster an ecosystem of innovation and technology. These will add impetus to the city’s services, finance and logistics industries as part of a revamped economic landscape.

Like other policy addresses, this one had many grand statements. The devil will be in the details of the implementation process, which will require the flexibility to tackle dynamic circumstances and the pragmatism to properly use financial and manpower resources as Hong Kong faces an ageing population. It will also require moving away from relying on land sales to ensure adequate government revenue – a practice coming under increased scrutiny.

Illustration: Craig StephensIllustration: Craig Stephens
Illustration: Craig Stephens
Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor’s recent policy address drew applause from many quarters, including two Chinese government offices in Hong Kong, political parties and most elite groups. In quick polling by the Tanner Hill Workshop, we came up with an average score of 60 out of 100.
However, a same-day reaction poll on the public’s satisfaction with the policy address conducted by the Public Opinion Research Institute gave it a score of 34 out of 100. Lam’s policy addresses scored 27 in 2020, 30 in 2019, 49 in 2018 and 62 in 2017. Her 2021 speech received the third-lowest satisfaction rating among all policy addresses since 1999.
This year’s policy address put a renewed focus on long-term spatial planning across a 30-year horizon, something Hong Kong sorely needs. The formal adoption of the Northern Metropolis development strategy should be viewed positively alongside the acknowledgement of the weak links in the Hong Kong government’s organisational structure and procedural bureaucracy.
The apparent determination to solve Hong Kong’s much-discussed housing problem is another highlight of the address.

Together with the release of the “Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030” report, it seems that the Development Bureau has come around to embracing people’s aspirations for larger living spaces, perhaps starting with the 10 per cent increase in the assumed average flat size for public housing.
Another focus of Lam’s latest policy address was more integration with the Greater Bay Area – particularly with Shenzhen – to help foster an ecosystem of innovation and technology. These will add impetus to the city’s services, finance and logistics industries as part of a revamped economic landscape.

Hong Kong's competitive edge questioned as Xi says Shenzhen is engine of China’s Greater Bay Area
Like other policy addresses, this one had many grand statements. The devil will be in the details of the implementation process, which will require the flexibility to tackle dynamic circumstances and the pragmatism to properly use financial and manpower resources as Hong Kong faces an ageing population. It will also require moving away from relying on land sales to ensure adequate government revenue – a practice coming under increased scrutiny.

As for the gap between elite and public opinion on the policy address, it can be attributed to four areas.
First, subsidised public housing solutions will only deliver 110,000 units, or 22,000 units per year, from 2022 to 2027. There are more than 153,000 households on the waiting list for public rental housing, and the average waiting time is 5.8 years. If Lam’s pledge to provide 20,000 additional transitional housing units in the next few years comes to pass, the shortfall still stands at more than 23,000 units.
The actual figure could be much higher because of a mismatch between units on offer and users’ criteria on location and size. Medicine made in the future will not cure today’s illness. Transitional housing or a cash allowance scheme could be enhanced to help ease the present woes. In short, the government would be seen in a better light if it addresses people’s immediate needs rather than relying on a bright future that is too distant – or one that might not come at all – for the city’s elderly.

Second, the Greater Bay Area is probably not where many Hongkongers – especially young people – would prefer to seek their careers. Having grown up in a place that emphasises personal freedom and democracy, they might not yet fully understand the mainland’s system.
They tend to see the mainland as a place where their speech and other civil freedoms will be highly restricted. Also, Shenzhen has a highly competitive work environment with top talent from all over China. All this might make going to the mainland too far outside some Hongkongers’ comfort zone.

Third, and in relation to the previous point, some Hongkongers might also be wary of the government enacting local legislation to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law, as mentioned during Lam’s address. They might see this as a sign of further restrictions after the passage of the national security law.

Fourth, the focus on technology and innovation is not in keeping with most of Hong Kong’s past. Elites here have accumulated wealth through seeking quick returns from real estate and financial investments, augmented by high income from working in industries associated with finance, real estate and public institutions. “Hi-tech hi ye, lo-tech low ye”, a Cantonese-English phrase that associates hi-tech industries with losses and lo-tech industries with profits, has been the motto of “smart people” in Hong Kong for decades, driving young people away from pursuing science and technology careers. Thus, the shift to a more technology- and innovation-centred economy will take time. According to Professor Tsui Lap-chee, president of Hong Kong Academy of Sciences, it will probably take 20 years to nurture the needed home-grown talent given previous oversights in this area. Should we revisit the mainstream education system, under which parents and students see exam performance and grades as the ultimate goal? Curiosity about different scientific disciplines, knowledge discovery and persistence in pursuing excellence should be the driving spirit of our future education system.

Finally, while the policy address is always poignantly worded and seems to cover every aspect of Hong Kong’s governance, areas such as improving people’s livelihood, nurturing talented youth and specific initiatives for the local economy fall short on substance.
The latest policy address certainly set the direction for “building a bright future” for Hong Kong. The ball needs to be kicked off, both in the short and long term, with rolling targets that are aligned with the national plan, while always bearing in mind that the goal is to serve the common people of Hong Kong.

Lucy M.S. Kwan is adjunct assistant professor at HKU’s Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science and an executive committee member of the Tanner Hill Workshop. on 12-10-2021 SCMP https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/ar ... ic-opinion

回覆文章

回到「香港施政 2.0」