Hong Kong’s district administration began in 1968 when the then-government set up the first city district offices. At the outset, such administrative structures were intended to monitor public opinion at the grassroots level, especially since large-scale protests broke out in 1966 and 1967.
As society became more stable, district officers were tasked more with policy implementation at the community level, with district officers in the New Territories given power in land planning to facilitate the development of new towns. The focus of district administration during the 1970s included city hygiene, and cultural and recreational policies. District advisory boards, the predecessor of district councils, were set up in the late 1970s and early ’80s as part of political reform before the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, despite the British Hong Kong government previously refusing to introduce local administration structures against the advice of earlier internal reports. The district councils were filled with appointed members, alongside a certain proportion of elected members; such an arrangement lasted until 2016. Fast-forward half a century — what brings the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government to reform the district councils appears to be a case of deja vu.
In 2019, rioters brought the city to a halt as they trampled the streets and pummeled the shops. They lashed out publicly to unload heaps of pent-up anger. Understandably, skyrocketing home prices, stagnant social upward mobility and narrow career outlooks beset many young people. Foreign politicians and media wryly played on their discontent, encouraging them to burn the city, literally. The social rift became the toughest obstacle for any policy to be carried out, however beneficial it might be to society.
Exploiting the social rift caused by the anti-extradition campaign, a band of callow yet fiery district councilors was elected in 2019. Filibustering ensued. Ramping up anger in the districts was prioritized over practical issues pertaining to the betterment of people’s lives.Rat problemss were left unattended; broken streetlamps were ignored; sewage drains remained blocked. That was the last straw for Hong Kong residents.
Since the improvement of the electoral system in 2021 for the Legislative Council election, the city has been able to recover from the 2019 riots and the COVID-19 pandemic. Knowing the pain points of Hong Kong residents, the central government unveiled plans to integrate Hong Kong into the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and the Belt and Road Initiative. Blueprint policies for youth development, primary healthcare and technological advancement have since been published. Government officials are laser-focused on rebuilding the city and helping young people to succeed. Policies are as practical as they can get. District council reform is the final stretch in building a coalition of strong leadership on which the city depends amid violent twists in international relations.
It makes sense that district officers and councilors must be patriotic, shorthand for striving to do what is best for the general population. An executive-led model ensures solid implementation at ground zero. COVID-19 has exposed the ills of poorly consolidated executive power — the United States federal government failed to implement uniform health policies nationally in the face of a life-threatening virus that wracked the globe, resulting in millions of deaths and policy confusion across states. Crisis management itself became a crisis to manage. At this moment, universities and the government in the US are still struggling to reach a consensus on how to strengthen executive power while maintaining a balance with personal freedoms, a right hyperbolically described by fringe groups as overstepping collective rights and other people’s freedom.
Whereas some foreign countries are questioning the proposed reform, Hong Kong politicians must dig in their heels for the sake of their people. Western critics have highlighted a smaller portion of directly elected seats proposed for the new district councils. But among the long list of indexes, democracy is best defined by what gets done for the people. And that is only possible with good governance. Direct elections can sometimes be easily gamed by the well-heeled and well-established. Politics in the US is a case in point. Politicians bump up the turnout of destitute and benighted voters by propagating lies. The strategy of pandering to a niche group of voters appears to be successful. Even Republicans who are piqued by hardcore Donald Trump supporters find it nigh impossible to amass sufficient support to bear a third political party. The result is a fragmented and fractured nation. Foreign policies toward allies continue to be incoherent and perplexing.
Even after a few millenniums, the search for the best political system remains at an explorative phase. Perhaps, cultural variations should never be subjected to cookie-cutter solutions. So far, Hong Kong has proved itself resilient against the headwinds of Sino-American conflict and global supply-chain shifts. This bodes well for reforms buttressing district governance that serve to implement well-conceived policies. One key performance indicator should be what district councilors do to serve the needs of local residents. Many issues await solutions. Efficiency of governance must be judged upon its ability to deliver better lives and livelihoods to residents. That is because the sine qua non of a government is to serve its people.
The author is vice-chair of the Youth Committee of the New People’s Party.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.