美媒讥讽港府 英国统治时的香港更好

北京钦点的香港下任特首唐英年的慢动作内爆，让人想起1997年回归不久前，前《远东经济评论》编辑戴维斯 (Derek Davies) 的演说。该演说题为《两讚殖民主义》，旨在尝试解释为何香港会在英国管治下兴盛。十五年后，那些难以管治香港的中国官员，可能应该看一看这篇演说。

英国人创造了一个相对廉洁并能干的公务员队伍，每天管理这城市。戴维斯先生的英国同胞未必会喜欢他对英国人的描述：「他们沉醉于各类的会议记录、草桉、正当渠道、先例，甚至是他们用来防止档桉夹内纸张的圆孔破裂的红胶纸，都喜爱不已。」不过，起码这些程序有助令人尊重法律，并防止滥权。

在公务员之上的，是由伦敦委任的高级官员。这些上等人通常都自视过人，鄙视记者和其他「不利」的批评，但他们倒是会透过报纸和其他途径在回公众的意见。

其中部份原因，是因为香港官员要向英国的民选政府负责，而英国民选政府对有关管理殖民地不力的指责十分敏感。不过，在港官员在处理本地事务时，不时会叛逆伦敦的意思，令殖民部的保守官员沮丧，有时甚至戏称香港为「香港共和国」。有数十年的时间，香港的管治水准比英国的还要高。

戴维斯先生完全命中香港官员力争卓越的真正原因：「正因为他们明白自己的错置，明白自己作为外族的官治权受质疑，本港政府并非选举而生，故而致力避免与民众疏离。他们的忧虑使他们触觉敏锐。

共产党指欧洲列强掠夺了殖民地的资源，并强使殖民地成为宗主国的生产商的市场。不过，香港除了逃避共产党的难民外，甚麽资源也没有，却吸引了投资者，并建立了轻工业，把产品输回英国。论到抽回利润，戴维斯先生指出：「没有英国公司会如此疯狂，把利润转回重税且不断贬值的英国。」

大部份驻港官员退休时会返回英国老家，故此他们不易受诱惑把利益输送予本港精英商家。退休时，政府会给他们颁赠退休金，和大英帝国勋章。地政总署的官员，不用担心在作出对最大地产发展商不利的决定后，自己的孩子可能难以在港找到工作。

与回归后的香港比较，政府依然不是民选的，但现政府却要向一个贪污严重并滥权的一党专政国家负责。香港首任特首董建华，还有北京属意在数月后成为特首的唐英年，都是在1949年后移居香港的上海精英商家的一份子。行政架构只局限在某一撮人手上。

这些转变引来连串后果，当中一些与土地有关，而土地全是由政府释出的。地产发展和增值是香港财富的最大来源，是财政收入的主要来源，也是引发最多不满的来源。

地政总署近年在土地发放的谈判上作出不少「错误」，让发展商得到以十亿计的额外利润，数名高级官员在离任后转为地产商工作。这些都令公众嘲讽香港已沦为裙带资本主义之地。

这解释了为何公众对唐英年非法加建2400呎地牢如此反感。同样，现任教育局局长孙明扬，在2006年未有依地政总署要求拆除僭建物，其实作为当时的房屋及规划地政局局长，他的罪行可算更为严重。

在这两个例子中，问题并不只是规划和安全。僭建面积欺骗了政府的收入，但唐英年要面对检控的可能并不高，因为无论在他以上或以下，都没有足够独立的人能要求他负责。于是，现在形成对公众有一套法则，对商家权贵又有另一套法则。

在英国管治下，香港兼享两极的好处：既有民主的保护，又有伦敦输入的高效能而心存忧虑的行政人员。现在的香港却兼受两极的坏处：既有越益严重的贪污，又有得到专制政权加持的软脚蟹本地管治班子。唯一的好消息，是媒体还能自由揭发丑闻，不过这种自由也不知能再维持多久。

管治香港的中国政府不直不太理解的一件事，就是若要香港维持不变，就只能接受转变。这个城市的人，再不是甘于受外人统治的难民，而民主是唯一能与英国管治下的溷合式政治负责制匹敌的制度。

戴维斯先生最后如此评鑑殖民主义的优劣：「我只期盼并相信，在未来，不会发生香港人把英国游客拉到一角，悄悄说，香港还是在外国的恶魔管治时比较好。」十五年后，越来越多人如此感触。

（林书 翻译）

附英文原文：Hong Kong Was Better Under the British

By HUGO RESTALL

The slow-motion implosion of Henry Tang, Beijing's pick to be Hong Kong's next chief executive, brings to mind a speech given shortly before the 1997 handover by former Far Eastern Economic Review Editor Derek Davies. Entitled "Two Cheers for Colonialism," it attempted to explain why the city flourished under the British. Fifteen years later, the Chinese officials who are having trouble running Hong Kong might want to give it a read.

The Brits created a relatively incorrupt and competent civil service to run the city day-to-day. Mr. Davies' countrymen might not appreciate his description of them: "They take enormous satisfaction in minutes, protocol, proper channels, precedents, even in the red tape that binds up their files inside the neat cubby holes within their registries." But at least slavish adherence to bureaucratic procedure helped to create respect for the rule of law and prevented abuses of power.

Above the civil servants sat the career-grade officials appointed from London. These nabobs were often arrogant, affecting a contempt for journalists and other "unhelpful" critics. But they did respond to public opinion as transmitted through the newspapers and other channels.

Part of the reason was that Hong Kong officials were accountable to a democratically elected government in Britain sensitive to accusations of mismanaging a colony. But local officials often disobeyed London when it was in the local interest—for this reason frustrated Colonial Office mandarins sometimes dubbed the city "The Republic of Hong Kong." For many decades it boasted a higher standard of governance than the mother country.

Mr. Davies nailed the real reason Hong Kong officials were so driven to excel: "Precisely because they were aware of their own anachronism, the questionable legitimacy of an alien, non-elected government they strove not to alienate the population. Their nervousness made them sensitive."

The English queen is a red sun in the Hong Kong people's hearts.

The communists claim that the European powers stripped their colonies of natural resources and used them as captive markets for their manufacturers. But Hong Kong, devoid of resources other than refugees from communism, attracted investment and built up light industry to export back to Britain. And as for taking back the profits, Mr. Davies noted, "No British company here would have been mad enough to have repatriated its profits back to heavily-taxed, regularly devaluing Britain."

Most expatriate officials retired to Blighty, so they were less tempted to do favors for the local business elite. The government rewarded them with pensions and OBEs. A Lands Department bureaucrat didn't have to worry whether his child would be able to find employment in Hong Kong if a decision went against the largest property developer.

Contrast all this with Hong Kong post-handover. The government is still not democratic, but now it is accountable only to a highly corrupt and abusive single-party state. The first chief executive, Tung Chee Hwa, and Beijing's favorite to take the post next month, Henry Tang, are both members of the Shanghainese business elite that moved to the city after 1949. The civil service is localized.

Many consequences flow from these changes, several of which involve land, which is all leased from the government. Real estate development and appreciation is the biggest source of wealth in Hong Kong, a major source of public revenue and also the source of most discontent.

In recent years, the Lands Department has made "mistakes" in negotiating leases that have allowed developers to make billions of Hong Kong dollars in extra profit. Several high-level officials have also left to work for the developers. This has bred public cynicism that Hong Kong is sinking into crony capitalism.

This helps explain why the public is so upset with Mr. Tang for illegally adding 2,400 square feet of extra floor space to his house. Likewise Michael Suen, now the secretary for education, failed to heed a 2006 order from the Lands Department to dismantle an illegal addition to his home. His offense was arguably worse, since he was secretary for housing, planning and lands at the time.

In both cases the issue is not just a matter of zoning and safety; illegal additions cheat the government out of revenue. But it's unlikely Mr. Tang will face prosecution because nobody above or below him is independent enough to demand accountability. So now there is one set of rules for the public and another for the business and political elites.

Under the British, Hong Kong had the best of both worlds, the protections of democracy and the efficiency of all-powerful but nervous administrators imported from London. Now it has the worst of both worlds, an increasingly corrupt and feckless local ruling class backstopped by an authoritarian regime. The only good news is that the media remains free to expose scandals, but one has to wonder for how much longer.

Hong Kong's Chinese rulers have been slow to realize that, to paraphrase Lampedusa, the only way to keep Hong Kong the same is to accept change. It is no longer a city of refugees happy to accept rule by outsiders. And democracy is the only system that can match the hybrid form of political accountability enjoyed under the British.

Mr. Davies ended his appraisal of colonialism's faults and virtues thus: "I only hope and trust that a local Chinese will never draw a future British visitor aside and whisper to him that Hong Kong was better ruled by the foreign devils." Fifteen years later, that sentiment is becoming common.

Mr. Restall is the editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal Asia.