Squandering our assets on insiders
SCMP August 29, 2006
The evidence continues to fall, thick and fast, of blurred lines between
the government and private sector - which are totally inappropriate
for a modern, educated, prosperous society.
The Hong Kong Jockey Club is setting up a branch in Beijing to attract
new members. Bully for them. However, one has to wonder where the
money is coming from: this organisation was given a betting monopoly
government, but it is run as a private club by a tiny, self-selecting
It has club houses and other, splendid, fixed assets for the non-racing
enjoyment of its members - which are valued on its books, under "members'
services", at a mere HK$284 million.
I am all in favour of horse racing, whether as a sport for lovers of
horses or a device for lovers of gambling. But the millions who use
the monopoly gambling facilities in effect subsidise leisure facilities
for a club which has only about 20,000 active members.
Enabling football betting is certainly a service to the public. But
the fact that it was given to the Jockey Club, further extending
its monopoly, raises many questions about propriety - given that
its stewards and voting members make up just 1 per cent of the total.
Let us hear no more nonsense about how much good the Jockey Club does
via the charities it supports. The whole system reeks of the worst
aspects of colonial paternalism in which do-gooding is closely linked
to elite clubbery and social climbing, and payments are made on the
basis of opaque judgments by people who select themselves.
In 2004-2005, almost 40 per cent of the club's HK$1 billion donations
went to a scheme called Positive Adolescent Training through Holistic
Social Programmes - whatever that means - to be administered by the
Despite a monopoly that nets it some HK$2.5 billion after betting
duty and tax, there is only modest accountability for its overall spending
- and particularly for the charitable donations, which vary drastically
from year to year.
Let us put an end to these antiquated, centralised charity systems
(including the Community Chest) - and encourage everyone from tycoon
Li Ka-shing to the average householder to contribute personally to
the charities of their choice.
You can be sure they won't be funding government bureaucrats. Hong
Kong lacks the sort of sports facilities that are the norm in far less
prosperous places. Corpulent representatives of sport and culture press
for giant, "world-class" stadiums - and doubtless big public-works
contracts for builders - while local sports such as football languish
partly for want of local facilities.
Another bit of mutual back-scratching by the bureaucrats is evident
in the use of public funds - in the form of a senior government employee
- to promote the candidacy of Margaret Chan Fung Fu-chun as head of
the World Health Organisation. Dr Chan left the government to join
the WHO, and has a career there whether or not she succeeds in her
That was a reasonable career decision, particularly after the criticism
she faced for the handling of the severe acute respiratory syndrome
outbreak. But she, not the Hong Kong government, made her career choice.
If Hong Kong wants to promote one of its own as a senior international
official it could do better than a bureaucrat whose local career ended
Dr Chan is technically very competent. But the ability to stand up
to pressure from governments and corporations is an even more important
qualification for this job. Dr Chan showed rather less resolution in
dealing with the mainland in the early days of Sars.
Until the legislature can regain more oversight over Chief Executive
Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's expanding bureaucracy, public assets will continue
to be squandered for the benefit of insiders - public or private.
TOP OF THE PAGE