Our Budget Crisis

Recently there is a lot of discussion about the way our annual budget and provsional mini-budget should be passed. As in all matters of public policy, there is always room for argument from both sides. It could be said that the Government could have been a little more generous in returning part of what it has accumulated as a result of the unexpected boom in the property market and in the stock market following, as an indirect result, closely but inevitbaly upon the decision of the US Government in running its greenback (to which the Hong Kong  dollar is pegged) printing presses at break neck speed. In fact our Financial Secretary has proposed to do so. The focus of the objection from all political parties appear to be how the $6,000.00 is to be distributed: whether it be injected into the Mandatory Provident Fund or directly. The Financial Secretary said that he was afraid that if $24 billion were injected immediately into the economy, that may further fuel our already rapidly rising inflation. On the other hand, the political parties, obviously in their own selfish political interest, chiming in with the typically short sighted views of the working and and lower middle classes.want the money to be distributed immediately. Some scholars have questioned whether or not the immediate return of $6,000 may in fact have as significant an effect on our rate of inflation as our Financial Secretary thinks on the ground that it is questionable if every one receiving $6,000 will immediately spend it in the purchase of goods and even if they were to do so, its effect on our economy may be less then 0.0025%, if I did not mishear it on the radio.  I am not an economist. I have no idea whether the scholars are right or the Financial Secretary's fears are justified. What is surprising is that in the space of less than a week, the Financial Secretary has changed his mind and decided that after all, the $6,000 can be released immediately. One wonders if work has been done to assess the impact of that decision on the economy before it was made and if it has, how serious it could have been. If one may judge from the alacrity with which the volte-face had been made, it could not have been very serious.

It is very likely that the quick turn around in the position of the Financial Secretary may have been motivated not by purely financial and budgetary considerations but by purely political considerations. The democratic,commerical, populists and anarchist forces as well as the pro-PRC forces are unanimous in opposing that particular provision and it is rumored that Beijing too is also concerned about the political impact of the gathering forces of opposition against the Financial Secretary's initial refusal to budge from his original position. If the budget were not passed, a constitutional and political crisis, out of all proportions to the importance of the originally purely financial and economic factors, will be precipitated. In the face of such massive political pressures, all considerations of "face", of fears of inflation, justified or not, had to be swept aside.

On Sunday, there will be protests by various groups now jumping on to the band wagon: recent immigrants from the PRC excluded from the $6,000 windfall, young people unable to purchase a home, those pressing for more public housing, and the rebooting of the now suspended Home Purchase Scheme and socially or economically disadvantaged groups pressing for money for their own pet projects. Having now heard that the Financial Secretary will distribute $6,000 immediately, the Democratic Party quickly switched its tactics and its objections. It now claims that it will oppose the budget on that ground that it makes no long term provision to lessen the increasing rift between the rich and the poor and that there are no structural changes to alter the overwhelming balance of the Hong Kong economy in favour of big corporations against people suriviving with great difficulties at the grassroot level. There are even talks of a "vote of no confidence" in the Financial Secretary which if successful will force him to step down from his post. Even if it were not successful, the Financial Secretary will have to hear many things said in our Legislative Assembly which he would much rather not hear. 

It seems to me that whilst there may well be serious interests to be advanced, protected and defended by various individuals and groups, nowadays, many feel that they really cannot do so unless they have exposure to the media. There is little they would not do to get a sound bite or a brief appearance on the TV screen. For some, media exposure may have become an affirmation of their value not only as a political leader and political animal but even more fundamentally, as an affirmation of them as a human being. It seems that unless your face appears on the TV screen or in some corners of some newspapers or magazine, you do not exist. Shakespeare said long ago, "All life's a stage." We are all role playing, whether you be the Financial Secretary, the leader or mere supporter of a political party or some non-governmental organizations. Modern society has become such that to be effective as such a role player, the support of the media has become almost absolutley indispensable. I just can't help but wonder whether, if we had less newspapers, less freely distributed dailies, less radios, less television paid or unpaid, less internet platforms, we would still have as many staged "conflicts" or "demonstrations" or political "shows" or gestures as we do.  What do they "demonstrate" if not the tragic farce of the folly, the selfishness, the vanity, shortsightedness of man and the complete lack of any real "guiding principles" in their beliefs and conduct?