2008年10月25日 星期六

施政報告、十大基建和何議員欠你的交待

[Please scroll down for the English version]


各位工程師朋友:


曾特首在上週發表了施政報告,我最感欣慰的是政府開始用實質行動回應氣候變化的挑戰:在啟德發展區設立區域供冷系統、研究限制銷售鎢絲燈泡、資助大廈業主進行能源及二氧化碳排放綜合審計,和進行提升能源效益工程的部分費用。有關建議與我在今年七月提出的政綱 (見www.albertlai.hk) 、公共專業聯盟今年八月的施政報告建議書和今年二月的財政預算案建議(見www.procommons.org.hk)吻合,但仍有很大改善的空間,例如區域供冷系統除了用於啟德,更可加快在西九文化區使用。


對於工程界最關心的十大基建,可說是施政報告的一大敗筆。除了例行交待項目進展外,特首完全沒有勇氣面對項目遇上的困難,更沒有高瞻遠矚的能力,順勢調整以迎接金融海嘯後新經濟週期的挑戰。例如深圳市剛調整了城市總體規劃,使河套區發展和港深機場鐵路等跨境項目出現變數;由於經濟衰退風險驟增,市民自然期望加快帶動本土經濟發展的項目,例如連接觀塘的啟德新區、大學城、副都市中心等(有關我對十大基建的分析及工程界的憂慮,請參考我在信報的文章,該文與施政報告同日發表,見附文。)


林鄭月娥局長承認本年度的工程開支只由原來的二百一十八億增至二百三十億,下個年度亦只有二百五十億。若政府只著眼於一些需要跨境協調、港府根本不能控制進度的項目(例如河套區發展、港深機場鐵路等),原先所謂創造就業的目標只會變成雷聲大、雨點小,更難以符合工程界和社會的期望。為了應付金融海嘯後的經濟低迷,政府必須順應時勢,調整項目,讓更多中小型和更多可以惠及不同工程專業的項目上馬。


為了工程界的聲譽,我建議大家多留意何鍾泰議員在立法會的表現。他贊成政府對領取生果金的老人家進行入息審查(根據10月16日大公報報導),投票反對賦予立法會專責委員會特權調查雷曼事件,更投票反對立法會成立專責委員會調查梁展文事件。


我們不希望社會大眾因為工程界議員的取態,誤認工程師都是涼薄的中產階層,不顧民間疾苦,與市民脈搏脫節。增加三百元的生果金只會增加政府年度開支19億元,不及政府去年減低公司利得稅率而少收44億元的一半。香港有四成老人家生活於貧窮線下,不少老人家有畢生積蓄十萬八萬元,想盡辦法保留這些「棺材本」以備將來健康惡化時應急之用,所以只靠生果金每天不到三十元過活。由於有資產在身,他們不能通過入息審查,我們要取消他們的生果金,用光自己的儲蓄再拿綜援嗎?在未有全民退休保障之前,我們能忍心讓他們活得更苦嗎?


最新消息:曾特首今天下午(10月24日)宣佈痛改前非,不會為增加生果金而進行入息審查。何議員不知民心背向,為順從特區政府便硬要反其道而行,平白押上工程界的聲譽;事至如今,是否有點枉作小人?


很多工程師和親友都是雷曼事件的受害者,更多工程師認為梁展文事件應該徹查。對於這些大是大非,關乎良好管治的重大議題,何鍾泰議員卻認為立法會應該撤手不管,這是否有違工程界所託?


我們都希望何議員能代表工程界的良知,使工程師得到社會更多的尊重。何議員能給工程師一個交待嗎?



黎廣德工程師


2008/10/24 


Dear Fellow Engineers,


Policy address, Infrastructure and Legislator Ho's Performance


From the policy address announced by the Chief Executive last week, I was most pleased that the government has at last begun to take substantial steps in responding to the climate change challenge. These include a new district cooling system in Kai Tak, restrictions on the sale of incandescent light bulbs, and the subsidies for energy audits and energy efficiency upgrades in buildings. These initiatives are in line with my election platform last July (see www.albertlai.hk) and the Professional Commons' proposals in respect of the government budget last February and in respect of the policy address last August (see www.procommons.org.hk). Yet there is plenty of room for improvements, such as the early application of district cooling systems in the West Kowloon Cultural District.


What is most disappointing in the Policy Address are related to the Ten Infrastructure Projects, a subject close to the heart of engineers. Except for a routine report on project progress, the CE has neither the courage to face the many challenges ahead, nor the vision to rise above the looming financial tsunami. For instance, the recent adjustment of the master plan in Shenzhen City has created many uncertainties to the Lok Mak Chau Loop Development and the Airport Link Project. The increased risk of economic recession will also lead to heightened public expectations on projects that can spur local economic growth, such as new Kai Tak development linking the old Kwun Tong District, a university town, and a secondary city centre.


The Secretary for Development, Mrs Carrie Lam, admitted that the government's infrastructure spending this year will only go up to $23 billion from last year's $21.8 billion. Even the estimate for next year will only be $25 billion. If the government continues to focus only on mega-projects, in particular cross-border projects which the government has little control (e.g. Lok Ma Chau Loop and the Airport Links), the original targets of job creation will be under-achieved. To respond to the new economic scenario post-financial tsunami, the government must start now to fine-tune its plans and encourage a more diversified range of projects, in particular projects of lesser size and projects capable of benefiting a broad range of engineering disciplines.


For the sake of the engineering profession's reputation, I would suggest that we pay more attention to the performance of Legislator Raymond Ho in Legco. He recently voiced support for means test for the recipients of the old-age allowance (according to news report in Ta Kun Pao on 16/10/08). He also voted against two motions: Legco's investigation into the Lehman Brothers affair using privileged power, and Legco's setting up of a special committee to look into the Leung Chin Man affair.


We do not want to see that the public, because of Ir Ho's attitude, misconstrue engineers as a bunch of uncaring middle class professionals totally detached from the needs of the disadvantaged. As a matter of fact, the increase of the old-age allowance by $300 per month will only lead to an increased annual expenditure of $1.9 billion, less than half of the $4.4 billion of annual revenue loss as a result of the reduction in company profits tax last year. At present around 40% of our aged population live below the poverty line. Many of them may have a life savings of say $100,000 or less. They rely on the old-age allowance of less than $30 per day for daily living in order not to run down their savings which they keep at all cost as a means for self-protection in anticipation of their declining health conditions. Since personal savings are regarded as financial assets, these senior citizens will not be able to pass the means test if applied. Should we cancel thei! r old-age allowance, thus forcing them to run down their savings and join the queue for CSSA? Should we make their lives more miserable before we can bring in a system of universal retirement protection?


Here is the latest development: the CE announced this afternoon (24/10/08) that he retracted his earlier proposition and would drop the idea of a means test. What purpose did Ir Ho serve by declaring this untenable position, except to put at risk the reputation of the engineering profession?


Many engineers and their friends were victims of the Lehman Brothers financial products. Still more engineers believe that the Leung Chin Man affair is worth thorough investigation for the sake of good governance. Yet Ir Ho has been asking Legco not to exercise its right to investigate. Is this in line with the expectation of the engineering profession?


It is our wish that Ir Ho can stand for engineers' conscience, so that we engineers can earn more respect from the public. Does Ir Ho owe us an explanation?
Ir Albert Lai
24 October 2008


 


 



十大基建的內憂外患 
 
黎廣德    公共專業聯盟主席
原文刊於2008年10月15日信報「專業眼」專欄



「河套地區的開發絕不是直接確定專案就開發這麼簡單的事,首先應該對區域環境影響做出評價,河套地區是深港之間難得的綠色屏障,深港兩地的空間資源很有限,而最短缺的資源就是綠地資源。」 這番說話並非出自環保份子之口,而是深圳市社科院院長樂正今年六月在深圳市規劃局就河套地區開發舉行的首場內部諮詢會上的發言。



上月中文大學航空政策研究中心副主任羅祥國發表了研究報告,估計港深機場鐵路須投資三百至五百億港元,但客運量嚴重不足,即使強迫關閉了現有來往港深機場每程250元的渡輪服務,而鐵路單程收費四百元,客運量假設從現在的全年五十萬人次有每年百份之二十的增長,整個項目也只能從第十一至十五年才達致第一年有百份之三的回報。報告直言港深機場鐵路項目難以符合經濟效益。


樂正和羅祥國的觀點,對於曾特首賴以支撐去年施政報告的十大基建,無疑是當頭棒喝。


河套區開發和港深機場鐵路都是十大基建中的兩個跨境基建項目。無疑每一個大型項目都需要經過周密研究,在過程中出現調整甚至被判定不可行而須放棄,都是正常不過的程序。但在研究過程中時刻保持科學求真的專業精神卻需要極大的勇氣。


河套區「綠色屏障」的啟示


十大基建去年還未有一個項目開工建設,預計在曾特首於2012年落任前能夠開工的只有六個:南港島線、沙中線、廣深港高速鐵路、屯門西繞道及屯門至赤角連接路、西九和啟德發展計劃;其餘四個:港珠澳大橋、河套區、港深機場鐵路和新界北的新發展區更未有確定的時間表。



事實上,大家關心曾特首在今年的施政報告中除了宣揚各項進展之餘,能否誠實面對十大基建面臨的挑戰,從而因應調整。


一、 深港願景的落差


深圳市剛在上月公佈了《深圳國家創新型城市總體規劃(2008-2015年)》,把自主創新作為深圳市發展的主導戰略,而其中重點是加快城市環境建設,創造最佳人居環境,吸引高級人才聚集。深圳的發展主軸在於東、西、北三個方向,保留河套區的環境資源反而成為知識界主流的呼聲。這邊廂,就在香港舉行的諮詢會上,新界原居民開始質疑,政府開發人煙全無的邊境河套區是否意味要拖慢新界北的發展,幾個零散的所謂新發展區究竟能有甚麼成效?專業人士則指出全國高鐵的香港站明明可以設在錦上路,以發展元朗、錦田一帶成為副都市中心,為甚麼非要把總站設在西九的地底,強迫三百多萬新界人北上內地時須先往南走十多公里到九龍上車?


簡而言之,深圳前瞻性的願景已經使香港的規劃相形見拙,為最少四個項目添加變數:河套區、新發展區、全國高鐵和港深機場鐵路。


二、 市場投資意欲萎縮


過去一年進展較大的五個項目均有一個共通點:原先預計的私人資本投資影影蹤全無,政府須承擔全部投資。港珠澳大橋放棄招標,啟德郵輪碼頭招標失敗,西九推倒重來後由政府獨攬,沙中線和南港島線由政府全資興建,再租予港鐵營運。本來由政府投資基建並非壞事,但這意味著項目毋須按照市場規律經過風險評估,項目是否可行全由曾班子說了算。按照目前低透明度的做法,工程部門不能向公眾公佈詳細可行性研究,提交立法會的有限資料亦沒有熟悉專業的議員認真斟酌。由於政府高層不尊重專業意見,因外行領導內行而出現決策失誤的風險大增。


「願景貧乏症」隱憂


三、 工程界憂慮忽冷忽熱


工程界很多資深人士已經憂慮,政府不惜一切地推行十大基建,將會使投資額從目前每年兩百多億大幅飇升至兩、三年後的四、五百億,屆時創造的新價值只會跑到外來的公司和勞工手上,與政府聲稱為本地行業帶來可持續發展的目標背道而馳。況且十大基建原來的內容就已經遺漏了很多有利環境質素、能夠惠及更多工程專業的項目,例如高效焚化爐、淨化海港計劃生物處理工程、應對氣候變化工程、改善社區設施的小型工程等等,若果曾班子沒有按照專業意見及時調整基建項目的內容和進度的政治勇氣,將會使香港走上不少冤枉路。


深圳市社科院院長樂正指出,河套區的綠地是緩解深圳巿中心區熱島效應的主因;他的見識也同時反照出特區高層規劃基建時患上的「願景貧乏症」,從來未有深究「為何發展」、「為誰發展」的根本問題。今年施政報告的最大憂慮,是曾特首繼續把口號式的十大基建視為首長工程的政治任務,不惜代價也要「頂硬上」,變成「後金融海嘯期」尾大不掉的包袱。


沒有留言:

張貼留言