Over the past week, the international society has been on alert over the impact of the Brexit referendum on the global economy. At the media session on the quarterly land sale programme for July to September 2016 held last week, I was also asked about the impact of Brexit on Hong Kong’s economy and property market. I responded that there were still a lot of uncertainties facing Hong Kong: as an externally-oriented economy, Hong Kong was not only affected by the UK economy, but also the economies of the Mainland, the USA and the ASEAN countries. There were also many factors affecting Hong Kong’s property market, including housing supply and demand, interest rates, the above-mentioned external economic factors, as well as the local economic and employment situation. The Government will continue to closely monitor the situation, and there is no need to make excessive and premature speculations.
I also noticed that the Brexit referendum has spurred political reflections, besides those on the economic front. For example, it was noted that public opinions in the UK on the Brexit referendum were extremely polarised. The divergent views among British people of different ages hailing from different regions revealed that globalisation might not be able to benefit all the people from different regions and strata in the society despite the advantages and convenience it may bring. In addition, according to some overseas media reports, it seemed that a considerable number of leave voters regretted their choice after the referendum because they had underestimated the impact Brexit would bring on the UK economy, or that they thought their vote was not going to matter. Some UK commentaries pointed out that the referendum had oversimplified many complicated social, economic and livelihood issues to a binary proposition of “Remain or Leave”. Besides, quite a large amount of partial, exaggerated and emotional comments were made during the Brexit referendum campaign, imparing the objective and rational discussion of the subject.
The Brexit referendum reminds us of the importance of facilitating the society to make informed discussions and wise decisions by providing them with comprehensive and objective information, when dealing with important and complex public issues.
Looking back to Hong Kong, the above-mentioned situation was sometimes inevitable in public policy discussions in recent years. Taking the North East New Territories New Development Areas (NENT NDAs) as an example: the plan was put forward again by the previous administration in 2007, and its planning objective has always been a new town for Hong Kong people. In the first two public engagement exercises conducted between 2008 and 2010, the plan obtained majority support. At the beginning of the third public engagement exercise in 2012, many people, including a number of Pan-democrat lawmakers, actually urged the Government to take forward the plan as soon as possible. However, in the two or three months leading up to the Legislative Council election, the plan was suddenly faced with many partial or even inaccurate charges, including an allegation that the NENT NDAs would allow visa-free access to people from the Mainland to Hong Kong which caused quite a stir. In this connection, the Government has been working hard on explaining various aspects to allay public concern over the past few years. This is our responsibility as a government. I believe that, if similar situations concerning other policies should arise in the future, we will continue to respond to the public and address their concerns in an open, sincere and responsible manner.
The Government has also been striving to rezone sites for housing purpose and increase housing land supply in the short- and medium-term, in order to cater for the community’s demand for private and public housing. I understand that some locals may have concerns over the rezoning of individual sites. The Government has been working hard to explain to the District Councils and the locals, and provide feasible mitigation measures to ensure no unbearable consequences on the local areas. In spite of all these, some groups or individuals still choose to object by means of judicial review (JR). The Government respects their legal rights. However, taking the recent JR case on the rezoning of green belt sites in Tai Po as an example, the Court pointed out in the judgment that the Government had set out on different occasions and documents the work approach and priorities in relation to the rezoning of green belt sites. The JR applicant, however, did not make full disclosure to the Court. As such, he was criticised for abusing legal proceedings and the leave for his JR was thus set aside. It is a pity that the JR applicant, a tertiary student who was assisted by an organisation in lodging the JR and seeking legal aid, might have to bear the substantial legal costs eventually. The Government will continue to act prudently and seek legal advice as necessary to ensure that we have the legal basis when taking forward our work. Public interest will also be taken into account in the process.
In recent years, there are many people saying that “politics is everybody’s business”. They consider that all policies are about politics and disagree that the so-called “pan-politicalisation” phenomenon is now found in many public discussions. Although I admit that most of the public policies involve the exercise of public authority and distribution of resources and rights, and I do agree that the Government has due responsibility to address public queries, it does not mean that one may choose to acquire partial information during discussions, or casually distort and exaggerate problems to provoke a stir. Going down such a path may eventually kill off the ground and environment for objective and rational discussions in our society. Differing public members might no longer be willing to express their opinions freely under this suffocating atmosphere. As a result, the society will not be able to come up with the greatest common denominator on controversial issues in a sensible and pragmatic manner, and the problem-solving ability and impetus for improvement will disappear. In the end, who will suffer?
While there are still a lot of uncertainties about the next step after the Brexit referendum, we can reflect on our own situation. When the society is facing problems or having discussion on major public policies, we should keep our discussion rational, all-rounded and calm, and ensure that discussions are based on objective facts instead of being led by partial or exaggerated information. Only then would we be able to make decisions that serve the best interest of the community as a whole.
3 July, 2016
Back