This document discusses alternatives to the current democratic system in Hong Kong that could improve governance. It proposes establishing government-sponsored Future Centres, modeled after similar organizations in Europe. These centres would engage stakeholders in policymaking through research and civic participation. They aim to address issues like policy failures, lack of consensus building, and the government's limited capacity to solve complex problems. The document argues Future Centres could help re-establish public trust in government and alleviate irrational discussions in politics.

1. 1
Government-sponsored Future Centres
as an alternative form of
democracy for good governance
Alan LUNG Ka‐lun, Path of Democracy
Background and Introduction
Professor Tony Carty of the University of Hong Kong pointed out at a speaker
luncheon on 21 December 2009i
that equal and universal suffrage on its own is an
insufficient guarantee of true democracy. In the case of the UK and many other
jurisdictions, low elector turnout often means that governments could be elected
by as little as 25% of the registered voters. These governments do not have strong
mandates. In the UK particularly, the commercial elite can succeed in subverting
the main political parties (Labour and Conservatives) so that their agendas take
precedence over that of the people in general and "Functional Constituencies"
(FCs) are at work without formally enshrining FCs in UK's political systems.
Professor Eliza Lee Wing‐yee of the University of Hong Kong quoted a
survey prepared by public relations agency Edelman in February 2014: "…
Hongkonger's trust in government fell 18 points to 45 per cent due to policy
failure, legitimacy problems and scandal".ii
In the case of Hong Kong, the "market
imbalance" brought by the FCs in Hong Kong must be redressed, preferably by
restoring the institutional protections against malign actions enjoyed by
representative democracies: a free press, an autonomous civil service, powerful
judiciaries and an alternative mechanism to link stakeholders in the community to
the Government policy formulation process.
On 7 January 2011, Mr. Lam Woon‐kwong, current Convener of the Non‐
executive Members of the Executive Council, shared his experience on civic
engagement at a Hong Kong Democratic Foundation speaker luncheon where Mr.
C.Y. Leung was present. As the speaker of the event, Mr. Lam shared a case study

2. 2
where he commissioned a research project headed by Professor Joseph Chan
Cho‐wai of the University of Hong Kong on prototyping a new model of Civic
Engagement on the Kai Tak Planning Study.iii
All the requirements of the
stakeholders were met in this complex and difficult urban planning exercise.
However, the process had taken two and a half years to come up with the final
"2006 Outline Zoning Plan for Kai Tak".
A more flexible and effective method is needed to engage the general
public in solving urgent and contentious social, economic and political issues such
as: Copy Right Amendment, the Third Runway, Border Control of the Express Rail
Link to Mainland China, and Land and Housing Development Policies. Other long‐
term but no less controversial issues include: Economic Development, Population
Policy, Income Inequality and Retirement Protection. Of all the issues, the most
difficult ones are taken up by Path of Democracy and the publisher of this book.
These include: Mainland‐Hong Kong Relations under the Basic Law, One‐Country‐
Two‐Systems, Preserving Hong Kong's Rule of Law and How to Build Political
Consensus on Hong Kong's forthcoming Constitutional Reform.
Some causes of policy failures in Hong Kong
In 2003, research conducted by Prof. Fernando Cheung Chiu‐hung of the
Poly University of Hong Kong iv
found that the mechanism needed to forge
consensus and unity amongst the different sectors of the community is largely
missing. Hong Kong's "Advisory Committee System" which Hong Kong relies on is
no longer performing the function of giving useful advice to the HKSAR
Government. The advisory committees are often captured by yes‐men and
inactive members who accept the Administration's view without questions. Many
advisory committees, particularly the lower‐level ones, are unnecessary. There is
a widespread culture of encouraging members to agree with the views of
administration. Dissenting opinions and difficult questions are discouraged.
Members of the business community are often given preference in the
appointment process. Others, particularly the activists who have democratic
affiliations, are excluded from the selection process.
In 2007, Professor Joseph Chan Cho‐wai of The University of Hong Kong
said in a report of a research project sponsored by the Bauhinia Foundation
Research Centre ‐‐ From Consultation to Civic Engagement: The Road to Better
Policy‐making and Governance in Hong Kong: “… the traditional mode of public

3. 3
consultation has failed, but a new mode has yet to be established. The political
and social ecology of Hong Kong has changed so drastically since 1997 that
governing through an advisory system and conventional public consultation no
longer satisfies public expectations"v
.
In 2014, Professor Li Pang‐kwong commented in his book ‐‐ Governing
Hong Kong: Insights from the British Declassified Files, "… Policy‐making in Hong
Kong before 1997 was monopolized by ‘Home’ (U.K.) civil servants posted in Hong
Kong. Local Chinese Administrative Officers were hired to execute policies, but not
to formulate them. After the withdrawal of British rule after the handover, Hong
Kong's entire governance system has failed to effectively adjust. This is why the
HKSAR Government does not know how to make policies after 1997.” vi
One may agree or disagree with Professor Li's observation, but it appears
that Hong Kong has abandoned the Pre‐1997 practice of recruiting the more vocal
activists into the political process to make them see the Government's viewpoint
and, at the same time, make best use of their knowledge and wisdom to help
solve difficult problems faced by the Government. Politics in Post‐1997 Hong Kong
has certainly become complex and confrontational. Filibuster has been deployed
more and more often in the Legislative Council to delay the passage of some
"undesired" legislation and budget approval. There is so far no perfect solution to
end a destructive mood in politics, but irrational discussion can only be alleviated
if governance and public trust in the HKSAR Government can be re‐established.
The capacity to solve complex problems is missing
Many deep rooted conflicts and problems in Hong Kong are waiting to be
solved. Top of the list on the current HKSAR Government agenda are: exorbitant
property prices,vii
economic development, income inequality, poverty alleviation
and how to care for an aging population. Such problems are universal and are not
unique to Hong Kong. However, the capacity to solve the complex problems
facing Hong Kong seems to be missing.
Mr. Lam Woon‐kwong, an experienced government administrator and
Convener of the Non‐official Members of the Executive Council of the HKSAR
Government acknowledged that better policy making is demanded universally. He

4. 4
also acknowledged that it is very difficult.viii
In his view, most governments are
conservative or they're at least staffed by conservative people ‐‐ the civil servants.
The result is that this breeds a "risk averse" culture, particularly when civil
servants are deeply involved in the policy formulation, decision making and the
political process. According to Mr. Lam, while civil servants often position
themselves as "politically neutral" and defender of public interests, all ideas from
"outsiders" are unwelcomed intrusions which must be representative of special
interest groups and are usually resisted. Mr. Lam went on to explain that the
typical way to handle policy making is to form a committee.
This is the usual risk‐averse way the HKSAR Government uses to handle
complex problem. Typically, decisions are based on the views of a very small circle
that may not have reflected their opinions in the advisory committees. These
"Preconceived Answers" and final solutions implemented are often hidden in the
small paragraphs of "Consultation Papers".
"Another problem with the civil service is that talents are almost entirely
inbred: the "revolving door" being very difficult to implement. With a fast‐
changing world, the Hong Kong civil service lacks specialist expertise, and even if
some officers may be trained to handle specialist policy areas, they lack the
capacity to handle the complex policy‐making process. So we end up lagging quite
significantly behind in areas such as Information, Innovation, Technology and
Creative Industries," said Mr. Lam. Soon after 1997, the permanent civil servants
were topped with a layer of political appointees. Under pressure, the HKSAR
Government has no time for research and analysis. Policy makers often jump to
ad hoc conclusions for "band‐aid" cure or short‐term solutions. It is easy for the
media or the general public to point fingers at the Chief Executive and the Bureau
Chiefs. The Asian Financial Crisis and uncooperative Legislative Council are often
blamed. Sadly, the truth is closer to the fact that after the British Hong Kong
Administration left, Hong Kong as a community does not really know enough
about policy making and the "Craft of Government" needed to run a "city" that
has the GDP of a medium size country in Europe. The experience, the subject

5. 5
knowledge and the political acumen needed to lead the Hong Kong community
forward seem to be sorely missing.
Government-sponsored Future Centres in Europe
In a place as sophisticated, developed and liberal minded as Hong Kong, the
Government must have the mediation skills and participate in the process to help
opposing camps see the common goal. The Government must acquire the skills
needed to lead the community to agree on a common set of objectives. Mr. Lam
Woon Kwong pointed out that "… the best way forward is to leave the
engagement process open and empower the stakeholders to make their own
rules to resolve their differences through organized interaction, guided and
arbitrated hopefully by a positive and trusted player at the helm". But if the
lesson has already been learned and the precedent for success is recorded, how
did we end up in our present impasse? The problem is again complex but it boils
down to the common syndrome: lack of genuine desire to be open, lack of will to
engage the opposition and be seriously inclusive, lack of honesty to admit failures,
and in the end lack of sincere commitment from the top.
Government‐sponsored Future Centre is a proven solution in many
European countries to gauge public views and develop capacities for resolving
complex issues in turbulent times. They facilitate better governance by providing
a neutral platform for stakeholders to work together and co‐create solutions to
emerging issues of significant importance.
The goal of the Government‐sponsored Future Centre is to find common
ground through open discussions in a facilitated and supportive surrounding, so
that the pre‐existing dichotomy mindset and adversary culture of opposing forces
can be transformed to resolve conflicts of interests. To help reach consensus,
asymmetric expectation and access to information among stakeholders need to
be bridged. This will lower the communication distortion. A more neutral and
non‐confrontational environment is therefore needed. Stakeholders, including
activists and government officials, often adjust their positions, narrow their
difference and set priority on action items over more factual and rational
discussions. Future Centre is an emerging movement which has been
implemented in many world locations with success.ix

6. 6
In Continental Europe, Government‐sponsored Future Centres have been
delivering results through an alternative form of participatory democracy.
Government‐sponsored Future Centres in the Netherland and Northern Europe
have resolved enduring problems that cannot be solved with the same old
solutions. The same method can be used as an alternative to public consultation
and conflict resolution tools to build better policy‐making capacity among public
policy makers, the activists and the general public. Through a more neutral third
party such as Future Centres, government units can proactively engage the public
and activities in complex political, economic and social issue discussions.
Government‐sponsored Future Centres also can act as neutral platforms allowing
public policy makers and local communities to interact, share ideas and discuss
better policy making in an open and non‐pressurized manner.
Future Centre was first started in Sweden in the 1990s by Skandia, a private
insurance company. They have since spread to many countries across the world
particularly in Europe. As an example, there are five government‐sponsored
Future Centres for the Public Sector x
in the Netherlands:
o The Country House ‐‐ a facility ‘for creative and innovative work in
national government’, a joint venture of four ministries: Economic
Affairs, The Interior, Finance, and Housing, Spatial Planning & the
Environment;
o Mobilion ‐‐ a Future Center prototype at the Department of Public
Works & Water Management;
o Future Center ‘The Shipyard' ‐‐ at the Tax & Customs Administration;
o Castle Groeneveld ‐‐ National Center for Forests, Nature and
Landscape, of the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality;
o Academy SZW ‐‐ part of the Ministry of Social Affairs & Employment.
The Dutch Government‐sponsored Future Centres are good examples
where government departments serve as a convener or orchestrator that brings
public and private participants together to solve problems and pursue
opportunities together.

7. 7
Crowdsourcing for democracyxi
The future centre movement in Finland took a slightly different turn. The
initiative was sponsored by the Committee for the Future of the Parliament of
Finland in 1993. In the same year, the Finnish Parliament started commissioning
research on topics that are relevant or challenging to the future of Finland. The
Committee gives systematic foresight to the government and parliament as well
as to people in public administration. Finland has a system of several foresight
units and processes. The Prime Minister's Office prepares a government foresight
report in each electorate period. This government foresight report is then
submitted to the Parliament. This facilitates the formulation of a national strategy
on high‐interest topics that would guarantee the success of the nation. Previous
topics Finland looked into includes: sustainable knowledge society, information
society, smart city, clean technology, media and communications.xii
People’s participation through crowdsourcing does not replace traditional
democratic tools or experts, but complements and supports them. Participation
can yield better decisions. A thousand pairs of eyes will spot potential problems
easier and a thousand heads will come up with more new ideas than just a few.
Instead of the highly confrontational public consultation process, crowdsourcing
is a participatory method to engage citizens in political processes. Citizens are
invited to share their ideas, perspectives and opinions about matters that
traditionally were beyond their access and influence.
Crowdsourcing is a tool to gather collective intelligence. It help steer
thinking away from the "Not Invented Here" syndrome. The tool discovers
knowledge, wisdom and insight from the "crowd". Most of the services provided
are on a voluntary basis. But some tasks, such as compiling reports and turning
reports into useful policy inputs, are also provided as paid services. In some
countries, crowdsourcing is used by international monitoring agencies as a tool to
detect election fraud. It also has product development and product innovation
applications. Large pharmaceutical companies in the USA often ask practicing
doctors to suggest cancer drug cocktail solutions on cancer treatments. Proctor

8. 8
and Gamble also crowdsource from non‐experts and consumers for novelty
solutions.
From the viewpoint of how to improve governance in Hong Kong,
crowdsourcing in policy making is probably the most useful application. In Europe,
it is often used in listening to citizens’ opinions and gathering information. In
2010, crowdsourcing was used in Iceland to facilitate the constitutional reform
process. The process brought new perspectives and implanted knowledge and
information to the "crowd" in an unpressurized environment. It also raised
awareness amongst citizens in the democratic and policy‐making process. A
similar method was also used in Chicago and in Calgary in the budget preparation
process, in the "National Dialogue" initiated by President Obama of the United
States, in Citizen petition sites in the UK and in Australia and in the "Open
Ministry" in Finland.
Crowdsourcing has very direct impact on the democratic process in
democratic countries. It brings in a mixed bag of amateur and expert opinions.
Information and expert knowledge also flows out to citizens in an opened
process. This process also allows citizens to have access in the policy‐formulation
process and therefore the decision‐making process. At the same time, policy‐
makers learn citizens' values, concerns and attitudes. Opening up the political
process through crowdsourcing increases legitimacy in the political process.
However, it does not replace the normal process ‐‐ such as the expert
hearings in the legislative process or even the standard advisory committees
practiced in Hong Kong. However, in the case of Hong Kong, it could be used as a
more effective public engagement, policy‐making and even conflict resolution
tool.
Current public engagement capacity in Hong Kong
In 2011, Professor Joseph Chan Cho‐wai, Co‐Convenor (Research) of Path of
Democracy was the founding director of the Centre for Civil Society and

9. 9
Governance, HKU. He took on the task of spearheading a citizen engagement
project titled: "From Consultation to Civic Engagement: The Road to Better Policy‐
making and Governance in Hong Kong".
The Efficiency Unit (EU) of the Chief Secretary's Office of HKSAR
Government has been exploring the feasibility of a government‐sponsored Future
Centre since 2010. The EU sees Future Centre as stimulations to cross‐
departmental government innovation with a future orientation. The Future
Centre practice also integrates creative problem solving, organizational learning,
knowledge creation, and organizational change and renewal by using the wisdom
of crowds. The EU organized a "Future Centre in Public Service" workshop in April
2011, and has also sent staff to attend Aalto Camp for Societal Innovation held at
the Aalto University in Finland in August 2011. Mr. Kim Salkeld, current Head of
The Efficiency Unit, is keen to implement the concept but he also said he is
probably the only one who is talking about the idea within the HKSAR
Government. Learning from the U.S. and other countries' experience, OGCIO
commented in Oct 2012 that open data could play a role in crowd sourcing ideas
from the public to co‐create solutions to solve social problems.
Activities of the Future Centre would include community discussion, forums
or other facilitated public engagement activities to gauge public views on specific
legislation and on government projects. Discussion forums are facilitated and
moderated by skilled facilitators so that participants are encouraged to let go of
assumptions and mistrust, not to accept easy answers and to maintain their drive
to co‐create innovative solutions to complex social and economic problems.
Future Centres allow participants and facilitators to think out of the box and inject
positive energy into public policy making, which means they are freed from
previous biases/prejudices and formalities. Citizens can help to identify the 'blind
spots' or 'gaps' which have been overlooked by the government in policy
formulation.

10. 10
Government-sponsored Future Centre as a conflict resolution toolxiii
The way we describe our history is of key importance in determining what
future possibilities are open to us. A generation or two ago, Hong Kong would
readily accept decisions made hierarchically as good decision. Leadership in Hong
Kong was one‐sided ‐‐ those in positions of power know what is best for Hong
Kong. These "old" leaders acted unilaterally and pushed through solutions which
they truly believed were in the best interest of Hong Kong as a whole and often
created strong conflict with the community in the process ‐‐ one‐sided, top‐down
"managerial" decisions are rarely effective nowadays.
In a place as complex as Post‐1997 Hong Kong, a new leadership style
where political and community leaders knows how to mediate and to lead
through situations of conflict is needed. Practicing such a leadership style does
not mean abandoning his or her conviction, but it does mean having a broad
shoulder to reach out and to accommodate the interests of others and the
interests of the society as a whole. As difficult and as challenging as it sounds,
this "Third‐way" leadership style mediates differences and has potential to turn
conflicts into opportunities. It is not enough to have the capacity to stand up for
one's own interests, but it is also important for Hong Kong to develop the
capacities and the platforms to reach across different interest group and to listen
to others.
In Post‐1997 Hong Kong ‐‐ particularly in the light of the latest 28 February
2016 New Territory East by‐election results, the potential for destructive conflict
is real. How the HKSAR Government, the politicians and community leaders
choose to resolve conflicts is an act of leadership. Introduction of the
Government‐sponsored Future Centre concept into Hong Kong has potential to
turn conflicts into a driving force to reform Hong Kong's future rather than a
liability and destructive force. Mark Gerzon, author of "Leading through Conflict"
said: "… if a handyman came to your house to do home repair with a toolbox
containing nothing but hammers … (your house) would be in a wreck!" Someone

11. 11
need enough conviction to believe in "cross boundaries" to fix things, otherwise
Hong Kong could also be in a wreck!
Future Centre as an alternative form of democracy to improve governance
Against a complex political background and the eventual transition toward
Universal Suffrage of the Chief Executive and Legislative Council, Hong Kong will
eventually have to come to an agreement on a policy development and
constitutional framework that connects the society to government. Whether
Hong Kong will be successful in its constitutional reform effort is still unclear and
it is still uncertain whether Hong Kong will be able to move forward on the
political development front. There is a glimpse of hope that might work in Hong
Kong's favour ‐‐ since China is also going through rapid changes, it will have no
choice but to look into a more representative form of government to solve many
social conflicts and governance problem in its economic development. Perhaps
the Mainland is willing to borrow successful ideas ‐‐ such as from Hong Kong's
experiment in practicing the Government‐sponsor Future Centre. Both Hong Kong
and Mainland China will have much to gain if Hong Kong could position itself as a
liberal and more advanced territory in China that is more ready than the Mainland
to resolve differences in an open and democratic manner ‐‐ not a place that could
subvert China.
This paper proposes that people of Hong Kong need to understand their
past in order to find a pathway for the future. The first Government‐sponsored
Future Centre could be set up in a historical building ‐‐ a setting that connects
participants of the Government‐sponsored Future Centre to the collective social
memory of Hong Kong's different communities across time. The old setting of a
historical building would naturally lead participants to imagine what had
happened in the past and thus create new meaning from past history through
rational and innovative discussions.

12. 12
References:
i
From Functional Constituencies to Party Dictatorship, From a British Political Idea to British Political Practice,
HKDF speaker luncheon by Professor Tony Carty, 21 December 2009
(http://www.hkdf.org/newsarticles.asp?show=newsarticles&newsarticle=255)
ii
http://www.scmp.com/business/economy/article/1425676/public‐trust‐government‐andbusiness‐falling‐says‐
survey
iii
Speech by Mr. Lam Woon‐kwong, "Towards better policy‐making in Hong Kong" at speaker luncheon organized
by the Hong Kong Democratic Foundation on 7 January 2011:
(http://www.hkdf.org/newsarticles.asp?show=newsarticles&newsarticle=291)
iv
Lung, Alan Ka‐lun(2003). Review of the Role and Functions of Public Sector Advisory and Statutory Bodies (29
May 2003, www.hkdf.org)
v
Chan, J. (2007). From Consultation to Civic Engagement: The Road to Better Policy‐making and Governance in
Hong Kong. Prepared by Centre for Civil Society and Governance, the University of Hong Kong and commissioned
by Bauhinia Foundation Research Centre.
vi
Governing Hong Kong: Insights from the British Declassified Files, Oxford University Press, 2012; 李彭廣,
香港的管治團隊: 英治時期的運作與回歸後的更新,
vii
2016 Policy Address of the HKSAR Government.
viii
Lam Woon‐kwong's speech at the Hong Kong Democratic Foundation, 7 January 2011.
ix
The Future Centre Alliance (http://summit.futurecentres.com/history/) acts as a focus for future centres from
around the world.
x
Kune, H. (2004). Five Dutch Future Centers for the Public Sector.
xi
Crowdsourcing for Demcracy: A New Era in Policy‐making, published by the Committee for th Future of the
Parliament of Finland.
xii
Ulla Rosenström and Nicolas Balcom Raleigh. (2015). Inclusive Foresight for Finland.
xiii
Mark Gerzon, Leading through Conflict ‐‐ How Successful Leaders Tranform Diffenceces into Opportunities,
Harvard Business School Press (2006)