Reviewing and Reorganizing the Government Structure（2017/03/02）

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, one major function of a government is to maintain and promote the orderly development of society. With people's increasing demand and ever-changing market circumstances, the Government must continuously upgrade its objectives of governance and adjust the responsibilities of different Policy Bureaux and departments, so as to further enhance their capacity and standards of public service provision and satisfy the overall interest and expectations of Hong Kong people. Besides the need for the right policies and a sensible division of responsibilities, the operational effectiveness of the various Policy Bureaux is also very important. Therefore, in order to meet the higher aspirations of the public and adapt to market changes, the Government must make good use of public resources for exploring ways to enhance work efficiency. It should review the portfolios of various Policy Bureaux at appropriate times and implement structural reorganization when necessary, with a view to ensuring a sound framework and true operational efficiency for implementing any required policies and arrangements, and in turn increasing the governing authority of the Government.

President, since the reunification of Hong Kong with the Motherland in 1997, some changes have been made to the structure of the SAR Government in response to governance needs. The Accountability System for Principal Officials ("accountability system") was implemented on 1 July 2002, under which all Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux are employed on contract terms and held politically accountable for their blunders. Two additional layers of politically appointed officials were further created in 2008 for the appointment of Under Secretaries and Political Assistants. Since the implementation of the accountability system in 2002, all Directors of Bureaux have been nominated by the Chief Executive for appointment by the Central Government. There are now 3 Secretaries of Departments and 13 Directors of Bureaux in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, all having their respective functions and policy portfolios. After more than 10 years of operation, we must examine the effectiveness of the accountability system. If we find that it cannot achieve its avowed purpose in respect of political accountability, a review should be conducted. If not, the governing authority of the Government will be undermined. 

President, the original intent of the accountability system is to address the low efficiency and systemic rigidity of the civil service. During the time of British rule, the positions of Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux were held by Administrative Officers. As they came from the same civil service system and shared a common background, they would inevitably compromise on some questions of principles in order to avoid conflicts. Since the reunification, in the absence of a ruling party and a ruling coalition in Hong Kong, the Chief Executive has had to select Directors of Bureaux mainly from among senior civil servants and professionals. These people come from different backgrounds and are less burdened by any past history, so they should be to supervise and appraise their civil servant subordinates more objectively. However, as Directors of Bureaux may differ on governing philosophy and approach to work, a lack of coordination is inevitable. Furthermore, as some Directors of Bureaux lack popular support and extensive social connections, many of the policies they roll out are much too theoretical in nature and fail to suit practical circumstances. Coordination among Directors of Bureaux and their individual performance also fall short of public expectations. 

If Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux are only concerned about matters within their respective portfolios, or if they do not actively coordinate with other Directors of Bureaux for fear of losing face, they may well miss the opportune moments, thus reducing the influence which the whole government team may wield collectively. In this way, the quality of governance may be adversely affected to a certain extent. Even though the Chief Executive or the Secretaries of Departments supervising the relevant Directors of Bureaux may personally follow up the matters, they can only help resolve the most immediate problems, and may not be able to achieve the desired effects. Some such problems have already surfaced over the past years, and the next Government really needs to think it over seriously. 

Since coordination is not easy to achieve, the only way out is to conduct a study on structural reorganization and division of work. As I have observed over the recent years, the portfolios of some Policy Bureaux are honestly too large at present, and those of other Policy Bureaux are comparatively small. If the next Government wants to implement its various policies more effectively, it must adjust the framework based on 3 Secretaries of Departments and 13 Directors of Bureaux and the division of work therein. 

President, as the representative of the tourism sector in this Council, I agree to the proposal put forward by many trade members on setting up a Tourism Bureau. Currently, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau is responsible for the overall development and regulation of the travel industry in Hong Kong. But with as many as 10 policy areas under its portfolio at the same time, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau simply does not have the time to review the overall planning and development of tourism. The Tourism Commission under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau is responsible for the implementation of specific measures concerning tourism, and its major functions are to improve tourism facilities in Hong Kong, support the development of new tourist attractions and issue licences. The Hong Kong Tourism Board is tasked with the publicity and promotion of local tourism, while the Travel Industry Council of Hong Kong is responsible for the regulation of travel agencies.

For historical reasons, tourism resources and facilities in Hong Kong have been placed under the charge of different Policy Bureaux. For example, the Development Bureau is the leading bureau in taking forward our key tourism planning for the future, including the overall development planning for Lantau, the Kai Tak Fantasy project in Kowloon East, and the planning for all hotel sites in the territory; the Home Affairs Bureau is in charge of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link and the West Kowloon Cultural District; while some of the existing tourism resources and ancillary facilities, including country parks, geoparks, leisure agriculture and fishery trades, cycle tracks, ferry piers, coach parking spaces, museums and intangible cultural heritage items, are placed under the charge of different government departments, and the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau have no say. 

There are only a few major investment projects for which the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau is responsible through the Tourism Commission, and these include the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal, the Hong Kong Disneyland and the Ocean Park. Given its existing functions, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau will find it very difficult to coordinate the overall tourism resources in Hong Kong, and hence it cannot possibly look to the future and formulate any overall tourism planning for effectively increasing Hong Kong's capacity to receive tourists. In contrast, a Tourism Bureau has been established in neighbouring places (including Macao and the Mainland) to pool all resources together to make planning for tourism in the places, and handle such related issues as trade regulation, investment in tourist attractions, ancillary transport facilities, development of hotels and publicity and promotion. 

Tourism is said to be one of the four pillar industries in Hong Kong, but structurally, developmentally or professionally speaking, trade members fail to see any concrete and long-term support from the Government. Although improvements have been made to the measures rolled out in recent years, they are just cosmetic changes to some existing facilities or initiatives, including the proposal under discussion to establish the Travel Industry Authority. The establishment of a dedicated Tourism Bureau for coordinating various tourism initiatives and formulating overall planning for the development of tourism at a higher level will certainly be more effective and forward-looking than the existing framework. 

Actually, President, the problem of unreasonable division of work also exists in other Policy Bureaux, and Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr CHAN Hak-kan have also proposed just now to consider reorganizing the Development Bureau as well as the Transport and Housing Bureau to prevent overlapping of functions. It is proposed that the two Bureaux be reorganized into the Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau and the Transport and Works Bureau, so as to better reflect the professionalism of the two Bureaux through merging and redistributing of duties, thereby enhancing the efficiency of policy implementation. 

There are still a few months left before the commencement of the next Government, and I hope the next Chief Executive would consult the public more extensively and listen humbly to the views expressed by stakeholders of different industries and trades. Structural reorganization should be conducted in the light of the actual situation to enhance the efficiency of various departments and bureaux through a reasonable reform, so as to enhance the ability and increase the governing authority of the SAR Government. 

President, I so submit.