The convenor of the Executive Council, the top policy-making organ of the Hong Kong Government, spoke to the media on 23rd September that the Government would do more for the 'havenots' of the society. Famous of its long history of market-driven business-led principles in public administration, the Government's addressing the haves-havenots gap in this way attracted my attention. Would this be a new beginning, or just what some may think: only a superficial gesture? We shall see.

While gaps between haves and havenots exist in many dimensions in Hong Kong, I am focusing here on the Digital Divide (gaps in an information society and between societies) here. I can feel that policy makers are experiencing a big dilemma here. Having many forums but little concrete action plans could be a sign of such dilemma.

The seriousness of the Digital Divide is well understood. If not helped, the havenots will be deprived of sources of knowledge, public services and be distanced more and more from the social and economic functions of the society. The rapid pace of information technology (IT) advances will intensify the adverse impacts. The following are two examples which I have personally involved and made close observation.

One example is about the situation that disabled and elderly people cannot surf the web and communicate via emails when the relevant software is upgraded rapidly. If these people are not provided with  the appropriate AND the latest versions (which have not been produced or are too expensive), they will not be able to view webpages and emails. Unfortunately, in a recent OFTA consultation paper (dated 8th September 2000; submission deadline 20 October; titled: "Revision version of the code of practice on the provision of telecom. services for the elderly and people with disability) none of these matters are covered.  We are not talking about broadband nor 3rd Generation mobile services yet, which are emerging in the marketplace already.

Another example is about Government's IT in Education policy. Victims of the Digital Divide include students who cannot do homework at home and parents who cannot communicate electronically with teachers  (when required by schools), if they are not equipped with advanced software/hardware and the skills. People and groups concerned about these problems have suggested ways such as subsidising needy students to buy a PC at home, to pay ongoing PNET charges (tariffs for using the Internet). Some are planning courses for parents.

Most pro-technology and industry people would argue that if technological advances need to cater for the needs of the havenots, the pace would be slower. Moreover, business organisations only have to focus on profitability, not social welfare.

A counter argument I have heard is that in satisfying the needs of disabled and elderly people, better innovations and inventions would be generated. An example is locations positioning by 3G mobile services.
Another counter argument is that if products and services are purely driven by technology, even the general public would not be able to cope with the pace to get satisfaction. Technological advances without the support of a market pull will not lead to success in the long run.

Which stakeholder(s) should (jointly) bear this social responsibility of serving the havenots?  Is it too big a dilemma for policy makers to confront? I hope that such dilemma will not be a dilemma forever. Government and industry policy makers need solutions and concrete action plans as soon as possible. I also hope that there would not be major societal resisting forces due to prolonged and aggregate frustration and victimisation.
 

Dr Charles Lam
September 2000

Your feedbacks to the above--agreements and disagreements, suggestions, critical views, etc., are most welcome. Please send emails to clam@kamching.com