www射-国产免费一级-欧美福利-亚洲成人福利-成人一区在线观看-亚州成人

The giant rubber duck that graced our harbor for several weeks was more than just an attraction that fascinated many thousands of locals as well as tourists. It was given a deeper meaning by Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying who, when in Shanghai, referred to the duck phenomena as an example of the good that creativity can do to the economy.

Speaking at the Second Annual Urban Land Institute Asia Pacific Summit earlier this month, Leung urged Hong Kong people to really ponder the inspiration that the duck, created by Dutch artist Florentijn Hofman, has engendered. The rubber duck, he said, has proved the economic value and importance of successful creative ideas that can help to boost tourism, catering, retail and other services sector industries.

The importance of building up Hong Kong's design capability is not a new idea proposed by the Leung administration. Previous administrations had bruited it about from time to time. But little progress is seen to have been made in nurturing a competitive design industry. This is regrettable because there used to be no shortage of design talent in Hong Kong.

In his Shanghai speech, Leung specifically noted that the Hong Kong government will invest more in educating the next generation of creative talents in industry and commerce. This is fine. But he didn't touch on the core issue of what the government can do in helping these young talents find jobs and more established professionals set up their own studios.

In Shanghai, which harbors the same ambition, numerous "design parks" have been created in which the premises are offered for rent to design studios at subsidized rates that are significantly lower than market rentals in the vicinity. In Hong Kong, of course, subsidy is a bad word. The government has always prided itself on adhering to the principle that it will not deploy public funds in subsidizing any particular industry.

But that thinking is not a rigid doctrine and should never be allowed to be used by incompetent and short-sighted bureaucrats as an excuse for doing nothing. The success of those industry parks built in the 60s and 70s should serve as a reminder that not all subsidies are evil.

In the 1980s, the Hong Kong Trade Development Council was known to be active in promoting Hong Kong-design garments and other small goods. I used to enjoy going to its showroom in an annex of the Convention and Exhibition Centre in Wan Chai to browse and marvel at the array of cleverly designed goods on display.

But such efforts are far from enough to seriously promote a new industry. Hong Kong's exceptionally high rent is the bane of all small- to medium-sized businesses. Those SMEs which have to fight for overseas businesses with competitors in other cities have a particularly slim chance of survival.

There are a few Hong Kong designers who have created functional and good looking accessories for Apple and some other top consumer electronic goods producers. But they are constrained by limited capital to spend on marketing to establish their brand names beyond the local marketplace.

Financiers and investors in Hong Kong recognize only bricks and mortar, not ideas. They won't bat an eyelid sinking billions of dollars into a real-estate development project no matter how risky it may seem. But asking them to cough up funds to bankroll a design studio is harder than drawing blood from stones.

If the government approach is limited to investing more in educating the next-generation of creative talents, it might as well save the money for other more productive uses. Better educational facilities aren't going to attract potential talents when they can see no future in pursuing a career in the creative field in which jobs are few and pay is low.

The government will have to produce a more comprehensive plan to convince the public that money spent on nurturing the creative industry is a sound investment in Hong Kong's future, and not just a sitting duck.

The author is a veteran current affairs commentator.

(HK Edition 06/21/2013 page9)