曾俊華預算案六年如一日 未能回應社會轉變與需要

<轉載自2013年2月28日 明報 社評>

 

財政司長曾俊華昨日發表的財政預算案，若是5年一屆政府的第5份，則其因循保守可以理解，因為夕陽政府理當如此，不過，他昨日發表新一屆政府的首份預算案，理應展現善用資源應對社會面對的問題、推動經濟發展和進步的財政規劃，可惜都付諸闕如。去月，特首梁振英發表首份施政報告，除了土地房屋事務顯露企圖心之外，結合預算案檢視，就其他問題看不到有應對部署規劃，也看不到解決的決心。近年香港社會、經濟以至人口結構等領域，都已經出現深刻轉變和轉型，政府的公共政策和公共理財，顯然欠缺敏感度，使政策規劃落後於實際需要；梁振英打着變革旗幟上台，然而，迄今未見他統率的政府走出窠臼。

派糖已耗2100億元 曾俊華理財因循

 

曾俊華今年耗費330億元派糖，採用老掉牙做法，打開既有「派糖資料庫」，好像執藥般敷應過去，不少意見認為電費補貼應該鼓勵市民省電，也懶得去想，曾俊華或許認為一貫做法行之有效，毋須改變，但是外界觀之，此乃因循苟且、官僚怠隋的表現。無論如何，連同今次派糖，曾俊華名下派糖耗費已經超過2100億元，出手之闊綽，肯定是歷來財爺第一人。

 

曾俊華在預算案回應對他只懂派糖、未善用資源的批評，說恆常措施應該由「政策主導，財政配合」。曾俊華對財爺職能的認知，相信真誠認為僅止於此，不過，若只懂得按政策撥款的財政司長，充其量只是帳房先生，與公衆期望和社會需要肯定有落差。實際上，財政司長在特區政府是第三把交椅人物，掌握特區政府財金大權，連金管局管理的以萬億元計外匯基金和相關資產，財爺都是法定負責人；另外，財爺統領財經庫務、商務經濟和發展局等3個政策局，涉及財金、經濟和土地事務，職能重要，所以，憲制上，財政司長若淪為帳房先生，肯定自貶身價。

 

實際上，以梁錦松任財政司長時的「封套」操作為例，財爺的職能並非全然政策主導、財政配合，反而可起到財政帶動政策的作用。梁錦松任財爺時正值經濟衰退，預算案連年赤字，「封套」主要為部門開支封頂，服膺政府緊縮開支的大原則。所以，梁錦松的「封套」，在財政緊絀時，可以起到遏制新政策的效果，換在財政寬裕的日子，財爺也可以藉「封套」，明示有多少盈餘可用，觸發各部門提出新政策或強化現行政策，供特首與政府討論取捨。

 

我們指出「封套」的兩面性，皆在說明只要財爺願意、真正地「應使則使」，可以在內部披露有多少錢可用，營造財政帶動政策的效果。但是，曾俊華連年低估財政收入，去年度和本年度更預測有赤字，在赤字預算面前，即使有政策局長想爭取資源推動新政策，都會取態猶豫，因為政府都入不敷支了，何來額外資源？但是，一次又一次證明，曾俊華連年錯估財政收入，而且錯得很離譜，近年，政府政策在應對各方面變遷存在落差，是否與財政收入的「狼來了」有關，值得探究。

 

另外，即使錯估收入，由赤字變大量盈餘，若曾俊華願意，也可以用財政撥款催生新政策。以應對人口老化為例，增建院舍，縮短有需要長者輪候院舍的時間，應該是既定政策，若曾俊華今年把約600億元錯估收入，撥出100億元，指定作增加院舍宿位之用，請勞工及福利局提供具體方案，難道公衆會反對？曾俊華在預算案描繪人口老化對財政收入、本港競爭力等的影響，顯示他知悉也重視這個問題，但是未能知行合一，在連年巨額盈餘下，寧可做低效派糖的舉措，卻不肯每年撥出資源，為日後的老年社會籌謀。

 

今年，曾俊華派糖縮水，有中產人士表示不滿，一方面因為他們得益小，最主要是認為政府若提出未來5年推動重大公共政策，需要大量資源，則不派糖也無所謂，但是現在既無大規劃，又少派糖，財政儲備則多達7300億元，他們認為對市民極不公平。這個意見，相信不少中產人士有同感。

 

曾俊華連年錯估政府收入，過去歸咎賣地收入波動，但是本年度錯估幅度最大的是入息及利得稅，多了248億元，地價收入只較預期多了91億元。納稅人口和公司數量基本固定，錯估程度仍然那麼大，使人懷疑曾俊華的錯估並非偶然失手，而是有根本結構性原因，結果，政府公共財政的公信力遭到挫損。曾俊華帳房先生式的公共理財，不但出現政府坐擁龐大資源卻未能善用以解決社會問題的荒謬局面，市民的怨懟和對政府的不滿，與此也有一定關係。

 

變革的政府？ 需更多具體證明

 

有政府消息人士說政府無政策，曾俊華作為財政司長，如何用錢？這個說法，有人解讀為反映曾俊華與梁振英各行其是。政圈一直傳聞梁振英與曾俊華不咬弦，是耶非耶，外界不知道。不過，從梁振英發表聲明高度肯定預算案「具前瞻性和有承擔」，而且盡多着墨說明預算案「承接了施政報告」，折射傳聞或許是子虛烏有。不過，無論如何，這份預算案並未能有效應對社會、經濟、人口的變遷和需要，梁振英政府若要說服市民她是一個變革的政府、對變遷和需要有足夠敏感度，就要拿出更多具體證明。

 

Editorial

 

A Budget Unresponsive to Social Needs

 

THE BUDGET Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah delivered yesterday (February 27) shows a conservatism that would be understandable if it were the fifth budget of a government with a five-year term, for an outgoing government should not be too ambitious. Unfortunately, as the first budget of a new government requiring far-sighted financial plans for the effective use of public resources to solve public problems and boost economic growth and development, it does not measure up to expectations.

 

Tsang is dishing out this year $33 billion worth of budget sweeteners. And he is doing this in the established way. While many have suggested that the provision of electricity subsidies should be so designed as to encourage the public to save electricity, Tsang has not even bothered to consider how this might be done. Maybe he believes that the established practice is effective and no change is needed, but the public will see this as an expression of bureaucratic inertia and slothfulness. In any case, this year's budget will bring the amount of sweeteners handed out by Tsang over all these years to the region of more than $210 billion. He is definitely the most prodigal Financial Secretary ever seen in Hong Kong.

 

In answer to criticisms that he is too much given to the idea of dishing out sweeteners and has failed to make good use of the government's resources, Tsang said as far as recurrent expenditures are concerned "financial arrangements should follow and complement administrative policies". This probably represents Tsang's perception of his job. However, a Financial Secretary who knows no more than the allocation of funds according to the decisions of the administration is no better than a bookkeeper, and certainly falls short of what the public expects and needs.

 

Tsang has cut back on the amount of sweeteners handed out this year, and some middle-class citizens are dissatisfied - partly because they are not getting much, but principally because they believe it is extremely unfair that the public should get so little when government reserves amount to more than $730 billion. They would not mind an absence of budget sweeteners if the government were to embark on ambitious public policies that would require substantial resources. But as no such policies have been proposed, the cut in sweeteners has left them dissatisfied. Many middle-class people probably feel the same.

 

Tsang's budget forecasts have year after year been wide of the mark, which we believe is the result not of accidental miscalculations, but of some basic structural problems. And the inaccurate forecasts have damaged the financial credibility of the administration. Tsang's bookkeeping style of public financial management has, most preposterously, not only failed to make effective use of the government's vast reserves to solve society's problems, but in a way also fuelled public grievances and discontent against the government.

 

There have been constant rumours in political circles that Leung Chun-ying and Tsang do not agree with each other. There is no way to tell whether or not there is any substance in these rumours. However, Leung has commended the budget as "forward-looking and responsible", and gone out of his way to illustrate how the budget is complementary to his policy address, which shows that the rumours may well be unfounded. In any case, the budget has failed to take into account Hong Kong's social, economic, and demographic changes and needs. If Leung's government wants the public to believe that it is committed to reform and sensitive to social changes and public requirements, it has yet to prove itself to be so.

 

明報社評 2013.02.28﹕曾俊華預算案六年如一日 未能回應社會轉變與需要

 

財政司長曾俊華昨日發表的財政預算案，若是5年一屆政府的第5份，則其因循保守可以理解，因為夕陽政府理當如此，不過，他昨日發表新一屆政府的首份預算案，理應展現善用資源應對社會面對的問題、推動經濟發展和進步的財政規劃，可惜都付諸闕如。

 

曾俊華今年耗費330億元派糖，採用老掉牙做法，不少意見認為電費補貼應該鼓勵市民省電，也懶得去想，曾俊華或許認為一貫做法行之有效，毋須改變，但是外界觀之，此乃因循苟且、官僚怠惰的表現。無論如何，連同今次派糖，曾俊華名下派糖耗費已經超過2100億元，出手之闊綽，肯定是歷來財爺第一人。

 

曾俊華在預算案回應對他只懂派糖、未善用資源的批評，說恆常措施應該由「政策主導，財政配合」。曾俊華對財爺職能的認知，相信真誠認為僅止於此，不過，若只懂得按政策撥款的財政司長，充其量只是帳房先生，與公衆期望和社會需要肯定有落差。

 

今年，曾俊華派糖縮水，有中產人士表示不滿，一方面因為他們得益小，最主要是認為政府若提出未來5年推動重大公共政策，需要大量資源，則不派糖也無所謂，但是現在既無大規劃，又少派糖，財政儲備則多達7300億元，他們認為對市民極不公平。這個意見，相信不少中產人士有同感。

 

曾俊華連年錯估政府收入，使人懷疑曾俊華的錯估並非偶然失手，而是有根本結構性原因，結果，政府公共財政的公信力遭到挫損。曾俊華帳房先生式的公共理財，不但出現政府坐擁龐大資源卻未能善用以解決社會問題的荒謬局面，市民的怨懟和對政府的不滿，與此也有一定關係。

政圈一直傳聞梁振英與曾俊華不咬弦，是耶非耶，外界不知道。不過，從梁振英發表聲明高度肯定預算案「具前瞻性和有承擔」，而且盡多着墨說明預算案「承接了施政報告」，折射傳聞或許是子虛烏有。不過，無論如何，這份預算案並未能有效應對社會、經濟、人口的變遷和需要，梁振英政府若要說服市民她是一個變革的政府、對變遷和需要有足夠敏感度，就要拿出更多具體證明。