Hong Kong was handed over to China on 1 July 1997, and has been preparing itself for the transition for more than 10 years before that fateful day, in a period more commonly called the 'transition period'. Since the hand-over, Hong Kong has put on a new look and experienced many ups and downs, but has it really changed?
In many respects, Hong Kong is still the way it is, in concert with the Basic Law which guarantees '50 years of no changes' from the hand-over. However, this lack of change may be a sign of stagnation and complacency.
Let's take the recent debate on political reform. Officials from Beijing and those in favour of the status quo insist that the executive arm of government should predominate the political functioning of Hong Kong and that the Chief Executive, the head of Hong Kong's administration, be better empowered in his/her duties. One of them even claimed that the separation of powers (executive, legislative and judicial) would not be applicable to Hong Kong. These people must be too fond of the colonial days, when executive power was highly concentrated in the Governor and when the government encountered much less resistance or checks and balances. However, they seem to be ignorant of the present-day reality, where the society is filled with different voices and opinions. The days when one man was in total control of everything are long gone. Oppositions and alternative opinions to government policies will only become more common. Although the preponderance of the executive power of the government and Chief Executive is emphasised in the Basic Law, the manner in which this power is exercised should be adapted to today's landscape.
The political structure of Hong Kong has, by and large, remained the same, so have the policies and goals of the government. The main interest of the government is still to make money and make it quick, as seen in its unfaltering support for the financial industry which seems to deliver the best and fastest growth prospects. The main goal of government finances, meanwhile, is still to amass and grow the financial reserves. There's nothing wrong with these objectives, except at the same time the government is reluctant to support other industries and build up social capital. Before the hand-over, Hong Kong traded everything else for economic 'growth' on the back of the white-hot real estate market. Subsequently it was dealt a major blow when the Asian financial crisis struck in the few months after the hand-over. Hasn't the government learnt a lesson from that, and why does it insist on putting all the eggs in one basket?
The lop-sided economic development is one of the major reasons behind the worsening gap between the poor and the rich. And even in those growing sectors of the economy, people have to put up with longer hours and more stress than ever for their livelihoods. Pollution, while not entirely Hong Kong's fault, is steadily worsening but the government's response has been paltry without a sense of urgency. It's far too optimistic to expect that the pollution problem will be dealt with really effectively. For a supposedly wealthy society, Hong Kong routinely ranks too low in quality of life surveys, while the economic growth in the last 3 years hasn't brought about a general improvement to people's quality of life. Shouldn't the government be ashamed of the discrepancy between the apparent wealth and a quality of life that is less than desirable?
The betterment of the society as a whole depends even more on the people's attitudes and values. Unfortunately, we are just as keen as the government in seeking quick money, like the way we were before the hand-over. We still willingly work ourselves to the max for the dough, often at the expense of family and health. But didn't we once see the light, during the SARS epidemic in 2003, that there are more important things in life? We still harbour a disregard for arts, sports, scientific research and everything else that doesn't make money. Too few of us have seen the need to do our bits for the environment. We keep turning on air-conditioning to the full, wasting natural resources and producing more refuse. It's blatantly obvious that we have a much worse awareness of environmental protection than other advanced societies. As Hong Kong strives for being a truly international city, it's not enough just to be superficially prosperous. The quality and attitude of the populace must also catch up at the same time, to be on par with the best of the world!
Has Hong Kong really improved in the 10 years since the hand-over? Have we undergone a transition for the better, in the way we deal with political, economic and social development? The former Chief Executive, Tung Chee-Hwa, once called for everyone to keep up with the times. The present-day administrations in Hong Kong and Beijing, and the whole society, will do well by taking heed of these words.
In many respects, Hong Kong is still the way it is, in concert with the Basic Law which guarantees '50 years of no changes' from the hand-over. However, this lack of change may be a sign of stagnation and complacency.
Let's take the recent debate on political reform. Officials from Beijing and those in favour of the status quo insist that the executive arm of government should predominate the political functioning of Hong Kong and that the Chief Executive, the head of Hong Kong's administration, be better empowered in his/her duties. One of them even claimed that the separation of powers (executive, legislative and judicial) would not be applicable to Hong Kong. These people must be too fond of the colonial days, when executive power was highly concentrated in the Governor and when the government encountered much less resistance or checks and balances. However, they seem to be ignorant of the present-day reality, where the society is filled with different voices and opinions. The days when one man was in total control of everything are long gone. Oppositions and alternative opinions to government policies will only become more common. Although the preponderance of the executive power of the government and Chief Executive is emphasised in the Basic Law, the manner in which this power is exercised should be adapted to today's landscape.
The political structure of Hong Kong has, by and large, remained the same, so have the policies and goals of the government. The main interest of the government is still to make money and make it quick, as seen in its unfaltering support for the financial industry which seems to deliver the best and fastest growth prospects. The main goal of government finances, meanwhile, is still to amass and grow the financial reserves. There's nothing wrong with these objectives, except at the same time the government is reluctant to support other industries and build up social capital. Before the hand-over, Hong Kong traded everything else for economic 'growth' on the back of the white-hot real estate market. Subsequently it was dealt a major blow when the Asian financial crisis struck in the few months after the hand-over. Hasn't the government learnt a lesson from that, and why does it insist on putting all the eggs in one basket?
The lop-sided economic development is one of the major reasons behind the worsening gap between the poor and the rich. And even in those growing sectors of the economy, people have to put up with longer hours and more stress than ever for their livelihoods. Pollution, while not entirely Hong Kong's fault, is steadily worsening but the government's response has been paltry without a sense of urgency. It's far too optimistic to expect that the pollution problem will be dealt with really effectively. For a supposedly wealthy society, Hong Kong routinely ranks too low in quality of life surveys, while the economic growth in the last 3 years hasn't brought about a general improvement to people's quality of life. Shouldn't the government be ashamed of the discrepancy between the apparent wealth and a quality of life that is less than desirable?
The betterment of the society as a whole depends even more on the people's attitudes and values. Unfortunately, we are just as keen as the government in seeking quick money, like the way we were before the hand-over. We still willingly work ourselves to the max for the dough, often at the expense of family and health. But didn't we once see the light, during the SARS epidemic in 2003, that there are more important things in life? We still harbour a disregard for arts, sports, scientific research and everything else that doesn't make money. Too few of us have seen the need to do our bits for the environment. We keep turning on air-conditioning to the full, wasting natural resources and producing more refuse. It's blatantly obvious that we have a much worse awareness of environmental protection than other advanced societies. As Hong Kong strives for being a truly international city, it's not enough just to be superficially prosperous. The quality and attitude of the populace must also catch up at the same time, to be on par with the best of the world!
Has Hong Kong really improved in the 10 years since the hand-over? Have we undergone a transition for the better, in the way we deal with political, economic and social development? The former Chief Executive, Tung Chee-Hwa, once called for everyone to keep up with the times. The present-day administrations in Hong Kong and Beijing, and the whole society, will do well by taking heed of these words.
十年人事幾番新，香港的外貌跟回歸前已大大不同，期間也經歷了種種起伏，但我們有否真的改變了？
在不少方面，香港跟回歸前絲毫無改，五十年不變應不難兌現，但不變也有其代價。
就以近期政際改革的討論，北京和親建制人士都高舉行政主導的旗幟，認為香港的體制要突顯特首的角色和地位，甚至認為香港並非實行三權分立的制度，看來這些人是迷戀殖民地的管治模式，權力集中於港督，政府主宰施政，不必受制於甚至理會其他方面的制衡或反對聲音，可現代社會極多元化，一人說了便算的時代已不復再，施政遇到的阻力祇會愈來愈大，行政主導的原則，雖已寫進基本法，但也得來個過渡，才可套用於當前的社會環境。
香港的政治生態固然原地踏步，政府的施政大原則和作風也沒多變，還是金錢掛帥，以不斷追求更多財富為主，集中精力，獨尊最快見成效的金融業，財政上則以累積更多盈餘為大目標，本來並無不妥，但在財政充盈的情況下，不肯為其他行業和社會資本奠基。九七回歸前全社會向地產業傾斜，十年後的今天也踏上經濟單一化之路；回歸不久後的金融危機，令香港不堪一擊，政府現在把香港的經濟命脈全盤「押注」在金融業，難道還沒汲取教訓嗎？
經濟傾斜的一大惡果，就是貧富懸殊日趨嚴重，就算是當時得令的行業，要賺錢就得付上長工時和大壓力，而且有增無減。近年污染遠比以前嚴重，雖非全是香港之過，但政府對付問題有欠決心和缺乏危機感，問題要有效解決也不容樂觀。香港號稱富裕社會，但生活質素排名在國際上一向偏低，近三年的經濟增長也換不來整體生活環境的改善，財富與生活質素不相稱，不令政府汗顏嗎？
香港社會能否改進，更取決於市民的心態和價值觀。我們像政府一樣熱衷於尋求快速回報，賺快錢的心態跟回歸前並無二樣。我們仍會為賺錢而長期加班超時，放棄的卻是家庭和健康，SARS時大家不是曾經感概，生命中有更重要的東西嗎？我們仍會對跟賺錢沾不到邊的藝術、體育、科研等噗嗤以鼻，對環保仍欠觸覺，照樣大開冷氣、消耗能源，廢物有增無減，我們的環保意識比先進國家嚴重滯後。香港要做到真正的國際大城市，除了表面繁榮外，市民的質素也得提升，與先進社會看齊！
香港社會比十年回歸前有沒有真正的進步？政治、經濟和社會的發展模式及取向究竟有沒有順利過渡到今時今日？董建華曾叫大家要與時並進，無論為政者或普羅市民，都是時候調整一下心態，才能面對刻下及將來的新挑戰。
在不少方面，香港跟回歸前絲毫無改，五十年不變應不難兌現，但不變也有其代價。
就以近期政際改革的討論，北京和親建制人士都高舉行政主導的旗幟，認為香港的體制要突顯特首的角色和地位，甚至認為香港並非實行三權分立的制度，看來這些人是迷戀殖民地的管治模式，權力集中於港督，政府主宰施政，不必受制於甚至理會其他方面的制衡或反對聲音，可現代社會極多元化，一人說了便算的時代已不復再，施政遇到的阻力祇會愈來愈大，行政主導的原則，雖已寫進基本法，但也得來個過渡，才可套用於當前的社會環境。
香港的政治生態固然原地踏步，政府的施政大原則和作風也沒多變，還是金錢掛帥，以不斷追求更多財富為主，集中精力，獨尊最快見成效的金融業，財政上則以累積更多盈餘為大目標，本來並無不妥，但在財政充盈的情況下，不肯為其他行業和社會資本奠基。九七回歸前全社會向地產業傾斜，十年後的今天也踏上經濟單一化之路；回歸不久後的金融危機，令香港不堪一擊，政府現在把香港的經濟命脈全盤「押注」在金融業，難道還沒汲取教訓嗎？
經濟傾斜的一大惡果，就是貧富懸殊日趨嚴重，就算是當時得令的行業，要賺錢就得付上長工時和大壓力，而且有增無減。近年污染遠比以前嚴重，雖非全是香港之過，但政府對付問題有欠決心和缺乏危機感，問題要有效解決也不容樂觀。香港號稱富裕社會，但生活質素排名在國際上一向偏低，近三年的經濟增長也換不來整體生活環境的改善，財富與生活質素不相稱，不令政府汗顏嗎？
香港社會能否改進，更取決於市民的心態和價值觀。我們像政府一樣熱衷於尋求快速回報，賺快錢的心態跟回歸前並無二樣。我們仍會為賺錢而長期加班超時，放棄的卻是家庭和健康，SARS時大家不是曾經感概，生命中有更重要的東西嗎？我們仍會對跟賺錢沾不到邊的藝術、體育、科研等噗嗤以鼻，對環保仍欠觸覺，照樣大開冷氣、消耗能源，廢物有增無減，我們的環保意識比先進國家嚴重滯後。香港要做到真正的國際大城市，除了表面繁榮外，市民的質素也得提升，與先進社會看齊！
香港社會比十年回歸前有沒有真正的進步？政治、經濟和社會的發展模式及取向究竟有沒有順利過渡到今時今日？董建華曾叫大家要與時並進，無論為政者或普羅市民，都是時候調整一下心態，才能面對刻下及將來的新挑戰。
Comments
冇乜幾多人真係會去做一d野去改變自己既生活，更別說整個社會。
真係日日講回歸十週年