tim's experiment

I have occasionally wondered if Hong Kong might be best described as ruled by the rich and for the rich. The truth is perhaps worse. The latest proposed change to the law governing limited companies suggests we are ruled by criminals for criminals.

The idea that company directors should be able to conceal their names from inquirers stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of limited companies. That purpose is to allow people to do business without the risk of having their entire property seized by creditors if a deal goes awry. In other words the purpose of a limited company is to allow people to run up debts which they may not be able to repay. It is not only unnecessary but unconscionable that people enjoying this privilege should also be able to conceal their identities. I notice that there has been no talk of allowing people to remain anonymous if they trade under other names without forming companies. The Register of Business Names will presumably remain public. It would serve no useful purpose if it was not. The registers of doctors and lawyers will remain public. People can also consult the Societies Register to fund out who is behind harmless recreational clubs. It is entirely right and proper that anyone who is interested in the affairs of Dubious Enterprises Ltd should be able to find out who its directors really are. Nobody is forced to become a company director. Shy people can trade on their own account.

Whatever the merits of this argument, though, the scandal pales by the revelation (thank you Ming Pao) that the 16-member committee which approved the innovation included no less than 12 people who were company directors, every one of whom had in defiance of the law registered a bogus address as his home. The form they fill in requires a home address. It seems local businessmen, at least in Legco circles, prefer to put the address of an office or factory. This is a disgraceful episode. Come on you legislators! Does the phrase “conflict of interest” ring a bell somewhere? You were not put in that chamber to legalise your own crimes. Will we now hear from all those people who were pushing for Long Hair to be drummed out of Legco after his conviction for disrupting a bogus consultation meeting? Can we rename the committee concerned the Nameless and Shameless Committee?

All this has given rise to some interesting discussion of the status of that Hong Kong basic item, the ID card number. Of course when ID cards were introduced we were told that only the police would have the right to demand a look at one. Naturally, as was predicted at the time, once it was known that everyone had an ID card, all sorts of people arrogated to themselves the right to look at it. And they frequently make a note of the number. It is a good point, though, that the number as such tells people nothing, or almost nothing, about you. It does not incorporate your nationality, religion, appearance or sexual preferences. All it does is to give you a unique identity in a town with a shortage of different personal names. Connoisseurs may be able to tease a few fragments of Immigration information from the numbers and letters, but for most of us it is just like a human number plate. It is not, and is not supposed to be, like a PIN. So here we go: mine is XD680118(3). Although personally I think bloggers should be allowed to remain anonymous, if they desire it.