HK Observer | Forget transparency; silence is golden

Robert Carroll

The Legislative Council Finance committee looks set to approve the additional funding needed for the world’s most expensive high-speed rail without waiting for the council’s public works subcommittee’s approval, required by the assembly’s rules. This is a rare departure from the norm and only the third time this has happened since 1997. The circumvention cannot be dismissed as a matter of efficiency, or necessary expediting, because it undermines the well-established principle of legislative oversight.
If the transport department and other officials had answered queries about the reasons for the extra costs – including the equally sensitive issue of mainland police control at the Tsim Sha Tsui terminus – it could be argued that legislators were being unreasonable; however, that was not the case. Furthermore the Finance committee chairman, while admitting that the transport department was at fault for not offering explanations, threw up his hands saying: “What can we do? More time cannot be lost!” Furthermore he then broke his supposed neutrality by telling committee members to vote yes.
So two core principles have been broken for the sake of forcing through an issue that is yet to be properly vetted. What a slippery slope we may be going down here. Given the project was based on dubious concepts and has sensitive, unresolved border control issues; it’s not surprising that full disclosure has not been achieved.
We have an unnecessarily expensive railway foisted on us for political and symbolic reasons –
to show that we are joined to the mainland high-speed rail network. Why did the government not do a thorough assessment of the realities and costs of the project?
It’s hard to ignore the fact that you cannot run a high-speed rail at high speed over the few kilometers between here and the border; or until the next stop in Guangdong.  Why choose a high-
speed train when it can’t run at high speed? Secondly, the link currently under consideration in Guangdong is not a direct link at all but would mean changing stations and trains some kilometers apart. So let’s spell that out: we have a high-
speed rail to link to the mainland bullet trains which will neither be high speed nor a direct link, and again, will be the most expensive in the world (per kilometer).
Infrastructure projects regularly exceed original budgets, but it’s common knowledge that construction is the most corrupt industry worldwide. Surely there must be very close scrutiny to ensure money is well spent and sufficient transparency to probe kickbacks. Despite these red flags, the government, the MTR and Finance Committee chairman see no reason to give the legislators the answers they are asking for and insist on a LegCo green light for funding.
Given obstructionism in the chamber – a result of being designed to be toothless except in funding matters and major constitutional changes; a poor relationship with the chief executive who does not consult them; as well as populist politics – the government understandably feels frustrated and cynical about the opposition lawmakers’ good will. Hence the strong-arm tactics. But wouldn’t it be better to allow the subcommittee to exercise its proper function? Subsequently if seen to obstruct for obstruction’s sake, then at least stakeholders, including the public, can better judge whether a highly unique action is needed or not.
A hot issue is whether mainland police will be stationed at Tsim Sha Tsui terminus to control immigration.  Many lawmakers on the pan-democrat side say the move would infringe on the SAR’s legal autonomy.
The long term bottom line here, I suspect, is that those involved in the initial agreement were unwilling to risk upsetting mainland leaders by not giving an unequivocal and emphatic yes to the project despite its obvious weaknesses.  MTR and transport department officials are equally reluctant to have their decisions and actions looked at closely in case they are found to be at fault.
It is therefore in the best interests of all involved to receive less scrutiny over the issue. Forget transparency; silence is golden.