|
Little for Hong Kong to learn from Singapore
2006-07-24
China Daily
Singapore's progress from a British naval base and a tiny trading outpost to an international financial centre has often been held up as a model for developing countries around the world. Its stable government and orderly society have been the envy of citizens in some neighbouring countries suffering rampant corruption and frequent civil strife.
But what can Hong Kong, which has witnessed a smooth transition from a British-governed territory to a special administrative region of China, learn from Singapore? That's the question many politicians and commentators are asking about the three-day visit by Chief Executive Donald Tsang to Singapore.
To be sure, there is much to admire about Singapore. Much has been written and said about its efficient government and clean environment.
The Hong Kong government is just as efficient, if not more so. But it has been criticized for appearing to be indecisive when compared to that of Singapore. This comparison, in actual fact, shows the fundamental difference in the culture and politics of the two societies rather than the quality and resolve of their respective governments.
Take the handling of the SARS outbreak in 2003 for example. In Singapore, when a patient was identified to have contracted the disease, the entire building where the patient lived was cordoned off and all the residents there were quarantined in a special camp. If the Hong Kong government had taken such a precautionary step at the initial stage of the outbreak, it would have most probably triggered strong protests not only from the residents of the affected buildings, but also from the media, fanned by the many self-styled civic rights advocates.
The hand of the Singapore Government is most visible everywhere. In contrast, the Hong Kong government professes to keep itself small and unobtrusive.
It is well documented that the Singapore Government, through its various investment holding companies, has gained a stranglehold in various key sectors of the economy. It either owns or has control of the monopolies in airlines, television, newspapers and the utilities. Other state-controlled companies continue to play a dominant role in banking, telecommunications, ports and transportation, trading and printing.
It was the Singapore Government that took the initiative in attracting foreign direct investment to its newly created industrial park with tax and various other incentives. The seed of a financial centre was planted by the government when it entered into an arrangement with Bank of America to establish an offshore dollar centre to satisfy the rising demand for loans by Southeast Asia's developing countries to finance the development of their vast deposits of natural resources.
Not satisfied just to have a finger in every economic pie, the Singapore Government has made its presence known in the daily life of its people. The vast majority of Singaporeans now live in government-built apartments. Through constant lecturing, the government has largely eliminated jaywalking and littering in the city. And, of course, chewing gum sales have remained banned since a discarded piece got stubbornly stuck onto the sole of an infuriated former cabinet minister.
None of this could have happened in Hong Kong. Faithful to its long-cherished positive policy of non-interventionism, the Hong Kong government limits its functions to providing basic services and maintaining law and order.
There are times when the government is required to make major infrastructure investments. But capital expenditure has traditionally been financed largely by proceeds from the sale of government land. The building of the mass transit railway lines, for instance, was financed by a combination of government capital, bank loans, bond issues and the sales of property developed on top of various stations jointly with the private sector.
On the economic front, the Hong Kong government's priority is to make room for the growth of the private sector. This principle has precluded the possibility of the government directly owning any business. Government encroachment into the private sector is seen to be detrimental to the Hong Kong economy as it is structured.
A more pertinent question is whether the government should get so directly involved in local politics. The Hong Kong political system, including the election of the Chief Executive and the constitution of the Legislative Council, is enshrined in the Basic Law. Because the Chief Executive is not supposed to be a member of any political party, there cannot be a ruling party in the government.
What the Hong Kong government needs are not like-minded political stars. What it needs are more effective channels of communication to gauge public opinion and to explain government policies to the public.
Singapore is a poor example for Hong Kong. Hongkongers prefer their government to be small and they show as much respect to political stars as to movie starlets and football prodigies.
|
