In Retrospect and Anticipation
Anson Chan
Former Chief Secretary for Administration
At the Asia Society Luncheon (April
19, 2001)
Ronnie, distinguished guests, ladies and
gentlemen,
First of all, Ronnie, thank you for your
very kind and warm welcome. All I can say is that it is wonderful to be part of
Hong Kong's history and I hope that history will be kind to me. I'd also like
to thank all of you for being present here at this luncheon today at the tail
end of one's career to be received in this manner and by such an illustrious
gathering is an honour indeed. I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
I would also like to thank you and the Asia Society for your unstinting support for
Hong Kong. You and all those associated with Asia Society have been stalwart in
your confidence in Hong Kong during the most difficult times, and the establishment
of the Asia Society Hong Kong Centre in 1990 speaks eloquently to that.
And I want to thank you also for the invitation to address this large audience today,
just 11 days before my retirement from my current post in the civil service of which I
have had the privilege to be a member for 38 years, 7 months and two days. This is
the last major speech I shall give in my official capacity - a valedictory, I suppose -
but it will not, I daresay, be the last time I speak up for Hong Kong.
As I mulled over what I should say today, quite a few thoughts went through my mind.
I looked back on some of the good days and bad, the great changes, the moments of
high peaks and deep troughs. But I always came back to the sense of excitement and
achievement associated with Hong Kong's great post-war success in which I have
been fortunate enough to have played a small part.
But how to encompass all this in the short time we have after this splendid lunch? A
speech packed with reminiscences? A shopping list packaging our progress over the
last 40 years? A "kiss and tell" speech revealing some real or imagined secrets or
scandals from the past? Sorry, that's not my style.
So, I have decided to do what I usually do, and that is to speak frankly on a number of
issues about which I feel strongly. I feel strongly about them because they are
important to the people of Hong Kong, the future success of the SAR and, by
extension, to the contribution the SAR can make to our nation.
In short, I want to ask the people of Hong Kong what values they want to protect and
preserve in the SAR. I want to ask them to think about those things that give us the
edge over our competitors in the region, including cities in the Mainland like
Shanghai. And I intend to answer my own questions by saying what I believe they
should be. I don't think anyone in this great hall, or outside it for that matter, will be
greatly surprised to hear what I believe those values to be. I have been espousing them
in one form or another for most of my public life.
But before I do so, I want to indulge in just a little bit of nostalgia. After nearly four
decades in the civil service, I think I've earned at least that much. I was looking at
figures the other day which drew some comparisons of life in Hong Kong back in
1962, when I joined the civil service, with the situation as it is today.
For example, in 1962 great parts of the New Territories still moved to the rhythm of
the seasons of planting and harvest. Buffalo could still be seen in the paddy fields.
The population stood at 600,000. Today, there are 3.4 million people living in nine
modern high rise new towns beyond the Lion Rock. The fulcrum of our urban
metropolis has shifted dramatically in the space of a generation.
Life expectancy in 1962 was 68 for men and 75 for women. Today it is 77 and 82
respectively. Our GDP has increased 150 times over during that period, on average by
14% a year. GDP per capita has multiplied 70 times, from $2,619 in 1962 to $187,105
last year. That's an average annual growth rate of 12%. In 1962, a quarter of a million
visitors came to Hong Kong. Last year the number reached a record 13.6 million.
And finally - just one more comparison that is close to my heart. When Katherine Fok
and I joined the Administrative Service, as cadets in 1962, there was but one woman
in the entire Administrative Service. Today there are 275, or over one in five of the
directorate structure. Eight of our Principal Officials are women. Progress indeed.
I have presented this snapshot of how far we have come not to blow the trumpet for
government - although I have never shied away from claiming credit for us when it
has been due - but rather to make the straightforward point that for all of our faults,
real or imagined, the government must have done something right somewhere along
the way. I am the first to acknowledge that the creators of Hong Kong's success are its
people. I lead the applause for their great qualities - decent, tolerant, hard working, entrepreneurial, fast on their feet, highly-motivated, innovative, outward looking,
politically pragmatic, worldly-wise.
But I firmly believe that the Hong Kong administration has over the years provided
the physical and legislative infrastructure and the commonsense consensus on social
and political issues. We have governed with a light touch and have given our citizens
the flexibility and freedom to pursue their dreams and realize their ambitions for
themselves and their families.
In many ways, our people stand as a monument to the virtues of self-reliance. They
have never been afraid to embrace change and turn it to their advantage. They have
never been afraid to embrace risk, and challenge it.
They have been able to do this because history bequeathed to us the vital institutional
organs of a free society : the rule of law, an independent judiciary and a clean and
accountable administration run by men and women of good conscience. We have here
in Hong Kong a civil service that is built on the twin pillars of meritocracy and
political neutrality. In this age of globalisation, instant communication and overnight
change, this might sound like a quaintly old-fashioned thing to say. But these
institutions are so critical to our stability and prosperity that they must endure and
survive every fad or fashion or paradigm shift that comes our way.
I can still clearly recall a conversation I had with a senior member of the
administrative service not long after I had joined the government. I could not have
been much more than 23 years old, but his words have stayed with me since. Anson,
he said, you must always remember that you have joined a very special service which
has an excellent reputation built up by the people who have gone before you. Your
obligations as an administrative officer are simple. You must serve the people well
and you must serve them with honour. Remember that duty and honour must always
go together.
It's advice I give to young colleagues today.
This is not to suggest that civil servants are trapped in a time warp. The civil service is
ever changing, and reforms over the decades - and indeed over the last three years -
have seen major advances in efficiency, productivity, cultural attitudes, clientawareness,
commitment to higher standards of service delivery, intolerance of
corruption and incompetence and - most important of all - commitment to the values
of openness, transparency and accountability. All of this has been built on the
foundations of the meritocracy and political neutrality I have already described. These
values are the one constant, the starting point for all else.
But is this enough to meet the demands of the new millennium? Should we be moving
in different directions with changing times? What will provide the best value for the
governing systems of the 21st century which genuinely seek to be world class?
This last question was eloquently answered by the distinguished British historian and
political journalist, Professor Peter Hennessy, at a conference in Hong Kong entitled "
A Civil Service for Asia's World City" in January last year. Professor Hennessy's
answer was as follows :
- That in return for a degree of permanence, a largely career civil service recruited on
ability alone will in all circumstances facilitate evidence-driven government by
speaking truth unto power as its primary and overriding duty.
- And that allied to this is an ethic and a determination that public money will be
raised in an equitable and transparent way and used in a corruption free fashion
according to those purposes and only those purposes, approved by the legislative part
of government.
I am sure you recognize this system so succinctly described. I know it well. It is the
system that has been patiently and deliberately constructed over decades in the Hong
Kong civil service. It is a system that has seen us through thick and thin. It is a role
model I can readily sign up to.
And "speak truth unto power"? What does this mean? It means giving your best
advice to superiors based on the best information available and objective analysis
even when you know it may not be music to their ears. That is what I and my
colleagues have been trained and encouraged to do from the first day of our service.
This, in turn, builds trust between officials upwards, downwards and sideways.
This collegiate approach among officials whose relationship is built on trust rather
than personal or political whim also provides the protection for individuals within the
system. They know they can tender advice without fear or favour, safe in the
knowledge that even the most unwelcome advice would not lead to blighted career
prospects or unpleasant postings out of earshot of those who may not like what you
have to say.
In such a system, currying favour, political correctness, second-guessing and
shoe-shining will not get you very far. These are, however, the weaknesses inherent in
a more politicized system which, in my view, tends to encourage lower productivity
and less accountability but discourage "speaking truth unto power". In examining how
best to enhance the accountability of principal officials, the Chief Executive has made
it clear that "we will maintain the stability of the civil service structure, preserve the
principles of permanence and neutrality of the civil service, and maintain a highly
efficient, professional and clean government".
I place heavy emphasis on this matter because, like Professor Hennessy, I believe
passionately in the notion of a politically-neutral civil service recruited on the basis of
intellectual ability rather than political patronage. In other words, the idea of a
lifetime career built around the profession of government. Of course the civil service
can benefit by the infusion of outside talent. It has done so in the past and will no
doubt do so in the future. But the system must be bigger than any individual, whether
from within or without.
The values on which I place such store have been put to the test in recent years, both
before and since the transition. I believe the civil service has been more than up to the
test, and there are more tests to come. That is made certain by the Basic Law
timetable for the development of the democratic process. Our community has big
decisions to make in the next few years, in particular about the pace of reaching our
ultimate constitutional goal of universal suffrage for the Legislative Council and the
possible popular election of the Chief Executive.
I have made it plain in the past that I believe these issues raise such fundamental
questions about governance in the SAR that public debate on them cannot be delayed
for too much longer. I have not changed my mind about this. We must get the
decision right in 2007 and we stand the best chance of doing so if we have a long,
measured, structured and rational debate about where to go and how to get there.
In my view there is already too much artificial division in the community.
Name-calling and suspicion based on outdated and emotive political labels are no
substitute for reasoned discussion. Why do some people insist on using terms like
pro-China or anti-China? Or even pro-British? Surely we are all pro-Hong Kong. And
that means also that Hong Kong people are as much a part of the country as the other
1.3 billion Chinese on the Mainland, and proud of it.
The Administration is required by our constitution to be accountable to the Legislative
Council. Constructive engagement between the Administration and all members of
the legislature must be the right way forward. Despite our differences, together we
have achieved a great deal in the past. The legislature can take the moral high ground
by putting aside prejudices, point-scoring and partisan political ambitions and burying
their differences in a way that takes into account the wider interests of the community
as a whole. This is what the community expects of our legislators. I believe the
Government will continue to play its part in facilitating reasoned discussions within
the legislature by engaging its members in policy formulation at an early stage.
In my experience Hong Kong has moved forward on a belief in progress and
fair-minded consensus building, where decisions are arrived at by reason and
compromise. I believe that's what people still want. It is not surprising to me that they
ask whether the current constitutional arrangements are capable of delivering the
political goods.
All the more reason for the community to come together in a pragmatic way to decide,
in the spirit of give and take, on the constitutional arrangements that best suit our
unique circumstances. And those unique circumstances do, of course, include the
interest Beijing will naturally take in this matter. While any debate cannot ignore this
fact of life, it does not necessarily have to subdue or distort it.
I say this with some conviction because my own experience as Chief Secretary for
Administration since 1 July 1997 has assured me that on the whole, the Beijing
leadership is happy to let the SAR make its own way within our high degree of
autonomy. Even during the controversial CFA referral, Beijing's much preferred
option was for Hong Kong to settle the matter within the SAR. It's a pity that this was
not constitutionally possible.
And as President Jiang made clear to our Chief Executive recently in Beijing, the
leadership is content to leave it to the SAR to deal with the Falun Gong issue within
the autonomy we enjoy under One Country Two Systems. Given the sensitive nature
of this issue to Beijing, can we ask for more?
We must build upon the autonomy we have been granted under the Basic Law and
which we have so far exercised so freely and flexibly. I do not suggest that we in any
way ignore or stand out against the national interest. But the greatest national interest
at stake in Hong Kong is in the success we achieve in demonstrating to the world in
general - and our compatriots in Taiwan in particular - that One Country Two Systems
is not just a political slogan, but a real and living dynamic that works in practice.
Central to that is for Beijing and the SARG to show that a high degree of autonomy
means what it says, even occasionally at the expense of the SAR handling issues in a
way that is distinctly different from the approach in the Mainland. Frankly, when this
happens, it can only be to the credit of Beijing. In this regard, it seems to me that
doubts held before the transition have lingered too long among some observers both
locally and overseas who have not given the Chinese leadership sufficient credit for
the light touch they have shown in handling Hong Kong since the Handover.
We will certainly need all the room to manoeuvre we can muster to face the
challenges of the next few years. The fallout from the Asian financial crisis should
have shattered any complacency we may have had that the world owes us a living. On
the contrary, it demonstrated in stark terms that we need to reinforce the institutions
of freedom and the open market policies which have underpinned our past success.
We must not give rise to any real fear that the rule of law is under threat; we cannot
lower our guard against corruption - clean and accountable government means more
to us than ever; we cannot afford to tilt the level playing field for business; we must
do more to strengthen corporate governance; we must cut costs to improve our
competitiveness; deepen reforms in the economy; stay ahead of the wave of change in
technology; dramatically improve our quality of life; and do more to provide the
cultural infrastructure and community mindset that Hong Kong is, at the end of the
day, a great international city, and not just another city in China. Are these not the
ingredients that give us the edge over our rivals in the region?
None of us should wear rose coloured glasses. We don't need economists' forecasts to
tell us that we face stiff competition from Shanghai and other cities in the region over
the next few decades. I have already set out a few moments ago some of the things we
need to do, or continue to strengthen, if we are to meet those challenges. Hong Kong
has not baulked at challenges in the past and we must have the self-confidence to
meet them in the future.
That's what I meant when I spoke of mindset. I have become increasingly concerned
since the Handover that too many Hong Kong people have become more inward
looking. Understandably perhaps, they have looked towards the Mainland at the
expense of our traditional links with the rest of the world. Some are so concerned
about integration that they seem to forget that our strength lies in the separation which
is fundamental to the success of One Country Two Systems - not just for Hong Kong,
but for China as well. By contrast, I have watched with admiration as the Mainland
has increased its outreach to the international community.
Take use and standard of English as one small but important example. I have lost
count of the number of times I have been told by foreign businessmen and visitors
how much better they speak English in Shanghai or Beijing. How ironic it would be if
the reunification of Hong Kong with China marked the point in history where the
peoples of Hong Kong and the Mainland passed each other going in opposite
directions. Our ability to communicate in the international language of business was
one of the factors which always gave us an edge over our rivals. We blunt that edge at
our peril.
In my own lifetime I have seen Hong Kong absorb hundreds of thousands of refugees
and immigrants fleeing the upheavals of civil war in China, my own family among
them. I witnessed the bank run in 1965; the riots on our streets at the time of the
Cultural Revolution; the 1970s recession caused by the oil crisis; the run on the HK
dollar in 1983 which led to the link with the US dollar; the closure of the stock
exchange during the crash of 1987; Tiananmen; the Vietnamese Boat People crisis;
the various dramas of the 13-year transition; and the financial crisis which struck in
1997.
We have survived it all, and much more. And grown stronger and more politically
mature as a community in the process. Of course we face new challenges. We always
will. I have spent nearly 40 years in public life watching Hong Kong beating the odds.
Writing off Hong Kong is like waving the proverbial red rag to the bull. I have no
doubt that Hong Kong's indomitable spirit and optimism - supported and nurtured by
sensitive and sensible government - will write yet another great chapter in our success
story.
For myself, it is time to move on. I have had the good fortune to serve in a first class
civil service for nearly 39 years. The Service has given me much more in terms of
personal growth and fulfillment than I can ever hope to repay. My experiences and
encounters have helped shape my character and life in ways I could not have
imagined when I first joined the Service in 1962. In the words of Alfred Lord
Tennyson in his poem "Ulysses" -
"I am a part of all that I have met
Tho' much is taken, much abides
That which we are, we are
One equal temper of heroic hearts
Strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find and not to yield."
I consider it a singular honour to have been involved in the historical watershed of
1997 and to have led the Civil Service for almost equal periods before and after the
handover as the Chief Secretary - enough memories to last me a life-time. But my
fondest memory will always be of my colleagues in the service - their support,
friendship and team spirit. I leave them in Donald's very capable hands.
I have enjoyed almost every moment of my career. More importantly, I have at the
same time enjoyed every moment of my life outside of work - my real life, if you like.
Looking back over these past four decades, the two best decisions I ever made were
joining the civil service and marrying Archie. Archie has been a loving and supportive
husband and has so often provided the sanity and balance that I needed. We now have
the pleasure of seeing our children and their spouses raise their own children - that is
the circle of life.
To the people of Hong Kong, I would like to say a heartfelt thank you. Thank you for
your forbearance, support and affection and for the wonderful memories you've given
me. No public official could ask for more. I leave the Civil Service at peace with
myself and with the world and I look forward to the next quieter phase of my life
wherever it might lead me.
May God bless and keep Hong Kong and its Civil Service always.
香港前政務司司長陳方安生是公認的魅力型人物，她的招牌式四萬笑容，即使不是風靡全球，也能震懾整個亞太地區。她雖然已退休，但其風采和風度仍令人懷念。
陳方安生是相當傑出的英語演說家，其魅力也部分來源於此。她退休前在亞洲協會的午宴上，發表了一篇臨別演詞，仔細研究其手法，可讓我們得益不少。
在演說中，我們往往要借用前人的說話，以加強說服力，但引用的名言必須顯淺，不能太深僻，而且所選擇的人物也應該是家傳戶曉的重量級人物，如孫中山和邱吉爾，學者和歷史學家也可以。陳方安生引用了英國政治家兼前記者軒尼斯教授（Professor Peter Hennessy）的名言，可說相當得體︰
- That in return for a degree of
permanence, a largely career civil service recruited on ability alone will in all
circumstances facilitate evidence-driven government by speaking truth unto
power as its primary and overriding duty.
- And that allied to this is an ethic and a
determination that public money will be raised in an equitable and transparent
way and used in a corruption free fashion according to those purposes and only
those purposes, approved by the legislative part of government.
除了引用名言，陳方安生採用的另一個手法是，在爭議中先尋求共同點，如大家都希望香港好，在此基礎上，再提出自己的論據，可減少對方所感受到的敵意，也加強說服力。她這樣說︰I am sure you recognize this system so succinctly described. 我很確定你們都知道香港這一獨特的制度。
由於退休在即，陳方安生一無所懼，她在演說中表達了自己的立場，把一些香港俗語直譯成英語︰In such a system, currying favour, political correctness,
second-guessing and shoe-shining will not get you very far. 英語中沒有shoe-shining這個詞，是由廣東話的「擦鞋」直譯過來，但翻譯後卻令人感到非常傳神，其實英語中也有一個意思差不多的詞匯bootlicking（巴結、奉承），皮靴是軍官或大人物穿著的，要舔其皮靴自然要下跪，醜態畢現。shoe-shining與bootlicking類似，雖由中文翻譯過來，但英語世界的人也能心領神會。
演說家要在演說中傳遞一個強硬的訊息，也可以採用自問自答的形式。例如陳方安生說︰Why
do some people insist on using terms like pro-China or anti-China? Or even
pro-British? Surely we are all pro-Hong Kong. And that means also that Hong
Kong people are as much a part of the country as the other 1.3 billion Chinese
on the Mainland, and proud of it.
經常有人說陳太是一個親英的人物，她一直吞不下這口氣，終於在亞洲協會的演說中爆發出來，奮勇還擊，為什麼說我親中、親英、親法或親美，其實我是香港人，大家都應該親香港。這一自問自答的形式，在演講中非常有力，顯得演說者更客觀、冷靜、有理智和中立。
陳太這篇演說非常溫文得體，我們日後跟人爭論時，可借鑑其中一些很婉轉的詞匯。例如兩位女仕對女性的角色有所爭論，一位說女性應做女強人，取得經濟自主權，另一位則認為女性是男性的附屬品，只需要服侍男人。兩人爭論起來，前者可說︰I am sure you agree , as a woman, we shall fight for dignity and
respect in a male-dominating world. 用I am sure可以更加服眾。
又如兩人對香港的政治有不同見解，爭持不下，如果其中一人說︰I am sure as
Hong Kong citizens, we both wish Hong Kong success. 大家都是香港人，我們都希望香港好，找出這個共同點，相信可以化戾氣為祥和。
