MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese):
Chief Executive, at present, a number of Bureau Directors are appointed as non-executive directors of a number of public organizations and corporations in which the Government is a shareholder but since Bureau Directors are busy with attending to their duties, on these public organizations and corporations assuming various social responsibilities and in which the Government is a shareholder, how much time can these Bureau Directors spare for thinking about how they can be governed effectively and developed continuously? Whenever these public organizations and corporations in which the Government is a shareholder run into problems, the relevant officials often find themselves in the awkward position of “being the game player and the referee” at the same time, that is, they have to perform the administrative duties of supervising these organizations but at the same time, they are the directors of these organizations supervised by them, so confusion can arise easily in terms of ascertaining accountability. If problems arise, is it their administrative supervision that has been ineffective, or is it the governance of the organizations concerned that has been ineffective? In order to supervise these organizations and corporations effectively, will the Government consider setting up a public organization or a management agency for corporations in which the Government is a shareholder along the line of the investment management authorities in other countries or regions, so as to centralize the supervision of these organizations and corporations premised on its role as the capital contributor or shareholder?
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese):
Mr CHAN, simply put, the Government does not have such an idea at present because the nature of the public organizations mentioned by Mr CHAN, which the Government has to appoint the relevant accountability Bureau Directors or their representatives to join, is very wide-ranging. Some are commercial or quasi-commercial organizations, for example, the MTR Corporation Limited or the Airport Authority Hong Kong, whereas others are public organizations aimed mainly at providing services, for example, the Hospital Authority (“HA”) or the Urban Renewal Authority. Therefore, it will be difficult to meet the expectations of society for government management of or participation in the affairs of these public organizations, in particular, the expectations for accountability, simply by taking the approach of managing the investments of the SAR Government.
Nevertheless, the question raised by Mr CHAN is very real. I also have great sympathy for the Bureau Directors concerned. For one thing, they have to be responsible for policy matters and hold discussions with the Legislative Council on many matters; and for another, they have to attend the meetings of the boards. At present, it is hard to find a perfect solution. However, when many of the Bureau Directors were appointed to these boards, the arrangement of alternate members was also made, in the hope of easing the burden on Bureau Directors while ensuring that these accountability Bureaux take part in the governance of these public organizations and perform their supervisory functions.
MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese):
Chief Executive, since there is such a great difficulty, will the Government at least consider reducing instances of its participation in the management of public organizations and corporations by way of keeping a stake through capital contribution?
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (in Cantonese):
I do not entirely understand Mr CHAN’s question. What he meant is that the Government should put up capital less often and let the market undertake greater supervision. I believe this is also highly controversial. As I said just now, the nature of many of these public organizations are not commercial but quasi-commercial. In other words, these organizations also have missions as public organizations, so I believe society expects us to strike a balance.