Hong Kong has wandered into several cul-de-sacs simultaneously. In so many areas we seem to have reached a point where we cannot make progress because of constitutional, institutional or intellectual sclerosis.
The current debate over the revision of our air quality objectives is a case in point. The revised objectives will set new benchmarks and drive policy for cleaning up our polluted air, and the public has very quickly grasped the essentials: air pollution, as it affects the man in the street, is primarily generated by traffic; buses account for 40 per cent of roadside emissions, so buses are a priority.
Reducing bus emissions through rationalisation of bus routes has limits. It is opposed by district councils, with good reason, because it reduces the convenience of public transport for the vast majority of citizens who use it. If further rationalisation of routes is not possible, then the only other solution lies in replacing the bus fleet with less polluting vehicles. This would require substantial capital investment and subsidies.
It is said that this would amount to 'nationalisation' of the bus fleet (though not of the bus operators). It is interesting that this mirrors the proposal that government should subsidise our rail network by financing and owning the track and rolling stock, which is then leased to the MTR Corporation and KCRC.
Mere mention of the word 'subsidy' makes officials recoil in horror. 'Nationalisation' is looked upon as anathema and as fatally undermining Hong Kong's credibility as a free-market economy in the eyes of the world. Spending any of our accumulated billions 'will affect Hong Kong's credit rating'. These knee-jerk responses have to be challenged.
Once in a while, a city needs to reinvent itself and its leaders must look beyond the horizon. In the 1950s, the government launched the world's most ambitious public housing programme, a vast social welfare project, responding to a clear public need: free market ideals were set aside, no one worried about our rating, and Hong Kong's reputation for fiscal responsibility was not unduly affected.