SAR needs a dedicated cultural bureau

Hong Kong used to be called a “cultural desert”. As someone born in the city in the 1980s and raised here, I would not accept this label without a fight. In fact, local cultural and arts groups and their presentations have long been developing and growing in this city, thanks to those who cultivate the cultural crops tirelessly.

Let’s look at some numbers first. The “cultural and creative industry”, in terms of direct economic contribution, is measured by its value-added activities. In monetary terms, Hong Kong’s cultural and creative industry contributed HK$111.6 billion ($14.4 billion) to local GDP in 2019, an increase of 82.7 percent from 2009, when its contribution was merely HK$63.3 billion. That achievement would not have been possible without the blood and sweat of those who put so many cultural and arts creations on the market in those years, piece by piece. 

Today, Hong Kong’s cultural and creative industry is looking at even more opportunities brought by the new era. In the 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-25) for National Economic and Social Development, the central government specifically supports Hong Kong in “developing an international center of cultural exchanges”. That means the cultural and arts industry in Hong Kong is expected to explore growth opportunities at another level in addition to meeting local market demands in the years to come.

Such fragmented bureaucratic functions cannot coordinate resources for various arts and creative disciplines efficiently at a higher level to meet the rising demand generated by the “international center of cultural and arts exchanges”

Admittedly, the role of an international center of cultural and arts exchanges cannot be played only by the groups engaged in creative works, because it requires public resources and that is the government’s responsibility. Currently, Hong Kong’s cultural affairs are run by multiple government departments. For example, the Home Affairs Bureau oversees funding for arts, public libraries and museums; the Development Bureau handles cultural conservation; while the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau looks after the film and creative industries. Such fragmented bureaucratic functions cannot coordinate resources for various arts and creative disciplines efficiently at a higher level to meet the rising demand generated by the “international center of cultural and arts exchanges”. That is why Hong Kong needs a dedicated government bureau to handle the above-mentioned and all other matters related to the cultural and creative industry as well as cultural affairs in general, from policymaking to long-term planning and everything in between.

The idea of establishing a cultural affairs bureau is not new. In 2012, the special administrative region government headed by then-chief executive Leung Chun-ying was working on a plan for it, and the cultural community responded favorably. It’s a great shame that the plan was shelved due to politically motivated filibustering by the opposition camp in the Legislative Council.

With a dedicated policy bureau, the government can empower “cultural communities” by pooling internal strengths, maintaining the bearing of development and making overall policies for promoting cultural activities and exchanges, nurturing talent and cultural groups, as well as drawing local communities into cultural activities. Hong Kong wouldn’t be the first to have a policy bureau like this, that’s for sure.

One need look no further than Taiwan for example. When Hong Kong’s plan to set up a cultural affairs bureau was aborted in 2012, Taiwan got its own up and running smoothly. Its government agency for cultural affairs includes a department for cultural exchanges that oversees international and cross-Straits cultural exchanges. Hong Kong can learn from Taiwan in such government-led cultural exchanges locally and overseas.

Hong Kong boasts an international status and network of connections at least equal to Taiwan’s and enjoys the advantage of easy access to the vast cultural resources of the Chinese mainland. As far as Chinese-foreign cultural exchanges are concerned, Hong Kong can surely do better than Taiwan, to say the least. All it needs is a specifically designated bureau for cultural affairs, including gathering resources, keeping development heading and supervising the construction of infrastructure for hardware as well as software development necessary for turning Hong Kong into an international center of cultural exchanges. 

The author is senior research officer of the One Country Two Systems Research Institute.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.