Environme It's time to impose laws to help clear the air 9-2-2010 Waste Management
nt
Incineration should no longer be a dirty
word
Time for tougher action on polluting trucks 17-2-2010 air pollution control on the road
It's time to get dirty vehicles off our roads 12-3-2010 policy to get rid of dirty vehicles
World Political tigers are an endangered species
Politics
A promise impossible to deliver is no 'right'
Obama ticks the right boxes on Asia 20-1-2010 Obama took office a year
We need Obama and we need to work 29-1-2010 Why Obama should be supported
together
World Rein in the banks and end fat-cat bonuses 21-1-2010 Bankers getting bonuses
News
US bankers don't seem to have any shame 9-2-2010 Bankers getting bonuses
Recent efforts to discredit the IPCC should 10-2-2010 Environmentalists striking back
not detract from its vital work on the critics on disreputable report
science of climate change
We must not tolerate these rich tax cheats 15-3-2010 Stopping rich tax cheats
HK Politics Give new free-to-air broadcasters a chance TV Broadcasting
Bubbles burst, faith tested, answers wanting 17-2-2010 air quality control
A vote that is about far more than just a rail 8-1-2010 High-Speed Rail Line
line
Time to put an end to corporate voting 11-1-2010 Functional Constituencies
We need far more than this 'referendum' 13-1-2010 Pro-democracy lawmakers
resignation plan
Laudable attempt to reach young audience 14-1-2010 Hong Kong
Judicial independence of vital importance 15-1-2010 Judicial Independence
The causes and methods may be new but, 15-1-2010 Post-1980s activists
in essence, the 'post-1980s' activists aren't
very different from their predecessors -
young, angry and with a point to make
Listen to more voices, and act on what they 19-1-2010 Hong Kong Governance
say
Obsessed with form over substance, the 23-1-2010 Government’s unwillingness to listen
government champions public
consultations. Yet, the process is a farce
Our city needs these by-elections to 26-1-2010 By-election run by pro-democracy
proceed
Root of the problem 29-1-2010 Functional Constituency
A lack of common sense on all sides means 29-1-2010 By-election
no winners will emerge from the by-
elections fiasco
Putting a brave face on a dysfunctional 8-2-2010 Interview with Donald Tsang
system
Wen elaborates on 'deep-rooted conflicts' 15-3-2010
ad hoc HK toy sellers bemoan loss of best spots at 13-1-2010 TDC News
fair
Better system wanted over sex offenders 25-1-2010 De-registration of teachers who
committed sexual offences
Safety of our homes and offices must be 2-2-2010 Old building collapsed
assured
Caution vital when tweaking land supply 25-2-2010 Budget 2010
Narcotics We must take a new route on drug-driving 28-1-2010 Drug-driving
Leisure Eviction strengthens dog owners' hand 20-1-2010
Skater's gold tarnished by petty posturing 11-3-2010
Property Steps to protect flat buyers are welcome 16-4-2010 Measures in maintaining honest
Prices property selling
China The need to avoid being misunderstood
Rosanna Wong
Ever since the New Year's Day protests, the media has been full of analysis and reports on the so-
called "post-1980s" generation. Commentators, the community at large and even government officials
have attempted to postulate theories on why this particular group of young people, ranging in age from
20 to 29, has assumed such a public and visible form of expression. While some of these explanations
have focused on disillusionment and frustration, others have highlighted a positive emergence of
youthful social and civic awareness.
Similarly, while some have characterised the entire generation as "lost", "angry" and "radical", others
are wary that the young people who charged the central government's liaison office and who staged
the impassioned demonstration against the express rail link are just a minority who are not
representative of the entire generation of 20-somethings.
I believe the truth lies somewhere in between.
This is a generation that has grown up in the midst of Hong Kong's economic boom and affluence.
They are highly educated and are far more knowledgeable and informed thanks to the internet and
access to satellite and cable media. They are creative, entrepreneurial and highly motivated to
succeed.
They are young people with an international perspective who are increasingly in tune with global
concerns such as the environment, human rights, and social and political reforms.
They are also a generation, "post-material" as it were, who have been brought up to think not only
about their community but, more importantly, about their own role and civic responsibility within the
community.
As such, they are much more willing to volunteer than even the generation before them. And they
have no hesitation in getting involved with causes ranging from heritage conservation to climate
change and the widening rich-poor divide, as well as fair-trade issues. They are a generation who
wish to see justice and rights manifested and are, in some instances, prepared to raise their voices.
The young people who have taken to the streets over the past few weeks are treading a well-worn
path, using public protest to articulate their frustration, discontent, disillusionment and dissatisfaction,
and as a means of attracting attention to themselves and their concerns.
While they may not represent their entire age group, they, like youth before in Hong Kong and abroad,
just want to be heard. We in the community must pay attention to this. We must do so without getting
distracted by the minutiae of the whys and wherefores of their general sentiment.
The fact is that this post-1980s generation in Hong Kong lacks a platform to be taken seriously. They
do not have many avenues for participation in community affairs. Young people, it can be argued, feel
excluded - or at least actively discouraged - from assuming their civic right to fully engage in policy
debate, public and development issues, and reforms. No doubt this feeling of exclusion, of not being
taken seriously, has only encouraged some to take to demonstrating and protesting.
I am sure that I am not the only voice calling for the widening of avenues for young people to publicly
participate in a meaningful way. I know that legislators, academics and other agency heads have all
called on the government to listen more openly to young people.
I applaud this and agree that the different debates and issues facing Hong Kong today need to include
young people's perspective. After all, it is their future we are talking about.
However, I also feel that just listening to young people is not enough. Simply having a youth
representative on the Commission on Youth is not enough. These are just the first steps.
I believe that the government should harness the willingness of young people to get involved by
including them in the wider scheme of consultative and advisory bodies. This would then allow them to
express their opinions, while also participating in public debates and implementing decisions.
By providing young people with a chance to be part of a process - whether in terms of policy
formulation or discussions on issues of public concern such as the high-speed rail link or urban
renewal schemes - we will create a generation with a sense of ownership and pride in Hong Kong's
future development.
Young people are bound to have a point of view that may not always be in line with those in authority.
But this should not be seen as a challenge. Instead, it should be welcomed as an opportunity to widen
perspectives to ensure greater community participation and support.
To involve young people in the public process, by giving them a chance, the government must also
strengthen its own belief that this younger generation can make a worthwhile and genuine
contribution. Only then, I believe, will value be added to how we as a community move forward.
At the moment, the entire issue of protests and young people is extremely emotive. But I think we
should use this opportunity to grasp the energy, creativity and talent of this "post-1980s" generation -
along with other young people - to increase public involvement.
This really is an opening that has the potential for long-term leadership building, which in turn will help
create a mature populace and a sustainable future.
We can all be armchair analysts of youth discontent. Or, we can be the catalysts for change by giving
them a chance for actual engagement and participation. The choice is ours.
Dr Rosanna Wong is executive director of the Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups
Striking a balance between protection of children and the rights of sex offenders who have paid their
debt to society can be a difficult task. Yet Hong Kong's current system provides hardly any safeguards
to shield children from sexual predators in child-related occupations. The Law Reform Commission
makes the point that societies which have introduced comprehensive defensive mechanisms would
find this unthinkable. It is hard to argue with the commission's view that Hong Kong children - and their
parents - are entitled to at least a minimum level of protection.
This is what the commission has set out to achieve in proposals for interim safeguards that can be
introduced quickly. They follow concerns raised in the courts and the wider community about cases
involving sex offences against children by people appointed to positions of trust who had previous
convictions for similar crimes. The government and the chief justice asked the commission to consider
the need for a sex offenders' register to help screen applicants for jobs that involve working with
children.
The commission's response, which follows a public consultation, may seem tame compared with the
approach adopted in some overseas jurisdictions. However, it does address a huge gap in safeguards
for our children. At present, the law allows criminal record checks - and refusal of employment or
registration in the event of a previous conviction - only for registered school managers and teachers,
social workers and childcare workers.
That leaves a wide range of people who have close contact with children in their work who cannot be
checked, and whose word that they have no criminal record must be taken on trust. They include, for
example, laboratory and computer technicians, school support staff, tutors, music teachers, sports
coaches, staff in children's wards, and volunteer workers at youth centres and religious and other
organisations. Recent disturbing cases of sexual abuse by people in positions of trust include a private
music teacher, a tutorial school teacher and a school technician, all with previous offences.
The commission proposes that employers should be able to have checks made on these people for
convictions for a specified list of sexual offences. But, to safeguard the human rights and privacy of
applicants and their families, they must be initiated by the prospective employee, who must consent to
results being disclosed. This measure could be introduced quickly without the need for legislation. It
represents a measure of protection for the community where there is presently none. The government
should consider adopting it swiftly, while a commission sub-committee considers the need for a law to
force disclosure of sexual offences records.
Some respondents to the consultation argued that only mandatory checks could ensure the safety of
children, otherwise employers would be tempted by convenience to dispense with checks. Their
concerns should not be dismissed. A mandatory scheme would require legislation. But lawmakers
would be more likely to give it calm and rational consideration with experience of the voluntary
approach. The commission is right to reject a public register of sex offenders along the lines of those
found in some American states. Experience elsewhere has shown that public disclosure could
jeopardise their rights. Striking the right balance between rehabilitation and preventing reoffending is a
delicate issue with paedophiles. The proposals make a start on finding it, and equally importantly, give
our children more protection.
Striking back
Recent efforts to discredit the IPCC should not detract from its vital work on the science of
climate change
Achim Steiner
Updated on Feb 10, 2010
The science of climate change has been on the defensive in recent weeks, owing to an error that
dramatically overstated the rate at which the Himalayan glaciers could disappear. Some in the media,
and those who are sceptical about climate change, are having a field day, parsing every comma and
cough in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2007 assessment.
Some strident voices are even dismissing climate change as a hoax on a par with the Y2K computer
bug. As a result, the public has become increasingly bewildered as the unremitting questioning of the
IPCC and its chairman assumes almost witch-hunting proportions in some quarters.
The time has really come for a reality check. It is quite right to pinpoint errors, make corrections, and
check and recheck sources for accuracy and credibility. It is also right that the IPCC has
acknowledged the need for ever more stringent and transparent quality-control procedures to
minimise any such risks in future reports. But let us also put aside the myth that the science of climate
change is holed below the water line and is sinking fast on a sea of falsehoods.
Over the course of 22 years, the IPCC has drawn upon the expertise of thousands of the best
scientific minds, nominated by their own governments, to make sense of the complexity of unfolding
environmental events and their potential impacts on economies and societies. The panel has striven
to deliver the "perfect" product in terms of its mandate, scientific rigour, peer review and openness,
and has brought forward the knowledge - but also the knowledge gaps - in terms of our understanding
of global warming.
Its 2007 report represents the best possible risk assessment available, notwithstanding an error - or,
more precisely, a typographical error - in its statement of Himalayan glacial melt rates.
One notion promulgated in recent weeks is that the IPCC is sensationalist: this is perhaps the most
astonishing, if not risible, claim of all. Indeed, the panel has more often been criticised for being far too
conservative in its projections of, for example, the likely sea-level rise in the 21st century. Indeed,
caution rather than sensation has been the panel's watchword throughout its existence.
In its first assessment, in 1990, the IPCC commented that observed temperature increases were "
broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural
climate variability". The second assessment, in 1995, said: "Results indicate that the observed trend in
global mean temperature over the past 100 years is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin."
In 2001, its third assessment reported: "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming
observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
By 2007, the consensus had reached "very high confidence" - at least a 90 per cent chance of being
correct - in scientists' understanding of how human activities are causing the world to become warmer.
This does not sound like a partial or proselytising body, but one that has striven to assemble, order
and make sense of a rapidly evolving scientific puzzle for which new pieces emerge almost daily while
others remain to be found.
So perhaps the real issue that is being overlooked is this: confronted by the growing realisation that
humanity has become a significant driver of environmental changes to our planet, the IPCC, since its
inception, has been in a race against time.
The overwhelming evidence now indicates that greenhouse-gas emissions need to peak within the
next decade if we are to have any reasonable chance of keeping the global rise in temperature down
to manageable levels. Any delay may generate environmental and economic risks of a magnitude that
proves impossible to handle.
The fact is that the world would have to make a transition to a low-carbon, resource-efficient future
even if there were no climate change. With the world's human population set to rise from 6 billion to 9
billion in the next half a century, we need to improve management of our atmosphere, air, lands, soils
and oceans anyway.
Rather than undermine the IPCC's work, we should renew and redouble our efforts to support its
mammoth task in assembling the science and knowledge for its fifth assessment in 2014. What is
needed is an urgent international response to the multiple challenges of energy security, air pollution,
natural-resource management and climate change.
The IPCC is as fallible as the human beings that comprise it. But it remains without doubt the best and
most solid foundation we have for a community of more than 190 nations to make these most critical
current and future global choices.
Achim Steiner is executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, which co-
hosts the IPCC
Soft-power play
Updated on Feb 24, 2010
Despite a loudly trumpeted "diplomatic truce" under which neither Taiwan nor the mainland will try to
raid each other's diplomatic allies, especially through the use of chequebook diplomacy, neither side
has given up the contest for influence among ordinary people around the world - something that is
often called soft power.
Taiwan's president, Ma Ying-jeou, made this clear when he recently disclosed that Taipei will establish
a string of academies around the world to promote Chinese language and culture.
In this, mainland China has a big head start. Ever since the first Confucius Institute was opened in
Seoul in 2004, Beijing has used them to spread Chinese language and culture and, today, more than
280 have been established in 88 countries and regions.
In fact, since the Chinese government provides funding and resources, they are much sought after by
overseas universities.
The idea of setting up "Taiwan Academies" - exactly what they will be called is not yet clear - around
the world was floated by Ma when he was a presidential candidate. At the time, he also proposed
setting up a US$150 million fund to finance an award that will be comparable to a Nobel Prize in
literature for Chinese people. This, too, is worth pursuing. It is good that Taiwan is planning to
strengthen its position and vie for influence in the dissemination of Chinese language and culture.
After all, in earlier years, especially during the Cultural Revolution - when the mainland was
denouncing Confucius and Red Guards were destroying precious relics - Taiwan positioned itself as
the guardian of Chinese culture.
But, in recent years, Beijing has been depicting itself as the custodian of Chinese culture and has
used such Confucian ideas as "harmony" to bolster support for the Communist Party.
However, the recent box-office failure of the movie Confucius, offered by the mainland to offset the
Hollywood blockbuster Avatar, shows that the Chinese public at large is not necessarily attracted to
propaganda dressed up as history and culture.
While Taipei continued to operate cultural centres and Chinese-language schools in various countries,
it has lacked the momentum of Beijing's Confucius Institutes. The setting up of Taiwan Academies,
beginning this year in Los Angeles and Houston, is definitely a step in the right direction.
Taipei's idea is to have the cabinet-level Council for Cultural Affairs spearhead this project, in
conjunction with the Overseas Compatriots Affairs Commission. The inclusion of the latter body shows
that the effort is at least in part directed at ethnic Chinese around the world.
The Taiwanese government's ties with overseas Chinese communities go back more than a century,
having been forged by Dr Sun Yat-sen when he was a revolutionary. He solicited funds and recruited
supporters from Chinese in the United States, Japan, Hong Kong and elsewhere.
In recent years, however, Taiwan's Chen Shui-bian government, in attempting to distance itself from
Beijing, deliberately cut itself off from overseas Chinese communities. In fact, the commission itself
was renamed by replacing the word "Chinese" with the word "compatriots".
Taiwan's return to the contest for cultural influence is likely to be welcomed. For one thing, overseas
institutions will have another potential source of funding to turn to. Students unable to study at a
Confucius Institute may have a second chance by applying for a scholarship at a Taiwan Academy.
Moreover, Taiwan will have a chance to offer the world a window into Chinese culture. Taiwan should
also promote its own contemporary culture, which has its own intrinsic value.
But, most importantly, Taiwan will be in a position to promote traditional Chinese culture, and to do so
without viewing it through the eyes of the Chinese Communist Party. Of course, the Kuomintang, too,
should not politicise Chinese culture to serve its own ends. Chinese culture is part of the world's
heritage and should not be monopolised by any political party as its own asset.
Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator. frank.ching@scmp.com
Consuming passion
China's growth depends on boosting household income and persuading people to spend more
Anoop Singh
Updated on Mar 15, 2010
China has weathered the Great Recession well. The world now waits to see if last year's impressive
growth in domestic demand can be sustained, and if China can, in the words of Premier Wen Jiabao,
"give full play to the leading role of ... consumer demand in driving economic growth".
The mainland consumer has been held back for too long, and now must be put front and centre in
China's growth model. Beijing is already moving ahead on multiple fronts to attain this goal, as was
clear from announcements at last week's National People's Congress.
Of the many factors that have decreased the share of consumption in China's economy, declining
household disposable income has been central. That, in turn, has reflected the fall in labour income as
a share of the economy, owing in part to structural changes that have moved workers out of
agriculture - where the labour share of income is high - and into manufacturing, where capital
commands a larger share of income.
While labour income drops, government-imposed ceilings on bank deposits - the primary savings
vehicle for most households - have held down household capital income. That has been magnified by
rising household savings rates, driven by insufficient insurance for health care and old age, the high
cost of education, growing income inequality and demographic trends.
So what is the right course of action? I recently attended a workshop organised by the International
Monetary Fund in Beijing that brought together Chinese officials, academics, international analysts
and IMF staff to discuss how best to catalyse household consumption in mainland China. Participants
urged changes in multiple areas, including improving the system of taxation and social insurance,
further developing housing and the service economy, and eliminating a range of relative price
distortions.
One key idea was to lighten the tax burden on labour. Taking into account the personal income tax
and various social contributions, the taxation of labour income is too high in mainland China. To be
sure, taxes are needed to finance social spending, but revenue sources other than taxes on labour
income could do the job. China could usefully explore shifting part of the burden from labour towards
property, capital gains and inheritance taxes. Larger dividends paid to the budget from the highly
profitable state enterprise sector could also provide an alternative source of funds.
Another route to improve consumption could be to offer households greater support . The global crisis
has prompted Beijing to push ahead with its social reform programme. Important improvements have
been made over the past year to expand the pension system's coverage, move towards universal
health care and provide public funding for basic education. But more can be done to speed up the
existing reform package, find ways to develop full coverage for catastrophic health events and develop
government-backed financing of tertiary education.
Fixing the housing market could also help spur consumption. Distortions in the property market are a
powerful motivation for saving, particularly among young people who struggle to meet the high down
payment needed to buy a first home. Part of the high cost of housing arises from an underdeveloped
financial system, which makes housing one of the few alternatives to bank deposits as a store of
value.
Taxes on property or capital gains could help curb the demand for housing as an investment vehicle.
In addition, a comprehensive nationwide housing policy is urgently needed to ensure that housing
remains affordable, particularly for those on limited incomes.
Related to this is the need for improvements in the overall financial system. By developing markets for
private pensions, commercial health insurance and annuities, China could complement expanded
government provision of social insurance and weaken the incentives that underlie high, precautionary
saving.
Similarly, broadening the range of available savings instruments could raise household disposable
income and increase consumption. A more developed financial system would provide alternatives to
property as a store of value, thereby making home ownership more accessible. These issues will be
examined carefully during the course of this year as Beijing and the IMF collaborate on a financial
sector assessment programme for China.
Fostering a dynamic service economy, too, will certainly boost consumption. In the coming years, a
more fully fledged service economy will be an essential ingredient to increase employment and lessen
China's reliance on manufacturing.
But spurring faster growth in services is a complex undertaking. Entry barriers, particularly in service
industries dominated by state-owned oligopolies, need to be lowered. Distortions in key prices that
favour capital-intensive manufacturing need to be removed by raising the cost of land, energy, water
and capital. Changing the tax structure will also help. Industry is now the primary source of tax
revenue for the government, particularly at the local level, giving the state too little incentive to foster a
service economy.
Finally, a stronger yuan ought to be an integral part of the package of reforms to boost consumption. A
stronger currency would increase household income. It would also create a powerful incentive for
companies to expand into the service economy, providing more jobs and more choices for mainland
consumers.
If consumption can be successfully and sustainably boosted, I believe that China's development will
enter a new era, one in which economic growth continues at a rapid pace, generates higher
employment, increases social welfare, places less demand on natural resources and, ultimately, is of
a much higher quality - thereby underpinning more balanced global growth.
Anoop Singh is director of the IMF's Asia and Pacific Department. Copyright: Project Syndicate
Still others dismiss the change in Chinese exchange-rate policy as beside the point. For them, the
Chinese current-account surplus and its mirror image, the US current-account deficit, are the central
problem. They argue that current-account balances reflect national savings and investment rates.
China is running external surpluses because its saving exceeds its investment. The US is running
external deficits because of a national savings shortfall, which once reflected spendthrift households
but now is the fault of a feckless government.
There is no reason, they conclude, why a change in the yuan-dollar exchange rate should have a first-
order impact on savings or investment in China, much less in the US. There is no reason, therefore,
why it should have a first-order impact on the bilateral current-account balance or, for that matter, on
unemployment, which depends on the same saving and investment behaviour.
In fact, both sets of critics have it wrong. China was right to wait in adjusting its exchange rate, and it
is now right to move gradually rather than discontinuously. The Chinese economy is growing at
potential: forecasts put the prospective rate for this year at 10 per cent; the first-quarter flash numbers,
at 11.9 per cent, show it expanding as fast as any economy can safely grow. China successfully
navigated the crisis, avoiding a significant slowdown, by ramping up public spending. But, as a result,
it now has no further scope for increasing public consumption or investment.
To be sure, building a social safety net, developing financial markets, and strengthening corporate
governance to encourage state enterprises to pay out more of what they earn, would encourage
Chinese households to consume. But such reforms take years to complete. In the meantime, the rate
of spending growth in China will not change dramatically. As a result, Chinese policymakers have
been waiting to see whether the recovery in the US is real. If it is, China's exports will grow more
rapidly. And if its exports grow more rapidly, they can allow the yuan to rise. Without that exchange-
rate adjustment, faster export growth would expose China's economy to the risk of overheating. But,
with the adjustment, Chinese consumers will spend more on imports and less on domestic goods.
Overheating having been avoided, the Chinese economy can keep motoring ahead at its customary
10 per cent annual pace.
Evidence that the US recovery will be sustained is mounting. There is no guarantee, but the latest
data on sales of light vehicles, plus the Institute of Supply Management's manufacturing index and the
labour bureau's employment report, all point in this direction.
Because the increase in US spending on Chinese exports will be gradual, it is also appropriate for the
adjustment in the yuan-dollar exchange rate to be gradual. If China recklessly revalued its exchange
rate by 20 per cent, as certain foreigners recommend, the result could be a sharp fall in spending on
its goods, which would undermine growth. Moreover, gradual adjustment in the bilateral exchange rate
is needed to prevent global imbalances from blowing out. US growth will be driven by the recovery of
investment, which fell precipitously during the crisis. But, as investment now rises relative to saving,
there is a danger that the US current-account deficit, which fell from 6 per cent of gross domestic
product in 2006 to barely 2.5 per cent of GDP last year, will widen again.
Yuan appreciation that switches Chinese spending towards foreign goods, including US exports, will
work against this tendency. By giving US firms more earnings, it will raise corporate savings, and
reconcile recovery in the US with the need to prevent global imbalances from again threatening
financial stability.
Chinese officials have been on the receiving end of a lot of gratuitous advice. They have been wise to
disregard it. In managing their exchange rate, they have got it exactly right.
Britain is in trouble. This election comes at a time when the quiet assumptions of our nation and its politics
are in question. It is no longer clear that Britain will be able to remain a great power, or a harmonious
society, or one prosperous enough to be able to guarantee its citizens liberty and justice.
In 2005 Tony Blair sought re-election under the slogan “Forward, not back”. It appeared a bland campaign
motto, but was rather clever. It was an attempt to appropriate to Labour the inevitable proceeds of growth
and the credit for progress that the country always sees. So it is striking that it would be a risky
proposition to run on such a slogan now. We can no longer take it for granted that Britain will go forward,
not back.
This country could well become less than it was — less prosperous, less cohesive, less significant in the
world: a country where employment among 16 to 17-year-olds is at a record low is one in which business
is no longer providing enough jobs for young people. We have increased state spending by 54 per cent in
the past 13 years but cannot boast world-class public services. The State has become more intrusive as it
has become larger, threatening civil liberties. We are not going forward. We may go back.
Election day 2010 is the moment when this country will have to stop running away from its debts. For the
past two years, as we tried to fend off recession, we have been shoving the bills into a drawer without
opening the envelopes. This has to end today. The price of our borrowing will have to be paid.
Across Europe you can see the social breakdown that is the inevitable consequence of government and
people living beyond their means. Murder, arson and riots may be a Greek tragedy today. But this tragedy
awaits any European nation that does not begin to reduce its public borrowing. Britain is fortunate that it
did not heed the advice of those who wanted us to enter the euro. But if we do not reduce our borrowing
in line with our earnings, then a Greek tragedy awaits us too.
In 1997, as a nation, we decided that we needed to find more and more money for public services. But the
policy we then embarked upon was not sustainable. We overspent badly. Increasing public spending
faster than the rate of economic growth was bound, at some point, to collide with reality. And now it has.
The alternative now is to reshape the State so that it does not require an ever increasing proportion of
national income to fund it properly. This will require some bold decisions and some very hard ones.
During the campaign it proved possible to avoid some of them. No longer.
This election is unlike other watershed moments. In 1979, the case for sorting out the economy scarcely
needed to be articulated. When rubbish lies uncollected in the streets and the electricity does not work,
you know it is time for a change. Today’s economic crisis, in contrast, is more remote. But it is no less real
or significant.
The Times has already cast its vote. It is not, of course, for us to tell you how to vote, only how we think.
We believe that the Conservative Party is best placed to tackle the vast economic challenges ahead. It is
now the turn of the electorate to decide. How the next government handles the economy will prove
decisive for the future of this country. At every election, party leaders solicitous of your vote, and media
commentators hopeful of your attention, will tell you that the stakes are high, that this time it matters. So
often the significance is inflated. Not this time. This election will define Britain for the next generation.
According to the original Tory script, their leader would by now be hammering the final nails into
Gordon Brown’s coffin. Instead he goes into today’s leaders’ debate looking to invigorate a
campaign that is coming under mounting criticism for failing much earlier to seal the deal with
voters. “I’m aiming for outright victory,” Mr Cameron told The Times as he headed to Devon on
an early-morning train. The Clegg surge had made the election “more challenging, a little bit
more tense, a lot more exciting”, he said. “But it’s absolutely there to be won.”
At the end of an interview conducted between Paddington and Chippenham, we ask for three
words to describe Gordon Brown. He does not pause: “Out of time.” And Nick Clegg? “Not the
answer.” And David Cameron? “Vote for change.” It is quickfire, off the cuff; it encapsulates his
message and yet also reveals the pitfalls of the altered landscape.
After 13 years of Labour rule, time for change was his exclusive preserve — until Mr Clegg
looked into the camera during the first leaders’ debate and turned his relative obscurity into a
claim to be new, different, the change. Mr Clegg’s is a different brand of “change”, a post-
expenses, no-more-business-as-usual kind of change, that threatens to supersede the
freshness of Mr Cameron. And it has changed the terms of debate for the run-in to polling day.
“We need to win a whole series of arguments about the problems of a hung Parliament,” Mr
Cameron conceded.
Sitting in the first-class carriage of a Great Western train carrying him into the South West — Lib
Dem country — Mr Cameron looks much more relaxed and is more genial than he appeared
before an audience of ten million people last Thursday. The men in his entourage are all in suits
and ties, but he is wearing a black V-neck jumper over his open-necked white shirt. He is
nursing a cup of black coffee, as he sets out to persuade voters that the change he is offering is
more authentic than Mr Clegg’s.
“I quite understand why some people think a hung Parliament would be change,” he said, before
making four key arguments against; one economic, one political, one historic and one about
personnel.
“A hung Parliament is instability, uncertainty, potentially higher interest rates, potentially Britain
losing its credit rating. People understand those arguments.”
Would it increase the chances of a sterling crisis? “If you have a situation where you have a
hung Parliament and you have a lack of decisive action I think it raises those risks.”
Rather than a new era of co-operation at Westminster, a hung Parliament would mean the
opposite, he said. Some might think that hung Parliaments were “great for people and miserable
for the politicians because they have to work together”, he said.
Cameron's battle to convince his
doubting party
David Cameron has revived the Conservatives from near-collapse.
But not all the party's members are won over
Peter Snowdon
In 1993 David Cameron was an aide to Norman Lamont. Yesterday he was on the brink of
power
David Cameron has led his party to the brink of power, but has been deprived of the mandate
many believed was well within in his grasp. Had 20 more seats fallen to the Tory advance, he
would have escaped the unenviable task of trying to negotiate his way into No 10. What went
wrong and what effect might it have on his authority?
The irony is that the Conservative party made up more ground on Thursday than it has at any
election since 1931. It achieved the same swing from Labour, 5%, that brought Margaret
Thatcher to power with a majority of 43 seats in 1979.
The Tories have travelled a long way in a short space of time. Only 6½ years ago they were
trapped in a perpetual crisis of leadership and identity.
One of Cameron’s senior lieutenants, Oliver Letwin, recalls the dread he felt as he and other
senior figures listened to Iain Duncan Smith resign as party leader in October 2003 after just two
years in the post.
“Standing there, I really did think that we were seeing the annihilation of a party that was
capable of functioning in the future,” he said.
After a prolonged period of acrimony, division and despair, the party had almost given up the
will to live. Only by avoiding another debilitating leadership battle and picking Michael Howard
did it step back from the political abyss.
Howard drew a line under the organisational disarray and breakdown in discipline that had
plagued the party in Westminster for many years and paved the way for a new generation to
challenge for the leadership.
From the moment David Cameron succeeded in his audacious attempt to lead the party in
December 2005, the Conservatives began to rediscover an appetite for power.
In coming to terms with why the party had become so unpopular, he carved out an agenda to
broaden its appeal. Yet when his honeymoon faded in early 2007, there were clear signs that
enthusiasm among sections of the parliamentary party and the grassroots for “modernising” the
party was only skin deep.
Cameron’s hold over it was severely questioned that summer after Gordon Brown became
prime minister. Brown’s subsequent decision not to go to the polls presented Cameron with a
precious opportunity to reassert his authority, which he duly clasped. Internal voices of dissent
suddenly fell silent.
Yet just as the Conservatives began to regain their confidence and open up a significant lead in
the polls the following year, a new set of circumstances forced the leadership to revise its early
strategy.
The emphasis on the environment and “sharing the proceeds of growth” suddenly became
eclipsed by the need to forge a clear response to the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.
Cameron and George Osborne, his shadow chancellor, struggled to articulate a distinctive
position until it became evident that the deficit in the public finances would define the
battleground ahead of the election. Fiscal conservatism provided a focal point around which
most of the party, on the centre and on the right, could coalesce.
Yet the most serious challenge to Cameron’s authority from within the party arose from a crisis
in which he was deemed to have captured the public mood: the scandal over MPs’ expenses.
By clamping down on those MPs who had brought the party into disrepute and by making an
explicit apology to the country ahead of the prime minister, Cameron rose above the fray, but
suffered collateral damage from within.
As one frontbencher observed at the time, the scandal was “a very serious lesson for him not to
dump on his party and not to take them for granted ... there’s no Praetorian Guard; people could
have turned on him in an instant and they very nearly did”.
The challenge for Cameron as the election approached was to bring the strands of fiscal
austerity and political and social reform together to present a clear and unambiguous message
to the electorate.
A tough stance on the deficit became blurred at the beginning of the year as the leadership
worried whether the promised “age of austerity” might be too negative a position to hold as the
country edged out of recession in an election year.
Cameron and his team realised that they had to offer a more positive prospectus for
government. The Tory manifesto’s guiding theme of the “big society” was intended to project a
sense of optimism and bold thinking. But Tory candidates and foot soldiers struggled to convey
this to voters.
“It was too opaque a concept to sell on the doorsteps,” said a figure close to the campaign.
“What was worse was that it had not even been tested in focus groups before the manifesto
launch.” Another campaign insider said: “The hope was that the fog would clear, but it just didn’t
lift.”
The big society as a campaigning theme had been aired properly only once, during Cameron’s
Hugo Young memorial lecture last autumn. The fact that it recast his long-held emphasis on
“social responsibility” was lost amid the fanfare of the manifesto launch and the televised
debates.
“It was a great framework, but we knew we had to be tighter and sharper in communicating what
it all meant,” one frontbencher concedes.
Although slick and disciplined, the Conservative campaign failed to ignite. Clarity was found in
the party’s pledge to oppose a rise in national insurance, which gathered support from business
leaders, and the “contract with the voters”, which specified what the party wanted to achieve in
office — but too late in the day.
The surge of support for Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats also muddied the waters for the
Conservatives. It did not lead, however, to the serious wobbles that previous Tory election
campaigns had succumbed to.
“We did not completely tear up our strategy,” says one senior frontbencher. “There could well
have been total panic but central command held it together. The Lib Dem surge forced us to
redouble our efforts to make the case for change.”
The verdict on Thursday showed that not enough people were convinced that Cameron’s
Conservatives had made that case or earned the right to pursue their ambitions for the country
unchecked.
If Cameron enters No 10 this week, he will be aware that those in his party who have harboured
doubts about his strategy may be even more worried about his prospects of leading a minority
government. Unlike his predecessors since 1997, he will at least have the levers of power with
which to prove them wrong.
Peter Snowdon is the author of Back from the Brink: The Inside Story of the Tory Resurrection,
published by HarperPress
Consequently, any statement that does not mention timing is likely to be very short-lived,
possibly just tiding any government over the summer until the autumn.
Just consider the position of the three main parties. The Conservatives are ready to take over
the reins of office and many of their MPs favour a minority government rather than any formal
deal with another party, particularly if that compromises their long-term attachment to the first-
past-the-post system.
Many senior Tories believe that they will be able to call the bluff of the opposition parties on key
issues, as the SNP minority administration has done in Edinburgh since 2007. But some form of
deal with the Lib Dems on “confidence and supply” (that is on the Budget and deficit-reduction
measures) would provide reassurance, to the public and the financial markets, that the new
administration would be stable and last for a year or more.
This is double-edged both for the Tories and the Lib Dems. The Tories want freedom of
manoeuvre over the timing of the next election: calling it when they are clearly ahead in the
polls, say in October or November when they think they win an overall majority. By contrast, the
Lib Dems are determined to avoid an early election and hence want a firm timetable for any
agreement with the Tories, in effect, ruling out the right to call a fresh election during the period
of the agreement.
Nick Clegg is in a much weaker position than he appears. He is not the “kingmaker” that he was
widely portrayed as on Friday. Rather, he is in danger of being damned whatever he does. If he
agrees a deal with the Tories, many Lib Dems will object and there is a real risk of a split. But if
Mr Clegg forms part of a rainbow coalition with Labour, he risks being accused of propping up a
Prime Minister who has lost the election. Hence, the pressure on Gordon Brown to announce
that he will step down during the summer. That would also allow time for legislation to be
passed to organise a referendum on electoral reform.
The fear of many Lib Dems is what will happen to them at the next election. The danger for Mr
Clegg is being blamed by voters if he is too close either to the Tories with their Budget cuts or to
a discredited Labour Government. So the Lib Dem priority is any deal that delays an election for
as long as possible. Mr Clegg will have to manoeuvre deftly over the next day or two if he is to
keep his party united.
Labour is also on the defensive and needs time — to rebuild around a new leader and to
introduce electoral reform. Senior ministers are also split on the feasibility of a Lab-Lib deal.
The Tories have the most freedom of manoeuvre in relation to other parties. But David Cameron
cannot neglect his own MPs — whom he will meet tomorrow. They are generally reluctant to
make too many concessions to the Lib Dems
The most likely result is still a minority Conservative Government and another election later this
year. But watch what anyone says on dates and times.
In three short paragraphs, Rogers dismissed an application for appeal, noting that these were the type
of cases the reforms were aimed at.
The original dispute, a claim for professional fees, had taken almost eight years to resolve, required a
trial lasting five days, and yet only HK$71,449.95 was being claimed.
"This is clearly the sort of litigation which the civil justice reform was designed to prevent," Rogers
said. "The fact that leading and junior counsel on both sides could engage a judge for five days on a
claim like this is something to be deprecated. For this reason, also, I would be very reluctant to make
any order which would enable this waste of the parties' and public resources to be prolonged. I would
therefore refuse leave to appeal."
But despite his attention-grabbing judgment, commercial litigation lawyers are still unsure whether the
reforms - one year on - have made any significant impact.
After almost a decade of work, comprehensive reforms of the civil justice system took effect in April
last year, hoping to remedy flaws in litigation that drive up legal costs and deny many people,
especially the middle class, access to justice.
One of the overarching ambitions of the reforms was to change the "adversarial culture" of litigation in
Hong Kong, in which the financially stronger parties played "tactical games" with procedural
arguments to exhaust the funds of the financially weaker side.
The reforms introduced a greater responsibility, as well as more powers, to judges to manage cases
and throw out unnecessary arguments on procedural matters. The new rules now require early
preparation of arguments according to a strict timetable in the hope that the two sides would be able
to assess the merits of the case and either settle before proceeding any further in the courts, or seek
mediation.
If one party unreasonably insists on continuing with litigation despite being offered alternatives to
resolve the matter, the judges may punish that party with a higher proportion of the costs of the
litigation.
In one District Court case, decided in February, the plaintiffs, claiming for the loss from an incomplete
delivery of goods, offered to settle before proceeding to litigation at a rate of 20 per cent less than the
sum being claimed. But the defendants decided to fight the case, lost, were ordered to pay the full
amount of the claim, and because they had rejected the opportunity to settle earlier, was ordered to
pay costs on an indemnity basis.
In the opening speech of a civil justice reform conference this month, Chief Justice Andrew Li Kwok-
nang noted that "progress has been made in achieving the necessary change in culture but we have
some distance to go".
Despite increased awareness of alternative dispute resolutions such as mediation, lawyers say clients
are hesitant.
Gareth Thomas, head of commercial litigation at Herbert Smith Hong Kong, said clients still feared
mediation. Rules on more co-operation between litigants are compiled only to provide "window
dressing". "It is as adversarial as ever," he said.
Jon Witts, a litigation specialist at Allen and Overy, said "regretfully, it hasn't really worked the way we
hoped". He said there was still widespread ignorance of the new rules by lawyers, and many judges
were still "reluctant to really slap anyone".
Martin Rogers, head of litigation at Clifford Chance in Hong Kong, openly urged judges to be "more
robust" during the conference and said "the judiciary should not shy away from expressing robust
views", especially in the face of non-compliance of new rules.
In response, a judge in the Court of First Instance, Mr Justice Anselmo Reyes, was surprise that
lawyers felt judges had been too lenient. "As far as I am concerned, there has been no such thing as a
`honeymoon period' ... The judges have been well prepared, it's those who appear before them who
are not."
With little change to the "adversarial culture", the intended effect of changing it - a reduction of
litigation costs - has yet to bear fruit.
Thomas said he had seen a reduction of interlocutory applications because of the risk of having to pay
the costs of those hearings upfront, which the new rules stipulate.
"But any cost benefit that has arisen is eaten up by the requirement that the sides need to know their
case earlier", which then causes what is known as "front loading" where the legal costs were incurred
in the preparatory work that must be completed under a strict deadline before the case even begins.