20

立法會財務委員會於

十二月十八日的會議上決定押後討論高鐵撥款問題，令高鐵工程不能如期展開。筆者由始至終都贊成興建高鐵，所以希望透過此文章從政

治及公共政策的角度分析為何高鐵項目具爭議性，並提出可行方法令政府可解決當前困局。因高鐵的好處與壞處已被廣泛討論，筆者無意在此詳談。

首先，筆者希望從政治及公共政策的角度分析為何高鐵項目具爭議性。

第一個原因是代價與得益（cost and benefit）的問題。高鐵項目無疑可為香港帶來利益，不論短期或長期，都十分可觀。可是得益是非常分散的—就是說，雖然這項目對全香港有益，但對每一個香港人而言利益不是很大。相反，代價卻是非常集中，只由一小撮人承擔—其中一個例子就是菜園村居民。因此在這情況下，承擔代價的一群人便有誘因用行動去反對政府的決定，而得益的大部分人卻不會公開表達支持政府。這情況跟國際貿易很相似，經濟理論告訴我們自由貿易能使利益增加，但保護主義的存在則說明承擔代價的一群並不願意為自由貿易而犧牲其利益。

當然，筆者不是要指摘菜園村居民，因為筆者明白很多東西是不能以金錢衡量，而菜園村居民保衛家園的行動絕對是合情合理。但筆者想指出的是我們

要明白我們的身份不只一個，--例如，菜園村居民不只是菜園村的居民，也是香港的居民，在反對此項目前，他們也應撫心自問高鐵項目是否對香港有益，是否對子孫有益？讀者可能認為筆者不明白菜園村居民的感受，但筆者可大膽說：我明白！因為筆者所居住的地區是受興建高鐵所影響的地區之一，不但面對環境污染，更有機會面對沉降的問題。可是權衡利弊輕重後，筆者堅持投高鐵贊成的一票，因此項目對香港影響深遠。正如七十年代時很多人質疑應否興建地下鐵路，四十年後的今天證明當時的決定正確，否則現在彌敦道及東區走廊的交通擠塞問題定會變得十分嚴重。

第二個原因是討論時間不足。常言道：真理是愈辯愈明，然而，沒有足夠的討論時間又如何使真理彰顯呢？諮詢期只有寥寥數月，莫說是一般市民，就算是研究高鐵的學者也未必能夠在短短數月內得出結論。在沒有充分社會討論的前提下，高鐵項目便很容 易 淪 為 另 一個“利益輸送”的項目，使之更具爭議性。政治任命官員的職責就是要推銷政策，鼓勵討論，但運輸及房屋局的官員在此環節上又是否已盡全力？

透視高鐵事件

HK

PAS

S BLING

Win

ter

Ed

itio

n

21

接着，筆者希望簡述可行的方法以解決當前的困局。

在代價與得益問題上，政府要想辦法補償蒙受損失的一小撮人。現時政府以高於市價四倍的價錢收購菜園村土地，大約八成居民已接受賠償遷出。剩下的希望不拆不遷，而這一群正是令政府最束手無策的一群。既然錢不能作誘因，政府可考慮原村搬遷。雖然這涉及龐大的人力物力，加上新界土地的複雜擁有權，此辦法將會是困難重重。然而特首早前邀請有新界皇帝之稱的新界鄉議局主席劉皇發加入行政會議，政府何不請他老人家幫忙協調？

在討論不足的問題上，政府應容許至少三個月的額外諮詢期，在諮詢期間，政府應針對性回應反高鐵組織的關注點，無論是菜園村居民或環保組織，以至其

他利益團體及持份者，政府都應一視同仁，而每次回應都應高調透過媒體機構發放，希望在最短時間內回應最多的問題，使“真理”慢慢浮出水面。同時，透過傳媒機構發放的訊息可短時間內讓市民大眾接收，解決資訊透明度的問題。

最後，觀感問題是比較難解決的，因為一旦觀感已

形成便很難改變。因此政府需要玩“數字遊戲”，把利益數量化以呈現市民眼前。政府更應強調高鐵的長遠利益，把市民的目光轉去以社會為整體的角度考量，筆者相信很多爭議必定會隨風而逝。

總而言之，筆者百分之百鼓勵社會討論，因筆者相信真理是愈辯愈明。政府千萬不能只靠長官意志去推行高鐵項目，否則只會適得其反。政府更需要特別留意反對聲音，明瞭其關注點及盡最大努力回應。讓市民大眾知悉更多資訊絕對有利於討論，運房局官員應考慮每天於報紙發表文章，發放更多有關此項目的資訊，直至下一次財委會會議。筆者希望經過新一輪的討論後市民大眾對高鐵項目能有更深的認識，從而令工程得以順利展開，使香港和香港市民都因高鐵得益。

國際政治經濟學系碩士生林學斌

透 視 高 鐵 事 件

第三個原因是資訊的透明度。在一般情況下，政府擁有的資訊是多於普羅大眾，從而讓政府在實施政策前有更深入的分析。可是政府並不是常常跟公眾分享這些資訊，最明顯的例子是公民黨曾提出一個以錦上路為高鐵總站的建議，不但惠及新界居民，節省行車時間，最重要的是成本只及現時建議的一半。這建議於很多人眼中是十分吸引，但政府內部其實曾評估過這方案，發現可取性甚低。政府亦曾向部分立法會議員解釋為何錦上路方案不可行，而聽過政府解釋的議員都以贊同這方案不可行的居多。為何政府只向議員解釋，而不向市民大眾解釋呢？我相信市民的眼睛是雪亮的！只要有合理的理據支持，市民絕不會阻撓利民的政策，問題是政府有否向市民披露更多資訊而已。

第四個原因是觀感問題。根據政府提交立法會的資料顯示，政府向立法會提交的撥款由之前的三百多億元增至現時的超過六百億，上升差不多一倍。縱使建築材料的價格跟隨通脹上升，這升幅於市民而言，實在是十分驚人。更有輿論認為六百多億元能用作其他政府支出如醫療改革或社會福利支出等，這些都比高鐵項目更能幫助市民。筆者認

為觀感只是數字遊戲，假如筆者告訴大家政府投放的六百多億每年會為香港帶來以十億元計的經濟效益時，大家又有何想法？當擁有更多資源，政府便能更容易解決不同的社會、民生問題，改善生活。“小數怕長計”這道理是十分顯淺易明的，但當在高鐵項目中應用時我們又是否明白呢？

HK

PAS

S BLING

Win

ter

Ed

itio

n

22

My stance on the

‘Five Constituencies Referendum’ is simple- it is a mistake.

Most would be familiar with the situation. The Pan-Democrats- with the notable exception of the Democratic Party- plan to bring about a de facto referendum on the question of universal suffrage by 2012. The plan is to induce by-elections on the single issue of 2012 in each of t h e fi v e g e o g r a p h i c a l constituencies through mass resignation, and by so doing ‘prove’ that the people of Hong Kong are on the same page with the Pan-Democrats.

I dare not say that I can offer readers the constitutional or legal perspective; I only have my own opinion to give. Skimming through editorials written by those in the Pan-Democratic camp, three glaring questions come to mind.

First, what exactly are the demands of the people of Hong Kong on the question of universal suf frage? Second, how will this referendum work? And third, is it worth it?

So, what does Hong Kong want? The shor t answer is universal suffrage. Prod a little bit more and they will tell you they want direct election of the Chief Executive. Perhaps only a handful of the more perceptive ones will say they want the abolition of functional constituencies, to be

replaced by directly elected geographical constituencies. The next quest ion is when. The answer ranges from 2012, 2017 to 2020. The more ‘progressive’ of the democrats are p u s h i n g f o r universal suffrage by 2012, while the m o r e c a u t i o u s parties side with the government on the year 2017, or even 2020.

The problem is just that- there is too wide a range of expectations. The tightrope is suspended precariously between the banana-throwing League of Social Democrats (LSD) and the traditionally more moderate Civic Party, and it is hung a bit too high for the public to make out what exactly it is that they are asking for. The distinction between the political cultures of the two unlikely allies shows. The LSD are adamant that they want full universal suffrage by 2012; while the Civic Party is careful to leave the demands largely vague and all-inclusive in order to achieve the broadest consensus possible. Unfortunately, the lack of a specific objective would more likely serve to put off voters than to ensnare them. Few would be willing to back a cause the initiators are reluctant to set in definite terms.

F u r t h e r m o r e , a referendum is a public vote on a specific issue, on which the government frames into a precise question to be voted. A de facto referendum would not operate in this way. To convert a general

election into a credible de facto referendum, the Pan-

Democrats must isolate universal suffrage as the single issue on which the election is based, and try to push aside other electoral f a c t o r s s u c h a s p o l i t i c a l personality. A single-issued manifesto is a high-risk strategy; therefore the LSD and Civic Party must come to an agreement between themselves and declare their stance as soon as possible to allow time for the message to be infiltrated into the electorate.

There is also the more generic problem of legitimising the outcome of the referendum. Even in countries where there are legal provisions for the calling of a referendum, as in Taiwan, there are difficulties in meeting the official threshold of votes to approve a motion. The absence of the ‘no ’ vote in a de facto referendum leaves the outcome at the mercy of interpretation, open to manipulation by both the government and its critics, and by the general public. Given the low l e v e l o f p o p u l a r p o l i t i c a l involvement in Hong Kong- in 2008 only 45% of the 3.37 million registered turned up to vote at the polling stations for the LegCo election (compared to a 56.8% t u r n o u t r a t e i n t h e 2 0 0 8

THE NEW DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENTby Carmen Luk, Year 1, History Student

23

presidential election in the USA and 61.4% in the 2005 United Kingdom general election)- the legitimacy of the election could a n d w o u l d b e c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n . S u c h a d e f a c t o referendum is grounded in shifty sand, which in my view bears little authority even if a so-called ‘yes’ vote is yielded.

A small survey by the University of Hong Kong shows that out of 1017 interviewees, only a q u a r t e r b a c k t h e ‘ F i v e Constituencies Resignation’, while more than half oppose it. Whilst this is hardly representative of the opinion of the wider population, I have yet to hear a word of support for the ‘F ive Constituencies Referendum’ from any of my acquaintances. Most express a k i n d o f w e a r y c o n t e mp t , a sentiment that the Pan-Democrats are really biting off more than they can chew this time.

H o w e v e r , o n e m u s t a p p r e c i a t e w h y t h e P r o -Democratic camp have chosen to dig their heels in this time. The government is attempting to re-i n t r o d u c e t h e p r o p o s a l o f i n c r e a s i n g t h e n u m b e r o f functional constituencies in LegCo, which was rejected in 2005. This is seen as a direct contradiction to the government’s promise of the a b o l i t i o n o f a l l f u n c t i o n a l constituencies such that the L e g i s l a t i v e C o u n c i l c a n b e composed entirely of directly e l e c t e d g e o g r a p h i c a l constituencies. Indeed, one must admit that it is not unreasonable to demand a concrete display of commitment to universal suffrage on behest of the government twenty-three years into the democratic movement.

On the other hand, the p u b l i c a r e u n d e r s t a n d a b l y frustrated by the more radical Pan-Democrats’ refusal to accept the situation as it is. The bottom line is that Beijing would not budge on the issue of universal suffrage. It would be nigh impossible to find a b e l i e v e r i n t h a t e n o u g h c lamouring would push the implementation of universal suffrage forward to 2012- it is neither pragmatic nor does it endear the Pan-Democrats to the electorate. They are anxious to prove to the electorate that they are simultaneously campaigning for other social issues, but it is difficult to persuade an electorate convinced that time and resources are wasted on an issue on which Beijing will not compromise at the expense of more pressing ones that the parties could make more of an impact.

The unrelenting row for universal suffrage in 2012 has pushed many to regard the d e m o c r a t i c m o v e m e n t w i t h cynicism. Those who are at the vanguard of the democratic front h a v e n o t s h o w n s u f fi c i e n t perception or pragmatism one would expect of a mature political movement. The triumph of the F i v e C o n s t i t u e n c i e s Referendum lies in the enormous response and l i v e l y d e b a t e i t h a s s p a r k e d , a r a r e achievement in a dynamic society that is politically complacent. But at the end of the day, it is ambitious but ill-thought-out politics, and the Pan-Democrats are taking a gamble they are most likely to lose.

T H E N E W D E M O C R A T I C M O V E M E N T