The novel coronavirus has been raging for more than two years. Whenever the epidemic reaches a critical juncture and the SAR government needs to tighten or relax epidemic prevention measures, words such as "decision of the Chief Executive in Council" are always mentioned repeatedly. In fact, many important measures in Hong Kong, Including the gathering restriction order, the mask order, the postponement of the seventh Legislative Council election, etc., are inseparable from the executive meeting held every Tuesday.
As a body that assists the Chief Executive in making decisions, the Executive Council is bound to have high expectations, hoping to reflect public opinion and assist the government in governance.
However, the government's misjudgment of the social situation when revising the "Fugitive Offenders Ordinance" has triggered an unprecedented governance crisis, and this year's fifth wave of the new coronavirus epidemic has caused more than 9,100 deaths due to poor prevention and control. All these have raised questions about the failure of the guild to play should work.
Chief Executive-designate Li Jiachao threatened to strengthen government governance. Will he reform the guild in this regard?
Specifically, what is the problem with the guild, and is it worth keeping?
It is an adviser to the chief executive, not a decision-making body
"The Executive Council has never been a decision-making body, but an advisory body." Tang Jiahua, the current non-official member of the Executive Council and the convener of democratic ideas, repeatedly clarified the imagination and misunderstanding of the guild in the public in an interview with Hong Kong 01: "Many people will Ask, what exactly did the guild do? If you understand the nature of the guild, you don't need to know. The guild is a consulting organization, and the chief executive will consult the guild, that's all. Because the guild can change the decision of the chief executive, and there is no Power, no function to change or overturn the chief executive's decision."
If "the Chief Executive in Council makes a decision", it is only a decision made by the Chief Executive after consulting the guild, then what is the institutional nature of the guild?
How much influence does it actually have on the chief executive's decision-making?
When asked by reporters, Tang Jiahua described the guild as the Chief Executive's "personal advisory group", and also said that the Chief Executive's compliance with the advice of the "advisory group" depends entirely on his personal character and governance philosophy.
Lin Zhiyin, a senior researcher of the Hong Kong Vision Project of the Hong Kong Policy Institute, also told the reporter of Hong Kong 01 that the Basic Law gives the Chief Executive the power to independently decide the number of guilds, candidates, and the positioning of the guild system, and whether the Chief Executive attaches importance to the guild members Recommendations are entirely up to their personal attitudes.
Lam Chi-yin pointed out that non-official members have "responsibility but no power" - they must be collectively responsible, but have no supervisory power. It is not in line with "political ethics" to ask them to "escort" policies they may oppose.
(Photo by Zheng Zifeng)
Unclear powers and responsibilities reduced to "four dissimilarities"
Such guilds that follow the Chief Executive's will have become increasingly "four dissimilarities" - unclear positioning, no authority or responsibility.
The first Executive Council followed the organizational scale of the Hong Kong-British Executive Council, with only the Chief Secretary for Administration, the Financial Secretary and the Secretary for Justice. The 14 officials and non-official members of the 11th Bureau were reduced from 11 to 5 and then gradually increased to 7.
However, this reorganization has also made the guild's positioning extremely blurred, and even reduced to a "half-consulting and half-decision-making" organization; and the "collective responsibility system" arrangement jointly undertaken by key officials with real power and non-official members without real power, In the process of practice, it only becomes "a piece of paper".
Non-official members have neither decision-making power nor executive power, let alone overturn the chief executive's decision-making, but must assume collective responsibility.
If they disagree with the decision and are limited by the "collective responsibility system" and "secrecy system", they can neither openly oppose the government, but also have the responsibility to "escort" the opposing decision; if the member still firmly opposes, they can only resign express dissatisfaction.
Lam Chi-yin pointed out that non-official MPs "have responsibilities but no power" and do not conform to "political ethics".
She mentioned that the positioning of the Executive Council since the Leung Chun-ying administration has not been clarified, but has become increasingly blurred. Although the current Lam Cheng administration has tried to require the guild to meet the requirements of "contacting the Council", "taking professional advice" and "taking professional advice" The “decision-making cabinet” has multiple functions, including the representatives of most major political parties, a number of professionals and key officials in the Legislative Council. As a result, the role of the guilds has become more and more confused.
For example, when Carrie Lam appointed a large number of Legislative Council members as members of the Executive Council, the original intention was to hope that they could play the role of "connecting the parliament", not only to absorb the opinions of political parties, but also hope that members of the political party background can better lobby other Legislative Council members to pass bills, and explain the decision to the society, with a view to passing it smoothly in the Legislative Council; however, guild members are bound by secrecy and political party interests, and the function of "contacting the parliament" is only a drop in the bucket - when guild members are restricted by secrecy , it is difficult to consult and lobby party members, and there is no guarantee that party members will support the decision made by the guild.
"Now we don't see guild members resign to express their dissatisfaction with government policies. At the same time, they don't come out often to defend government policies, so how do you demonstrate collective responsibility? This is a big question. Lin Chi-yin continued, "It seems that there is nothing (defense, collective responsibility) at the moment. If the Chief Executive does not pay attention to the opinions of the guild, or if the guild is symbolically consulted before the decision is passed, even if the guild is bound by the collective responsibility system, there is no such thing as What's the meaning."
After the first chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, implemented the accountability system for key officials in 2002, he reorganized the guild, including a substantial expansion of official members from the three divisions to 14 officials in the eleventh bureau of the three divisions, and a reduction of non-official members. 11 people were reduced to 5 people.
(Information Services Department)
Superstitious traditional elites fall into groupthink
In addition to unclear powers and responsibilities and limited functions, the composition of guilds has always been criticized.
The current members of the Executive Council are mainly traditional officials, politicians, and business elites. Some members have served as members of the Executive Council for too long, and they are also "dual members" of the Legislative Council.
For example, the current convener of the Executive Council, Chen Zhisi and the chairman of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, Shi Meilun, have also been appointed as members of the guild for 18 years after five sessions since 2004 (see the table below).
Li Guozhang, chairman of the University Council of Hong Kong, followed closely. When he served as the Secretary for Education and Manpower from 2002 to 2007, he was an official member of the guild for two terms. Since 2012, he was appointed as an unofficial member for a total of four terms. Guild, fifteen years of guild career.
New People's Party Legislative Council member Ye Liu Shuyi served as an official member for one year, and then was appointed as an unofficial member in 2012, a total of eleven years.
And Zhou Songgang, Luo Fanjiaofen, Lin Jianfeng, Ye Guoqian, Zhang Yuren and others have served for two terms.
Only six were first-time guild members.
Visiting professor of Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, former chair professor and former head of the Department of Sociology of Hong Kong Baptist University, Chen Guoben, and Chong Diwen, researcher of the Chan School of Social Studies, published in July 2020 "Restructuring the Executive Council: Why and The article "How" describes the guild as a traditional political and business power elite playing musical chairs among officials, government, and business, monopolizing prominent positions in all sectors and forming an airtight power club.
This circulation of elite lacks the rotation of old and new, and the ruling class will corrupt over time, creating a high-risk group of "groupthink disease" and affecting the effectiveness of governance.
In addition, the appointment of social professionals and representatives of public organizations into the guild is nothing more than the hope that the decision-making can balance the interests of all sectors of society in Hong Kong, and enhance the professionalism and recognition of the policy, so as to play the role of the guild as a policy gatekeeper.
However, if the function of the guild depends entirely on the wishes of the chief executive and is not guaranteed by the system, it is useless to appoint people from any background to be members of the guild.
Chen Zhisi, the current executive council convener, and Shi Meilun, chairman of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, have also served as members of the guild for 18 years after five sessions of the guild since their appointment in 2004.
(Hong Kong 01 cartography)
Past and present two fates
Although the Executive Council is an institutional product left over from the colonial period of Hong Kong, the predecessor, the Executive Council, was an advisory body under the exclusive authority of the Hong Kong Governor, and whether it listens to opinions is also up to the Governor, but the status of the Executive Council back then and the Executive Council today are very different. difference.
Except for trivial, highly confidential or urgent matters, most of the Hong Kong Governor's decision-making requires consultation with the Executive Council; if the Hong Kong Governor insists on doing his own thing, the reasons will be recorded, and the British government will review the relevant documents, which constitutes a certain balance for the Hong Kong Governor .
Lam Chi-yin pointed out that most of the members of the Hong Kong-British Executive Council are from major interest groups, including representatives of British businessmen Jardine, HSBC and Standard Chartered, in order to ensure that government decisions are in line with the main interests of the UK in Hong Kong.
Since the Governor of Hong Kong is not a local person, he needs to rely on the opinions of social leaders who are local representatives, so as to build a "bridge" with the local people and improve his recognition.
It is worth mentioning that during the drafting of the Basic Law in the 1980s, there were many voices calling for the abolition of the colonial-style Executive Council, and even believed that the Executive Council, which was purely an advisory body, did not need to be included in the Basic Law.
At that time, there were opinions that clearly pointed out the institutional contradictions of the guilds. If the guilds were an advisory body with actual powers, similar to the Chief Executive's think tank, but were not included in the Basic Law, then the guilds would lack a clear definition. Constitutional status and power; and when the Chief Executive does not accept the opinions of the guild members, and only follows the practice of the British Hong Kong Executive Council to record the reasons, then the guild will lack effective restraint on the Chief Executive, and it will be in vain.
Therefore, there are views that the provisions should be changed under Section 2 "Executive Organs" to ensure that the Executive Council, as a part of the administrative organ, shares political responsibilities with the Chief Executive, thereby restricting the Chief Executive's powers.
Although the Constitutional Task Force and the opinions of different members of the community pointed out that there are many problems in the guild that need to be clarified, when Article 54 of the Basic Law was finalized, it still insisted that the provisions should be placed under Section 3 "Chief Executive", so that the guild would be better off. The system will continue.
This advisory body, which used to be centered on the Hong Kong Governor, has been replaced by the Chief Executive, but its functions and roles have been greatly weakened.
Tong Jiahua said, "The Hong Kong Governor must consult the guild structure for any important decision. There is a saying that the Governor in Council (Governor in Council), but these decisions have always come from the Hong Kong Governor, not the guild." (Photo by Lu Yiming)
Transform to a "cabinet system" or "think tank"
However, twenty-five years after the handover, the SAR Government has not perfected the various defects in the guild system.
If the chief executive-designate Li Jiachao wants to strengthen the effectiveness of government governance, the reform of the guild is undoubtedly necessary.
Lin Zhiyin proposed two ways, one is to switch to a "cabinet system", which will greatly reduce the number of non-official members, and the other is to switch to a "brain-tank system" with non-official members as the dominance.
In 2017, the Hong Kong Institute for Policy Studies published a research report on "Cultivating Political Talents to Develop a Cabinet System", which put forward suggestions for "cabinetization" of guilds.
As a researcher, Lin Zhiyin explained that guild members are bound by the secrecy system and collective responsibility system. Although they have constitutional status, they have no actual power, and their positioning is unclear. If they want to break through the system restrictions without amending the Basic Law, they can Transformed into a "cabinet system", that is, an executive body headed by the Chief Executive, with senior government officials representing various government departments to discuss policies and make collective decisions.
Another reform path is to refer to the guilds during the Donald Tsang administration, positioning them as think tanks, led by non-official members, appointing a large number of experts and social figures, reviewing policy documents and checking policy.
However, Lin Chi-yin reminded that the key premise for the guild to turn to a "think tank system" is that the Chief Executive attaches great importance to the opinions of non-official members of the guild. It will cause great repercussions, and I believe it will not be easy to pass smoothly even if it gets to the Legislative Council.
However, Lu Zhaoxing, a senior current affairs commentator, believes that the direction of the guild's reform is not to clarify its position and explain its powers and responsibilities, but to continue to strengthen the guild's existing confidentiality and collective responsibility in the form of constitutional conventions. "These two systems are the constitutional conventions of the guild. Although the media reports the content of the meeting from time to time, it may be leaked intentionally or unintentionally by the members of the guild, but they have always been effective and need to be strengthened in the future."
Senior current affairs commentator Lu Zhaoxing pointed out that the Li Jiachao government can appoint members of the relevant constituencies as members of the guild according to the proportion of seats in the three major constituencies of the Legislative Council, thereby linking the guild with the Legislative Council.
(provided by respondents)
How to maintain the relationship between the executive and the legislature?
One of the reasons why the very colonial guild system was retained is that there are voices that the Executive Council is conducive to the communication between the executive and the legislature.
After the turmoil against the amendment bill in 2019, the central government personally revised the Hong Kong electoral system. The safety factor of the Legislative Council has been greatly improved, and the composition of members and interests have become more complex.
How to use guilds to maintain the relationship between administration and legislation is also an issue that needs to be rethought.
Lu Zhaoxing suggested that the Li Jiachao government could appoint members of the relevant constituencies as members of the guild according to the proportion of seats in the three major constituencies of the Legislative Council, thereby linking the guild with the Legislative Council.
But Lin Zhiyin has reservations about this.
She suggested that the new government should establish a more effective way of communicating with parliamentarians according to the situation, "because the guild's most ideal role should be based on the overall interests of Hong Kong and provide advice to the Chief Executive."
There are many flaws in the guild system, and it is not indispensable in government decision-making, so do guilds still need to be retained?
Tang Jiahua believes that the guild has its existence value: "Because today's chief executive is not a leader elected by the people, he is not directly elected by the citizens, so he needs a group of capable people to provide him with professional advice in order to make a high-level recognition. Decision-making." Lu Zhaoxing agreed that the guild has been generally effective in the 25 years since its return.
"I think this is debatable." Lam Chi-yin quoted the "Cultivating Political Talents and Developing the Cabinet System" published by the Hong Kong Institute of Policy Studies in 2017, and pointed out that different people had been consulted on this at that time, and many stakeholders reported to her that the guild would play a role. , should be reserved, "However, I think the problem lies in the 'poor information', that is, as an outsider, there is no way to know the actual work of the guild, so it is difficult to judge its importance." However, from the perspective of power structure, the guild has a role in the administration. The non-binding officer and the unofficial guild member's salaried position "calls into question its function as a policy gate."
The monthly remuneration of non-official members of the Executive Council is $85,130. The monthly remuneration of 16 members has reached $1,362,080. Among them, 7 Legislative Council members who are also members of the Executive Council will also receive a monthly remuneration of $68,750. Both The total monthly cost is 1,843,330 yuan.
The new government does need to think about how to put this public money to good use.