「兩會」設下科技KPI對香港的寓意
The implication for Hong Kong of the technology KPIs set by the “two meetings”
單單一個「手機警報嚇萬民」就揭露了香港的施政完全缺乏大方向及實施策略。 是時候參考其他先進城市的做法。 新加坡、瑞士、甚至愛沙尼亞的做法及分工是怎樣？
要融入大灣區，也應該參考中央的模式。 最簡單可以看到的就是先有五年計畫去制定戰略目標，再有兩會釐定KPI，再由地方政府以框架內發揮。 慨歎香港過去十多年由公務員主導的做法，無論結構、分工及執行也比不上很多第三世界國家。
一個疫情，已盡顯目前政府架構的嚴重缺憾。所謂「行之有效」已經不是公務員的擋箭牌了。香港有機會及有本領接上這道科技衝鋒令嗎？
The Hong Kong Health Bureau’s misuse of cellphone incident alerts to scare mass citizen incident has clearly reveals that the complete lack of a general direction and implementation strategy for Hong Kong’s governance. It is time to learn from the practices of other advanced cities. What are the practices and governmental authorities and responsibilities in Singapore, Switzerland, and even Estonia?
In order to integrate Hong Kong into the Greater Bay Area to improve Hong Kong’s weakening competitiveness, we should also take reference to the Central Government’s model. The simplest way to see this is to have a five-year plan to guide the development direction and framework, followed by the ‘Two Meetings’ to set KPIs, and then the local government to play within the framework.
I lament the fact that Hong Kong’s civil-servant-led approach over the past decades has been inferior to that of many third world countries in terms of structure, division of authority and implementation. The epidemic has revealed the serious shortcomings of the current structure. The so-called "proven process" is no longer a shield for the civil servants to avoid changes. Does Hong Kong have the ability to reach the KPIs of the technological lead initiative set by the ‘Two Meetings’ of the Central Government?
