Posts Tagged ‘熊子弦’
熊子弦 : 大浪西灣之後
大浪西灣之後
熊子弦
(刊2010年9月 CUP雜誌)
手臂上那持續了三星期的甩皮已停止，但卻深深烙下了七月廿五日大浪西灣的太陽，啡啡紅紅的，與被衣服蓋著沒曬黑的地方劃清界線，黑白分明的很是難看。那天與朋友去了西灣支持「大浪西是我們的」抗議行動，現場看看心愛的西灣給蹂躪成怎麼一個樣子。
去到慘案現場，眼睜睜看著灘後給掘成一大片爛地，數輛剷泥車還大模斯樣的蹲在那裏; 腦中想到的是七月中事件曝光後，環境局局長邱騰華去西貢吃海鮮「推廣地質公園」時，還面不紅耳不赤地說他不知情甚至不知西灣在哪; EQ再高的人，如我，那一刻也無法不怒火中燒，想大喝一聲「拖佢出去斬!」─ 這個「佢」，不是魯連城，不是邱騰華，而是特區政府。
新舊媒體互動
Facebook又一次發揮其「尋釁滋事」、「打擊政府管治」的特異功能，聚集了八萬憤怒的老中青積極跟進，天天現場直擊，又吸引了無數傳統媒體的記者在此打撈有用資料，新舊媒體良性互動(互相煽動)，成了五區公投與政改後的社運新一波。這大概是超出了大家的預期的。群情洶湧下，再加上連國際傳媒都狠批(特區政府的死穴?)，政府再多互相拋波卸責的絕技也招架不住了，終於在八月六日刊憲(註一)，把大浪西灣16.55公頃土地納入「發展審批地區草圖」(Development Permission Area Plan)，暫劃為「非指定用途」地帶，即時凍結新發展，有效期三年，期間違反限制的新工程須獲城規會批准，否則即屬違法; 城規會須於限期內公開諮詢，然後制訂長遠的「分區計劃大綱圖」(Outline Zoning Plan)取代; 大綱圖一般會詳列區內土地的用途及限制。
香港的城市規劃是一個由上而下及行政主導的制度，大致上分三層：即「全港發展策略」(如「香港2030」)、「次區域發展策略」和「地區圖則」。這些規劃文件均受「香港規劃標準與準則」所規範，但只有「分區計劃大綱圖」、「發展審批地區圖」及市區重建局發展計劃圖(Development Scheme Plan)擁有法定地位。
做不了? 不做了?
政府引用「發展審批地區圖」阻止破壞早有先例，由於疑有發展商欲在深涌興建高爾夫球場，政府遂於2006年制定發展審批地區圖並刊憲以阻止計劃，將該區大部分範圍劃作「自然保育區」，並有「綠化地帶」作緩衝，中部平地劃作「農業」地帶，而擬供擴大鄉村範圍的用地則劃為「鄉村式發展」地帶(註二)。早於九十年代，政府更曾一年內發出三十個「發展審批地區圖」。
大浪西灣這一役，算是公民社會「小勝一仗」嗎? 我實在說不出口。即使單就大浪西灣破壞事件而言，大浪西灣關注組已質疑發展審批地區圖成效，認為政府應回購郊野公園邊緣的私人土地以徹底解決問題。至於給掘爛了的大片土地，邱騰華只表示八月初已去信魯連城要求修復原貌，但由於不具法律約束力，未獲回覆。魯連城不理睬邱騰華? 弔詭的是，魯連城的公關公司在八月四日約見了創建香港的司馬文和西貢之友的Guy Shirra以收集意見，兩位熱心人要求魯連城無條件修復受破壞的土地，透過規劃發展該地或乾脆將土地捐給保育基金，再不然就向政府尋求土地回收。那邊廂，行山人士近日卻又發現，位於西灣的國際級景點四疊潭亦遭破壞，給污染成灰黃一片，懷疑源頭是魯連城的工程，但政府未見有追究的動靜。「小勝一仗」? 誰勝了?
政策漏洞引狼入室
況且，大浪西灣的浩劫只是冰山一角。世界自然基金會於七月底至八月中舉行的「捍衛鄉郊、監察環境」展覽，就揭露了2006至2010年間的49宗生態環境破壞個案，包括大欖田夫仔、馬鞍山梅子林及北區鎖羅盤等(註三)。而據南華早報八月十八日的報導，全港有77塊位處郊野公園之內或邊緣的私人土地，還未轉賣的也隨時給地產商賤價收購大起豪宅。報導指出，最少發現了十間私人公司已購入此類「無王管」土地，可怕的是，這些公司多與鄉事領袖(包括鄉議局的)及地方政客(包括區議會的)有關連。再看看八月八日的蘋果日報，指身兼行政會議成員的劉皇發屬下公司，七月向城規會申請，在下白泥興建137幢三層高獨立屋豪宅及十二幢營舍，佔地超過三十一公頃，環保團體已擔心會釀成生態災難，故強烈反對(註四)。
保育政策千瘡百孔，丁權長期被濫用，怎能不招致火頭處處? 而站在社會對立面的又是龐大的利益集團，市民再有韌力，又如何月復月年復年的螳臂擋車? 所以，政府實在責無旁貸，必須立即行動，馬上以法定規劃圖則保護郊野公園之內或邊緣的私人土地，並把此等「無王管」土地全數收購。怕對方坐地起價嗎? 特首可隨時發出「發展審批地區圖」凍結發展的這一招，就是最大的籌碼!
有招而不出、有籌碼而不用，就不好怪市民天天罵你「官商勾結」了。
(註一: http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201008/06/P201008060142.htm )
(註二: http://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/en/about_us/Annual_Report/2006-07_10.pdf )
(註三: http://www.wwf.org.hk/tlw_updates.cfm?2480/Safeguard-our-countryside-photo-exhibition )
(註四: 創建香港保護白泥運動詳見 http://www.designinghongkong.com )
熊子弦 : 起錨! 曾班子帶你違反基本法
Chinese Only 中文
Series on “Tsang in the sunset” (4): Hong Kong to be Marginalized by its Environmental Policy
Published in HKEJ ” Professional Eye” on 4th June 2010
Christine HUNG
The Professional Commons
Whenever we are told by the Government that Hong Kong will be marginalized if not doing something to facilitate a higher degree of integration with the Mainland, have we ever thought if we are complacent to let our past success ruin our future and our competitive edges might be lost at the end of the day? Three previous articles of the series have vividly illustrated the performance of the Government in relation to people’s livelihood, public finance and the rule of law has been deteriorating due to the absence of a clear social goal. With only lip service from the Government, how can our mere concern, despite grave, toward environment be transformed into any impetus that works? Under the empty slogan “I love HK I love Green”, Hong Kong ranked 23 out of 58 participating countries under the item “Health and Environment” in the 2010 IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook.
Hong Kong: a fugitive of environment
There is a general view that the irresolute Tung and irresponsible Tsang have been the culprit who made the performance of Hong Kong on combating global warming and reducing carbon emission even worse than that of the Mainland. Despite the fact that Hong Kong has been positioned as Asia’s World City and being one of the wealthiest places in the midst of Asian countries, the HKSAR Government only promised a less-than-25% reduction of energy intensity based on the level of 2005 by 2030, same as the commitment of other APEC countries. In addition, under the aegis of its being the inseparable part of China, the SAR Government insisted that “it is not required under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to meet specific emission targets.” At the Climate Change Conference held in Copenhagen, Hong Kong was only involved in agreeing to promoting electric vehicles. The SAR Government had put itself in complete embarrassment. When Beijing Government agreed to its latest commitment of reducing 40% emission by 2020 from 2005’s level, Secretary for the Environment Edward Yau had to follow suit and indicated that “the SAR Government would try to tie in with the country’s effort to achieve the goal of reducing carbon intensity”.
It is Tsang’s strategy to deal with environmental issues in a dilatory manner. To respond to community concerns about global warming, the Government launched a consultancy study on climate change in March 2008. The study was, according to the schedule, to be completed in September 2009, but it was further postponed to early 2010 without specific reasons. It is believed that the Government attempted to dodge the public grievance in the run-up of the UN Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. There is no further disclosure on the progress of the study to date.
Adopting air quality indicator of low standard
Hong Kong people have been devastated to witness the Government’s stagnant policy horizons and visions. The “Air Quality Objectives Review” conducted last year seems to make people believe that Tsang’s administration has the determination to achieve something, but, as far as the Government’s horizon is concerned, it is only confined to issues arising from regional air pollution, which is definitely behind the times in the sense that the whole world is now focusing on climate issues. Even worse, the Government only promised to adopt a standard that is far behind the one set by the World Health Organization.
Also, the current Municipal Solid Waste policy has been proved lacking insight and scientific justification. The primary concern of the Government is the remaining limited capability of landfills, and the Government tried to draw public attention to greater amount of land to be used for extension of the existing landfills. On the other hand, there is no plan to devise a new system that could reduce waste from the source by manipulating the life cycle of solid wastes concerned. I went hiking with friends in Clearwater Bay a few weeks ago, and witnessed how the country park there with beautiful coastline has been engulfed by landfills in expansion. We were all left dumbfounded and speechless.
Additionally, the existing policy does not probe into the real source of most of these municipal solid wastes and put in place more eco-friendly working procedures, as well as to reduce the consumption of toxic materials in the course of production. In this regard, it is highly likely to get instant result in waste reduction if producers are urged to further reduce the materials used in packages, as well as to reduce the use of plastic utensils, wooden chopsticks and foam plastic containers. On the contrary, the implementation of “Producer Responsibility Scheme” to date is mainly applied to individual consumers who do the purchase. Examples include levy on plastic bag and the proposed Producer Responsibility Scheme for Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment.
Recycling Industry: to be left abandoned
To develop environmental business without a mention of recycling industry is undoubtedly a mere lip service. Under the excuse of non-intervention policy, the Government has refused to support waste collection and recycling industries. Without an effective waste collection system, there would be no adequate and stable supply of recyclable material to sustain the development of this industry. Government’s indifferent attitude had resulted in successive close-down of a number of waste recycling plants of considerable scale in the past, as well as the suspension of the Eco Park project. As far as the Government is concerned, the most effective means of tackling municipal waste problems is by either incineration or transferring the waste disposal to the neighboring regions.
Another proof of the Government’s abdication of responsibility on handling locally-produced wastes is the disposal of substantial amount of untreated toxic material in landfills, while the Chemical Waste Treatment Centre on Tsing Yi Island is not fully utilized. Statistics showed that only 42,696 tonnes of chemical waste were handled in 2008 given its maximum capability of 100,000 tonnes per year. More specifically, only the mercury-related parts of Energy Saving Bulb are collected and handled, whereas the rest being dumped in the landfills. In addition, only about 2,000 tonnes of circuit boards were handled in 2009, far less than the 14,000 tonnes in 1996, implying plenty of its capability has been idled. Furthermore, what makes people depressed is that the Government strives to use this centre to incinerate medical waste in the future, rather than to fully capitalize on its idled capability to handle electronic waste.
It should be noted that the levy could help reduce carbon emission on one hand, and boost the development of recycling industries with the money collected on the other hand. In so doing, the waste collected could be channeled to local recycling factories and their recycled products for local consumption. The saving arising from the reduction of cross-border transportation could reduce energy consumption substantially. Despite these benefits, the levy is expected to arouse extensive controversy across the community where Tsang’s administration is so afraid of stepping into.
The Government has adopted the tactics-of-the-last-century attempting to deal with new problems, which results in our environment and air quality of increasing devastation. One more edge is out of our sight, and Hong Kong is being “marginalized” in the global village.
Christine HUNG : Series on “Tsang in the Sunset” (I): Fiscal Policy of Nowhere
Published in HKEJ ” professional eye” on 6th May 2010
Christine HUNG
The Professional Commons
www.procommons.org.hk
The coming “July 1 rally” is expected to teem with clamor and grievance as what had happened in the past seven years. It reminds us of Donald Tsang’s remaining term of less than 2 years. In this connection, we will have a serious review on governance problems in Tsang’s era in a bid to provide constructive advice to the incumbent government. This might also be regarded as a necessary reference, even a warning, for those who intend on running the next CE.
How does Tsang’s administration perform? Results from a recent opinion poll by the HK Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, CUHK, showed that a quarter of respondents preferred a more radical means in a quest for Government’s response to their request. This not only reflects failure of Tsang’s governance, but also suggests a warning signal on possible outbreak of public malaise.
Fiscal policy without a vision
Public finance has an important role to play in improving people’s livelihood and boosting the development of the local economy. Its principle of fiscal management and financial condition accordingly to some extent betoken the level of effective governance of the incumbent government. The performance of Tsang’s administration on public finance, under the constraint of the “financial envelope” arrangement and the lack of long-term vision, has been nothing but descended into a mere fiscal management.
The fiscal strategy of the HKSAR Government (hereafter the Government) has mainly been under the influence of two aspects. First and foremost, it has been laid down in Basic Law that the Government should be prudent in fiscal management, which is regarded as the most prominent principle by administrations of any term. Second, the Government closely follows the old practice of the colonial administration regarding outgoings, including reluctance to expand recurrent expenditure, striving for a breakeven between government revenue and expenditure, etc. It is obvious that the Government has exaggerated the importance of financial prudency to be the holiest and overbearing one without taking other social factors into consideration. In so doing, this principle is no longer a guide to achieve social goals of wellbeing but a mere “iron-crown spell” having them repulsed.
Caring government: a mere lip service
Despite the fact that there existed apparent coverage in Policy Addresses and FS’s Budget Speeches of the last few years concerning the establishment of a caring society, many policy measures have demonstrated that the Government attached greater importance to its financial stability rather than the need of the ordinary people. This explains the bad impression against Tsang’s administration of being mean, in which it haggles over with general public every penny to be spent, not to mention strong will to relieve those in deep distress. For instance, Tsang had once committed to increase “Old Age Allowance” to HK$1,000 on one hand, but proposed to introduce means test on the other hand. Against this background, there is a general view that the Government has shown no respect and sincerity to the elderly. The same happened to Government’s recent proposal of increasing subsided residential care spaces for the elderly. All these somewhat result in social outcry of extensive scale.
The strategy of Tsang’s continued reluctance to increase recurrent expenditure can be vividly reflected by a highly-anticipated consultation on “Hong Kong’s long-term social welfare planning” by the Social Welfare Advisory Committee. It is disappointing that the improvement in social service provision is not a matter of concern. Instead, it focuses on developing a “sustainable and affordable social welfare system” under the “users pay principle”, which is considered as one of the “guiding principles”. In social welfare service planning, it is worried that the fiscal consideration, in view of Government’s governing logic, is overriding the need of the underprivileged. The public only considers sporadic generosity from the Government such as additional subsided residential care places for the elderly and handicapped, and the services for the rehabilitation of ex-mentally ill patients, etc as measures in a bid to pacify social dissatisfaction under intense public pressure.
Effective Financing is what Healthcare Reform actually needs
The proposed healthcare reform is actually worrying. It is obvious that this reform does not aim to improve the standard of medical services but to make well-off middle class people responsible for their own medical service payment, and finally leave the queue. By doing so, more funds would be drawn for the provision of medical services. However, many middle class people could no longer enjoy low-priced public medical services, which is the only “welfare” they are eligible to enjoy. As far as the Government is concerned, it has been reiterated that public medical services should target the needy, anticipating that means test will be introduced in the foreseeable future.
The education sector is considered another area of calamity. Despite its sounded emphasis on development of knowledge-based economy, Tsang’s administration insists on maintaining the number of subsided undergraduate degree places at the existing level of 14,500 per year. The Government’s wishful thinking is the possible decrease in demand on subsided tertiary education in the face of decreasing youth population. Even worse, there is an imbalanced development in university’s course composition. Many humanities and social science faculties or departments in some universities have given way to those supposedly beneficial to economic developments. To this end, Tsang’s idea to develop education is for the mere sake of earning revenue from overseas. The vision and mission of university education seems not to be a major issue of concern.
It seems that Tsang’s administration has no regret to spend tens of billions on the “Ten Major Infrastructure” Projects but pay minimal effort to those in relation to the betterment of livelihood, notwithstanding embracement of fiscal reserve of astronomical amount. Despite this, Tsang’s administration sometimes responds by a mere tinkering like appropriation addition of small amount, or just muddling through. To conclude, infrastructural investment, in his eye, is apparently more important than improvement of people’s quality of life. As a result, Hong Kong is amongst the worst in the world in terms of the widening of wealth gap, while people’s anger has been smoldering on the edge of breaking down.
熊子弦 : 香港核心價值竟是「開飯」
Chinese Only 中文
