2007-07-19
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am honoured today to be invited by the Hong Kong Democratic Foundation to address such a distinguished audience. This is not just a challenge for me, but a double challenge – because I have to deal with two pretty elusive concepts – sustainable development and universal suffrage – in one speech.
Sustainable development is perhaps one of the most trendy but least understood concepts in today’s Hong Kong. When politicians appealed for the preservation of the Star Ferry Pier, they said it was because Hong Kong should aim for sustainable development. When officials insisted on the demolition of the Star Ferry Pier, they said they were doing this all for the good of sustainable development. Indeed, when the Chief Executive decided to move the Council for Sustainable Development under the roof of the Environment Bureau, he said this was precisely the Hong Kong brand of sustainable development.I remember when I sent an article to a newspaper 5 years ago just before I led the non-governmental delegation to the World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg; the editor called me up and said in a worrying tone, “Can you please substitute the word ‘sustainable’ development with a simpler word? My readers will simply turn over the page when they see this word.” I told him that if he would like to see his newspaper business sustainable, he’d better start educating his readers what sustainable development means.
Another interesting episode is about the Chinese translation for “sustainable development”. At the time when we set up the People’s Council for Sustainable Development we were pondering whether to adopt the Taiwan translation 永續發展, or the Beijing translation 可持續發展. In the end we
opted for the politically correct version although the Taiwan translation has the merit of being more concise and more poetic. The most unbelievable move was made by the government’s Sustainable Development Unit. They truncated the first Chinese character of the translation and became 持續發展組. Their sin is not in imprecision, but in revealing a state secret: the government is all for continuous, non-stop development, whether sustainable or not. What is fortunate is that the Council for Sustainable Development did not make the same mistake. So the Chairman of the Council, Dr Edgar Cheng, has the comfort to know that he is leading the right council, but served by the wrong secretariat, under the roof of the wrong bureau.
I hope these are all bygone days. Most people now realize sustainable development has to stand on three pillars – People, Planet, and Prosperity, representing the social, environmental and economic dimensions. Perhaps less widely known is the fourth pillar to sustainable development: the institutional dimension.
Just consider this scenario: we all aspire to the ideal of integrating economic prosperity, environmental well-being and social justice. We know that this will not happen of its own accord.
So where is the enzyme to nurture the right conditions? Where is the glue to tie all the elements together? Where is the driver to make it all happen?
Sustainable development is a concept first espoused in the United Nation’s Bruntland Report in 1987, then widely endorsed by the international community in the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Rio is still remembered as a time of hope. It was perhaps the last global occasion on which it was possible to believe that economic growth might be harnessed for the wider public good – that the results of growth would be used to combat poverty, reverse social exclusion, and stabilize our use of the planet’s natural resources. Then globalization hit the accelerator, the barriers to trade and investment began to fall, the world economy as a whole enjoyed remarkable growth, and yet the magic did not come true. A fairer society and a better environment did not automatically follow.
In fact, the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that even the fiercely pro-market “Economist” magazine gave a solemn warning last year: if the return attributed to labour continues to fall relative to the return on capital, voters in the developed world may soon decide that the experiment of liberalization and globalization is a misadventure. They may turn their back on free trade and force their governments to reverse the current policies.
We have learned that whether or not economic growth will contribute to sustainable development depends on the institutions that regulate the market and guarantee democratic decision-making.
This is perhaps the most important lesson learned over the last 15 years since the Rio Summit: that the institutions and mechanisms of governance that underpin sustainable development and on which it depends are so important that they constitute the fourth pillar of sustainable development. It is, indeed, this fourth pillar that confers legitimacy on economic development and holds the development process accountable to the people. It is predicated on democratic institutions, which provide everyone with a say in decisions that affect their lives. It relies on greater transparency and greater opportunities to participate in making policy choices. And it depends on genuine mechanisms to oversee and exercise accountability for development decisions. It is now clear that attempts to erect the first three pillars in the absence of the fourth were doomed to failure.
In Hong Kong’s case, the missing ingredient which inflicts the most damage to this fourth pillar is universal suffrage. This is best illustrated by some concrete examples.
Take for instance, the urban redevelopment project in Yue Man Fong, the central district in Kwun Tong. After years of procrastination, the Urban Renewal Authority is securing approvals for a wholesale redevelopment. Last year I was invited by the URA to take a good look at the project from the 40th floor of APM, the only modern shopping mall in Kwun Tong which is located just next to Yue Man Fong.
From there you can appreciate the problems and the opportunities. Surrounding Yue Man Fong is a densely packed community in either public estates or run-down private housing, mixed with one of the oldest industrial zones in Hong Kong. In all there are around half a million people making up the third poorest district in Hong Kong. At present Yue Man Fong serves two primary functions: a transport hub and an affordable on-street shopping area – the cheapest place to shop in the entire East Kowloon.
When you have a chance to redevelop the town centre for such a community, what would be your logical choice? Would you give this low-income district more community services, such as a proper town hall, an arts venue, a library for the children, more public space for the ageing population, and retain the affordable shops that the community depends on, and create jobs by relaxing the zoning of the surrounding industrial buildings so that they can be transformed by the private sector in response to market forces? Or would you redevelop the area into high-density luxury private housing with the tallest residential block in East Kowloon, squeeze out the street shops so that there will be more APMs and office blocks above a multi-layered, enclosed public transport exchange which can nicely trap all the vehicle exhausts from buses and mini-buses?
Yes, Hong Kong has chosen the second option, or more accurately, a Hong Kong government which was not voted into office by the 500,000 mostly low-income community members in Kwun Tong decided that the second option is best for them. Not surprisingly, the second option will generate more co-development opportunities for the very few voters who call the shots as far as the Chief Executive is concerned.
In fairness to URA, the residents were given a choice and different models were generously constructed for them to inspect. But the choice is between high-density luxury design No. 1 vs. high-density luxury design No. 2 vs. high-density luxury design No. 3. To paraphrase the late Deng Xiao Ping, this is a kind of consultation with Hong Kong characteristics.
Have we achieved sustainable development in this exercise by integrating the needs for people, planet and prosperity? If not, why not? Can we find the answer from the missing fourth pillar?
This “missing fourth pillar” syndrome manifests itself in two symptoms that are particularly damaging to sustainable development: a mistrust of the people and an aversion to science. Let me illustrate again with examples.
Thanks to some vocal residents and a young, diligent green group called Green Sense, over the past two years we are suddenly awakened to the phenomenon of walled buildings. Residential blocks up to 60 storeys high are springing up around the harbour-front, blocking air ventilation from the
harbour and condemning the residents living in the inland, lower residential blocks to a worsening heat island effect. Temperatures in Hong Kong’s urban area have already risen twice as fast as the world average over the past 100 years. Given the global warming trends, Hong Kong will likely lose its winters in less than 50 years.
So, instead of responding to this looming crisis and improving our urban design, why are our city planners worsening the situation by encouraging more walled buildings? Are they not aware of the complaints? No, angry residents from all over have time and again filed rezoning applications with the Town Planning Board. Are they handicapped by their professional knowledge? No, an urban design guideline prepared by the planners has laid down the best practice for air ventilation and view corridors for years.
The answer can only be found from the decision-making process. Outline zoning plans and planning briefs for each site are prepared by the Planning Department in accordance with top-down instructions from high officials. These plans then go through an approval process by the Town Planning Board which, though with a majority of unofficial members, is tightly controlled by the government through a variety of subtle and not-so-subtle means. The public is given a chance to comment or to object to these plans, although, in my view, this process constitutes the best disguised form of tokenism in public participation. This is superbly designed to give the public an impression that “you tried, you failed, don’t blame me because this is a fair game.”
I’ll let you be the judge as to whether this is a fair game.
Last month I conducted a workshop for the Civic Party’s potential candidates preparing to run for the district council election later this year. As you would expect of the Civic Party, this is a team of highly intelligent professionals such as teachers, social workers, and lawyers. Yet it took me and my colleague a whole evening to get them to figure out how to retrieve the zoning plans for each district from the Internet, how to differentiate a CDA zone from an R(A) zone, how to locate the height restrictions, if any, in the small notes at the end of each zoning plan, how to appreciate the legal significance between the same conditions in a zoning plan and a planning brief, and so on and so forth. Still, when the team left the room after three hours of intensive learning, most of them were in a confused state of mind.
This may well be the result of my poor instruction techniques, but imagine the plight of an average kaifong facing the threat of a walled building: he does not have to suffer from my three-hour lesson but can he really exercise his rights under section 12(a) and section 16 of the Town Planning Ordinance? Yes, he can if he has a few hundred thousand dollars of excess cash to hire a professional team of planners and advisors just like what developers do as a matter of routine. The writing is on the wall even before the game starts.
You may then ask: if town planning is so fundamental to the sustainability of a community, why should the community members – the most affected stakeholders – not be given more say in the town planning process by means of, for instance, the setup of a second-tier, district level town planning body to decide on local development issues? In Europe, city authorities generally embrace the principle of subsidiarity, in the belief that the best environmental decisions are made at the lowest possible level by people who are directly affected by those decisions. This also happens to be one of the key principles in the Rio Declaration, one of the landmark documents on sustainable development.
But in a system where the legitimacy of the government is not derived from universal suffrage, trusting the people carries unbearable political risks. The current town planning system is merely a reflection of this mistrust of the people.
The other symptom arising from the “missing fourth pillar” is an aversion to science. In the pursuit for sustainable development we need good science because innovative solutions are needed to integrate the seemingly conflicting demands for economic growth, environmental quality and social justice.
There is no better case to illustrate this point than the debate on air pollution index. The World Health Organisation issued a new guideline on air pollution index and the associated public health implications in 2006 after years of research by a team of renowned experts. This team of experts has reviewed hard evidence from all around the world, including significant scientific contributions from Hong Kong, such as the findings by Professor Anthony Hedley that the switch to low-sulphur industrial fuel in 1990 saved 600 lives per year through just one single intervention of the government.
Yet soon after the new WHO guideline was published the Hong Kong government openly cast doubt on the standard, citing Hong Kong as a “special case” that warrants different treatment. I am not sure whether it is Hong Kong’s air that is special or Hong Kong people’s lungs that are special.
But what the government has decided is to engage a consultant to conduct an 18-month study on the applicability of the WHO guidelines. Can the appointed consultant organize a team of experts wiser than the WHO team? Can they come up with recommendations on the basis of good science other than the WHO’s scientific findings from decades of worldwide research?
For a government that is unsure of its own legitimacy, an aversion to science is only to be expected because science reveals inconvenient truth.
If we were true to good science, an API of 80 (based on NO2 level) which is deemed to have met the current HK air quality objectives will be regarded as a 100% overshoot above the safe level in the new WHO guideline.
When the Chief Executive and his team had to choose between the option of alerting the public with good science, thus causing more discontent and call for action, and the option of obfuscation despite the evidence of over 1600 premature deaths annually from bad air quality, they had opted for the latter. If our government cannot gather enough political will to inform the public, how much political courage do they have to implement serious measures that are bound to confront vested interests?
Political expedience has taken precedence over public health considerations. The government is handicapped without the fourth pillar – a democratic process that will make the government more confident of itself, and endow it with adequate mandate to tackle special interests.
I hope by now I have established the link between sustainable development and universal suffrage.
If you wonder whether universal suffrage will guarantee sustainable development, my answer is in the negative. Ademocratic process is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to sustainable development.
We also need good science; we need innovative thinkers and practitioners; we need smart businessmen who see corporate social responsibility as an opportunity, not a liability; we need enlightened professionals who are willing to take an independent stand without fear nor favour, and above all, we need a mature civil society that on one hand, knows how to articulate its own interests, and on the other hand, is confident and skilful enough to find common solutions in partnership with the government and the business sector.
None of the above is easy, but all of the above are needed. In essence, participatory governance is the pre-requisite to sustainable development; universal suffrage is the constitutional guarantee to participatory governance.
To achieve this goal, we should not rely solely on reason; we need passion – lots of passion in view of the formidable challenges ahead. If you ask yourself: why should you have any passion for such an elusive concept, let me invite you to watch a short video clip.
I remember nearly two years ago I had a heated debate in a meeting with Henry Tang who was then the chairman of the Commission on Poverty. I put to him a simple question: how can you rely on these high-paid officials to make centralized decisions in a comfortable office in Central and expect them to even understand through papers all the problems facing the poor in those remote communities such as Tin Shui Wai and Tung Chung? I argued for a system of decentralised poverty alleviation funds which allows local stakeholders, including the peers of the disadvantaged, to decide how best to allocate the resources. Not surprisingly, Mr. Tang preferred central control. For a politician in power, trusting the people is always easier said than done.
I don’t know whether Mr. Tang will change his mind if he has a chance to watch this video. This video was shot accidentally by a Civic Party member from his Tsuen Wan studio in an afternoon last September. The red rain signal was hoisted and most of us were hiding in air-conditioned offices at the time. Our member was surprised to see what he saw.
紅雨下的拾荒者(Scavengers in the Red Rain) video clip on YouTube:
Hong Kong is officially the tenth richest economy in the world in terms of per capita GDP adjusted by purchasing power parity. Nobody can blame the lack of resources. Are we a fair society? Do we have a sustainable future?
There is only one answer: universal suffrage.
Thank you.
Comments are closed.