Why I am Standing for Chief Executive
Mr Alan Leong Kah-kit, Member of the Legislative Council, was the Foundation's guest speaker on 21 November 2006. Below is the full text of his speech.
Thank you for the invitation to speak.
Please let me share with you the reason why I am seeking nomination to stand for the Chief Executive Election.
It is quite simple. I cannot accept there will be no competition for the top political post in Hong Kong for the third time in ten years.
Open competition creates a political market place where policies compete, proposals are tested and wider perspectives and better solutions are rewarded. Absence of competition favours the mediocre, the unimaginative, and allows political leaders to become arrogant, complacent, remote and defensive.
You might say ‘I agree'. But, why you?
My answer is straight forward. Indifference won't help Hong Kong. Dysfunctional government, inadequate policies and the repeated disappointment of the community's expectations are striking features of daily life.
We have a government that for too long, has sold our people short, treating Hong Kong as if it were some backward city, too vulnerable or impoverished to dare to think in terms of quality of life.
Our people's aspirations are much higher than that. Political issues have become too important to be ignored. There is important work to be done. This work cannot wait. This is work I can do.
Will I succeed?
Some people say I am bound to get 100 nominations because it cannot be so difficult. Others say I won't make it because it is just too hard.
Why is there such a disparity of views?
This is the time to speak the truth. Getting 100 nominations from the 800-member Election Committee is hard because the system is rigged. It makes it possible for individual electors to be put under intense personal pressures which we do not tolerate in direct elections.
Let's be frank about how legitimate lobbying that has become political extortion under these arrangements is put on Committee Members. Powerful people call you up and ask you to support what we might call the "preferred" candidate. People who can make or break your business or your career.
To say no is seen as an act of disrespect, or worse, as an act of defiance. How many are willing to commit financial or professional suicide?
We also have the other side of the coin. The rich and famous queued-up to be selected as electors. What makes it worth the while of the affluent and already influential to take time off to engage in this political exercise when their personal participation in public life is otherwise almost invisible? Why do they fight for the chance to be seen to be supporting the "preferred" candidate?
If you are in business or if your organisation depends on government funding, even the biggest business wants the insurance of being seen to have supported the right man. Don't forget that Tung Chee Hwa and Donald Tsang both got over 700 nominations in one-horse races.
What can open competition do for Hong Kong?
In a real competition, the candidates will have to make commitments to the community. They will have to demonstrate that they have policies which will solve the community's most pressing problems and convince the public of their ability to govern. The public has the opportunity to watch their manifestoes tested to destruction in public debate and media scrutiny. At the end of the process, the winner has a clear right to rule. He or she was the public's choice to steer Hong Kong's progress for the next five years.
What are the candidates' policies in this election?
Before I come to my ideas, let me say something about Donald Tsang Mr. Tsang has not yet declared his candidacy. Does anyone believe he will not run? Does anyone believe he will not win?
And, what has Mr. Tsang offered Hong Kong?
Mr. Tsang says his governing "concept" is "Strong Government" exercising something he calls "Strong Governance".
What does this mean?
Mr. Tsang says "Strong Governance" means his "faith in a small, but strong and effective government … that can provide effective response at crucial times".
No wonder Mr. Tsang keeps being asked what he truly means.
In fact, Mr. Tsang has merely said he wants government to be effective and preferably "small". This really does not mean much.
His slogans, "Strong Government, Strong Governance" are no substitute for the vision of our future which Hong Kong needs. He has had ample time since his appointment as Chief Executive seventeen months ago to present us with a dazzling picture of where he will lead us.
His last Policy Address was even thinner than his first. Has he run out of ideas? Has he run out of initiatives? Has his long service as a bureaucrat blinded him to the need for political innovation? Or, does he take it for granted it makes no difference what he thinks or says? The goldfish are in no danger of leaving Government House before 2012.
My own vision is very simple. We have to make Hong Kong competitive, free and fair.
Competitive, because we know Hong Kong must compete in the world, and we believe competition makes us stronger.
Free, because we want to continue to enjoy our liberties, and we believe in the free market.
Fair, because we know the market cannot solve all of society's problems. We want a fair society, a decent society that promotes social harmony.
- A fair and decent society is one that practices Equal Opportunity.
- A fair and decent society is one that accepts responsibility to care for the vulnerable and the disadvantaged.
- A fair and decent society is one where the distribution of opportunities, resources and gains is reasonable.
How fair is Hong Kong?
Among developed economies, Hong Kong has the most uneven distribution of income.
Among developed economies, Hong Kong has the most inequitable distribution of political power through functional elections for the Chief Executive and half of the legislature.
I suggest that the two phenomena are not wholly disconnected.
Let me focus on our uneven income distribution first.
Some people say the rich are getting richer and the lives of poor people are also improving. This is a convenient way of ignoring the issue, an excuse for complacency.
The real issue is that there is substantial inequality in our society, and the gap is increasing.
This state of affairs sows the seeds of social disharmony. Worse still, it ruins the lives of the most vulnerable in our society and punishes them for being ill, infirm, elderly, disabled, the children of broken families - in other words, the weakest and most tragic members of our community.
I suspect everyone here today is among the higher income earners in Hong Kong. It is so easy for us to push out of our consciousness the other side of life.
Many of my constituents in Kowloon East belong to Hong Kong's working poor. They are the poorly-educated older workers, the uneducated elderly and the disabled. They do the lowest-skill jobs that earn them about HK$3,000 per month. Our lunch today would cost 10% of their monthly wage.
They are in this state because until the late 1970s, a colonial government refused to introduce free and compulsory secondary education. They face grim retirements because the MPF was only put in place in the late 1990s. They have no medical or social insurance even today. Can we really let the HKSAR Government refuse its responsibilities? At the very least, we must debate these issues.
An old man from my constituency told me he had to get up at 2 am to queue at a public hospital so he could see a doctor that day. If he went later, he might not have been far enough ahead in line to get an appointment that day.
Let us not forget how doctors working in public hospitals had to sue the Hospital Authority because their working hours were in breach of the law. It is hard to think of a worse example of dysfunctional government when the rights of both patients and medical staff are treated with such indifference.
These are the mismatches we must fix if we want a fair and decent society. The free market cannot deliver the solutions for these sorts of problems because markets do not cater for the family with no means because of unemployment, for the middle-aged worker struck down with a catastrophic illness.
Hong Kong urgently needs the right social policies.
This is why the issue of the minimum wage will not go away.
This is why the issue of healthcare reform will only become more urgent.
This is why the issue of air pollution's impact on public health cannot be tolerated.
Just remember, many of our low-income families live and work in Hong Kong's most polluted urban areas.
In terms of air quality, we already have a public health crisis. It is time for comprehensive action.
You can see from my Election Pamphlet my proposals for these problems. At the core is my belief that a democratically elected government provides the key to good governance because it has to be accountable for its decisions, and be responsive to public needs.
I want a debate on solutions. Will we have a chance to do this during the Chief Executive Election if there is no competition?
It is so much easier not to bother. Why be awkward? Why make trouble? Why make yourself unpopular?
But, that would be to fall into the trap of indifference. Indifference won't help Hong Kong.
I promise you I will work hard. I know I will be the more energetic and fitter candidate as we face the future. You will see that I have fresher ideas. You will see me among the people.
There is important work to be done.
This work cannot wait.
This is work I can do.
Please give me a hand.
Thank you.
The above does not necessarily represent the views of the Foundation.
Reproduction of the article requires written permission from the author.
2006年11月21日(星期二)
梁家傑先生於香港民主促進會午餐會致辭全文
首先，感謝民主促進會邀請我到來發表演說。
我想跟大家談談，我為何爭取提名參與行政長官選舉。
原因其實十分簡單︰香港的最高政治職位，可能出現十年來第三度沒有任何競爭而自動當選的狀況。對此，我實在難以接受。
在公開競爭之下，不同政策互相較量，各種建議將被反覆驗證，汰弱留強，只有更廣闊的遠景、更切中時弊的對策才可以勝出。沒有競爭只會產生出平庸和缺乏遠見的政策，政治領袖也會因此變得傲慢、自滿，更會對民意漸行漸遠、對批評處處設防。
大家可能會對我說︰這些我都同意。但，為何參選的是你？
我的回答十分簡單。漠不關心的態度對香港毫無幫助。管治失衡、政策匱乏，加上大眾的期望屢屢落空，已經成為我們每天社會生活的寫照。
長久以來，政府忽視市民大眾的利益，將香港當作一個落後城市，彷彿只要我們在生活質素上稍有要求，就會花光了庫房的錢，令我們的城市隨時受襲。
然而，公眾的抱負卻遠超乎此。政治議題越來越重要，己不容擱置。 我們有重要的任務要完成。已經不能再拖。我能夠負起這個任務。
我有成功的希望嗎？
有人認為我一定會得到一百位選舉委員會委員的提名，因為這一點不難做到；其他人則認為我一定得不到一百選委提名，因為這難若登天。
為何這裏會有這麼各走極端的看法？
打開天窗說亮話，要從八百人選舉委員會中取得一百人提名困難無比，因為這個制度受到種種的操控，令選舉委員可能受到直接選舉不會容許的壓力加諸他們身上。
我們不妨坦白地談談，在現制之下，正當的游說如何異化為對於選委的政治敲詐。有權有勢的人會打電話給你，要求你支持那位上頭「屬意」的候選人。這些來電者是對你的事業和前途舉足輕重的人物。
對這些要求說「不」會被視為不尊重、甚至是反抗的表現。試問有多少人願意做出自毀前程的行為？
請看另一方面的現象︰富商名流爭先恐後地競逐選委的席位。這些富裕而且影響力廣泛的一群，平日不見得在其他公共範疇的參與怎樣踴躍，為何卻願意花時間心力，爭取成為選委會的一員呢？為何他們非要爭取機會公開表態，擁護那位「屬意」的候選人呢？
做生意的商人、依賴政府資助的機構，甚至大商業機構，往往都需要藉支持「正確」人選得到的保障。君不見，董建華和曾蔭權，同樣是在得到超過七百個提名之下，單人匹馬，大熱勝出。
公開的競爭對香港有何好處？
在真正的競爭中，候選人要向社會許下鄭重的承諾；對於社會上最逼切的困難，他們必須提出應對的方法；他們要將自己的領導管理能力展示於人前，取信於大眾。在公眾辯論及傳媒監察之下，一切政策綱領均會被無情審驗、令弱點無所遁形。最後產生出來的得勝者，顯然已鸁得執政的基礎，因為他就是公眾挑選出來，在未來五年推動香港進步的人選。
在這次選舉之中，候選人會交代甚麼政綱？
在交代自己的想法前，請容我先說說行政長官曾蔭權。曾先生尚未宣布參選，但有人會認為他不會參選嗎？有人會認為他會落選嗎？
那麼，曾先生帶給香港的是甚麼？
曾先生說他的管治「理念」是以「強政」達致「勵治」。
這是甚麼意思？
曾先生說︰「強政勵治」是指他「相信一個小而強的高效能政府……在關鍵的環節做到有效的支援。」
難怪大家不斷追問曾先生，他的真正意思是甚麼。
事實上，曾先生不過是說，他希望政府有效力，而且越「小」越好，其實沒有什麼內容。
他那個「強政勵治」的口號，絕不可能用來取代香港未來的願景。自他在十七個月前獲任命為行政長官以來，他實在有十分充裕的時間，將他帶領下香港的美好前景，給我們展示出來。
他新近的施政報告，甚至比他的第一份報告更加單薄。他是否已轉不出什麼新念頭？已提不出新措施？是不是多年的官僚積習已令他無法打開新局面? 還是因為他知道有沒有新意無關宏旨，禮賓府內的錦鯉，二零一二年前都會安然留居舊池塘？
我的信念十分簡單。我們要令香港有自由、公平的競爭。
要具競爭力，是因為我們知道香港要在全球範圍內競爭，而且我們相信，競爭令我們更強壯。
要自由，是因為我們要繼續享有我們的自由，而且我們相信自由市場。
要公平，是因為我們知道市場不能解決社會的所有問題。我們要一個公平的、文明、推動和諧的社會。
• 一個公平與文明的社會，會實踐平等機會的原則。
• 一個公平與文明的社會，會視照顧弱小及基層社群為己任。
• 一個公平與文明的社會，會合理地分配機會、資源及利益。
香港有多公平呢？
在發達經濟體系中，香港的收入分配最不平等。
在發達經濟體系中，香港的政治權力分配最不公正，這源於行政長官及立法機關的一半由功能界別產生。
我認為，這兩個現象息息相關。
請容我首先集中在收入不平等這一點。
有人認為，只要富人越富，就可同時改善窮人的生活。對於要滿足現狀、漠視問題所在的人，這是一個相當方便的藉口。
真正的問題所在，是我們的社會存在重大的不平等，而且差距不斷擴大。
這種狀況埋下了社會紛爭的種子。更可怕的是，現在的狀況置社會上最弱勢、最不幸的一群於死地，他們受到這樣的懲罰，只不過因為他們生病、殘疾、年老，或者是來自破碎的家庭。
我相信，在座各位是屬於香港收入較高的一群。我們很容易會忘記社會上另一群人的生活。
在我所屬的九龍東選區，住着不少貧窮勞工。他們是學歷較低的中年工人、沒有受過太多教育的老工人或者殘疾人士。他們從事低技術工作，以換來每月約三千港元的收入。我們今天吃這一頓飯，已經相當他們每月入息的一成。
他們的苦況，實肇因於直到一九七零年代末以前，殖民地政府仍拒絕實行免費及強迫中學教育。他們的退休生活仍然艱困，因為強積金制度要直到一九九零年代末才開始實施。他們直到今天仍不能受惠於醫療或者社會保險。我們真的應該容讓特區政府逃避這些責任嗎？對於這一切，我們起碼應該認真地辯論一下。
一位老人家告訴我，為了到公立醫院排隊看醫生他每天要在凌晨兩點鐘起床；若他遲一些再去到，他就可能輪不到當天看症的名額。
不要忘記，公立醫院的醫生因為他們的工作時間違反了法律，前陣子與醫院管理局對簿公堂。當病人或醫生的權益皆如此不受當局重視，我實在難以想出管治失衡的更差例子。
如果我們要一個公平及文明的社會，我們必須解決類似的錯配。自由市場並不能解決這類問題，因為市場不會照顧到因為主要謀生養家的成員中年患病失業而陷入困境的家庭。
香港急需正確的社會政策。
這就是為何最低工資的問題不會消失的原因。
這就是為何醫療改革的問題只會越來越逼切。
這就是為何我們不能容忍空氣污染繼續損害公眾健康。
不要忘記，我們中很多低收入家庭正在香港最受污染的市區中居住或工作。
空氣質素問題，早已成為公共衞生的危機。現在是採取整全行動的時候。
你可以從我的競選單張中看到我處理這些問題的建議。我的核心信念是，民主選舉產生的政府是良好管治的關鍵，因為這個政府必須為其決策負責，而且要正面回應公眾的需要。
我切望政策的辯論。如果沒有競爭，我們還有機會在這次行政長官選舉達到這一個目標嗎？
也許多一事不如少一事。何必自製難題？為何自尋煩惱？為何非要挑戰現狀不可？
但如此一來，我們又會掉進冷漠的陷阱。冷漠對香港有害無益。
我答應大家，我必會竭盡所能。我知道我是更有魄力、更適合香港面對未來的候選人。你們會見到我有更創新的意念。你們會見到我走進人群之中。
我們有重要的工作要做。
這些工作不能再拖。
我能夠負起這個任務。
請大家助我一臂之力。
謝謝。