The long-awaited proposal for improving governance at the district level has finally been released. There is no denying that reforming district councils (DCs) is an important step toward achieving the goal of “from governance to prosperity” in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, following the improvement of the electoral system and the implementation of the “patriots administering Hong Kong” principle.
I fully agree with the three guiding principles: National security must be the topmost priority and the “one country, two systems” principle must be fully and faithfully implemented; the principle of “patriots administering Hong Kong” must be fully implemented; and executive-led governance must be manifested. After experiencing the 2019 anti-extradition law turmoil, it is imperative to reform DCs. Reform will prevent the district-level governance structure from again becoming a political battlefield that harms national security, promotes anti-China sentiment, advocates for “Hong Kong independence”, and ignores people’s livelihood issues.
Some people criticize the proposed DC reform as a “step backward that will turn DCs into subordinate agencies of the government”. The truth is, the real “step backward” began with the sixth-term DCs in 2020. Out of 479 seats, over 300 were left vacant, and the directly elected councilors failed to fulfill their duties. Some refused to take oaths and resigned, while others were disqualified. In some districts, meetings could not be held, resulting in a halt in services to residents and seriously affecting the functioning of DCs.
Clearly, the critics oppose the reform and are intentionally distorting the role of DCs, refusing to accept Articles 97 and 98 of the Basic Law. From beginning to end, DCs are intended to be nonpolitical regional organizations assisting the HKSAR government on district management and other local matters, or are responsible for providing cultural, recreational, environmental and health services. DCs have never enjoyed an independent status from the government, nor have they had any substantive political power beyond consultation and services provision.
The DC reform is aimed at avoiding a “step backward” in governance at the district level, and not simply equating democracy with elections, as it was understood in the past. Real democracy is not a mere decoration or display but is meant to be used to solve social problems. Imagine, even if all district councilors were elected, if they neglected their duties, made many verbal promises but took few actions, failed to communicate residents’ opinions to the government and serve the public, then would this really reflect democracy? Would this truly achieve people’s democratic participation?
I have confidence that the comprehensive proposal for improving district governance put forward by the HKSAR government can break away from chaos, enhance governance efficiency, and embody the concept of putting people first. And I hope that the proposal can achieve five goals — to target and plan to address the difficult district governance issues; to achieve modernization of governance at district level; to promote the importance of researching on district governance matters; to establish a political talent pool; and to enhance youth participation.
First, the ultimate goal of district governance is to address district issues and seek the well-being of residents. After strengthening the district governance structure, the Steering Committee on District Governance to be chaired by the chief secretary for administration will develop five-year strategic development goals and plans for all 18 local districts in Hong Kong to handle district governance issues from a macro perspective. The District Matters Co-ordination Task Force chaired by the deputy chief secretary for administration will then command and coordinate relevant policy bureaus and departments to formulate corresponding district governance policies and measures according to the strategic development goals and plans of each district. The district officers will formulate specific work plans in accordance with the top-level design of the direction, policy and measures, absorb diverse opinions through district consultations and district service structures, enhance public participation, and ensure that local services are provided. The subject of district governance is diverse, including the government, DCs, three types of committees (Area Committee, District Fire Safety Committee and District Fight Crime Committee), Care Teams, etc, and not just relying on one force. Governance should be both top-down and bottom-up. The governance process emphasizes consultation and participation, performance monitoring and governance based on rule of law, rather than simple command-and-control administrative control.
In addition, district governance needs to rely on big data, digital technology, etc, to achieve modernization of district governance. It’s recommended that whether in government departments or in DCs, three types of committees and Care Teams, we should fully utilize the “microscope”, “telescope” and “compass” functions of big data, adhere to problem-oriented, demand-oriented and application-oriented principles, and promote the transformation of district governance from “experience-based decision-making” to “data-based decision-making”. Performance management of district councilors, Care Team volunteers and resource management, citizen case follow-ups, and district news releases can all be realized through electronic platforms.
District governance and research are closely related. Only by promoting the trend of research, grasping the real situation, and seeking advice from both residents and practical experience can we have a better chance of effectively resolving people’s livelihood issues. It’s recommended that more individuals with policy research backgrounds should join DCs. At the same time, the government should hold courses in research methods for district councilors to help them improve their basic research skills. District councilors must go deep into the community, get a true understanding of the actual situation of residents, grasp the pain points and difficulties in community development, and submit practical and feasible solutions to the government.
As for the proposed reformed DCs, councilors will be composed of appointed, District Committee Constituency (DCC), District Council Geographical Constituency (DCGC), and ex officio members. The number of appointed, DCC, and DCGC members will be approximately 40 percent (179 appointed), 40 percent (176 DCC), and 20 percent (88 DCGC), plus 27 ex officio members. In the past, district councilors had a single background, and even if they could grasp the situation of the district and residents, they might not have enough professional knowledge, experience and resources to effectively respond to complex and diverse social issues. The new composition plan adopts direct elections, indirect elections and appointments, which is conducive to DCs absorbing different professionals, experienced and capable individuals to participate in district administration, accelerating the cultivation of political talent, and establishing a political talent pool. It’s expected that future DCs will be diverse. For example, district councilors with a background in sports will work with those with a background in culture and arts to promote sports and cultural integration education. District councilors with a background in technology will work with those with a background in elderly care to promote age-friendly technology. Councilors with different backgrounds can set up offices or service centers together to inject vitality into the community and create unlimited possibilities.
When young people thrive, Hong Kong thrives. It’s recommended that the government continue to increase the proportion of young people aged 35 or below joining the district consultation and district service structures to enhance their sense of participation. For example, in the future, DCs and the three types of committees can absorb more young people from the District Youth Community Building Committee, District Youth Development and Civic Education Committee, Member Self-recommendation Scheme for Youth, and Care Teams to let young people display their talent on different district platforms and contribute to society.
Overall, I am full of expectations for the improvement of district governance and the reform of DCs. The proposed plan has many benefits, not only conducive to safeguarding national security, implementing “patriots administering Hong Kong” and manifesting executive-led governance but also helpful in cultivating politically diverse talent, rallying more young people, promoting research, modernizing governance, resolving deep-seated conflicts in the district, and opening new horizons for district governance.
The author is a board member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.