胡亂派糖浪費公帑 善用盈餘投資未來

<轉載自2013年2月4日 明報 社評版>

 

2012/13年度政府首9個月錄得400億元盈餘，這是收稅「旺季」之前的數額，預期本年度很大機會有超過這個數目的巨額盈餘，政黨紛紛促請政府加大力度「派糖」，部分甚至要求政府直接派錢。有盈餘時適度退稅加福利無可厚非，但豐裕的盈餘最應用作投資於未來，教育、扶貧、產業多元化等香港亟待推展的項目，統統需要政府大力投資，公帑應花在對香港長遠發展有利的範疇，而非為求贏取一時民望而大放煙花。

財政司長曾俊華將於2月27日宣布財政預算案，曾俊華早前推測本年度會有34億元赤字，現實卻極有機會「轉虧為盈」。特首梁振英宣布《施政報告》時，表明綜援出雙糧或稅務寬減等紓困措施，會留待預算案交代，令外界預期政府將會「派糖」。據悉，政府也有意在預算案中「補鑊」，盡量容許各政策局提出加碼方案，交由曾俊華考慮。

曾蔭權年代迷戀「一次過」實為懶惰短視欠視野

政府的收入來自市民，政府有盈餘時適度退稅、增加福利，減輕市民負擔，是應有之義，只要並非過量，公眾定會歡迎。問題是，民望低落的政府有極大誘因大舉派糖以贏取政黨及公眾的掌聲，若本年度盈餘的主要出路最終只是派糖甚或直接派錢，政府只是慷納稅人之慨，未有盡公共理財之責。

民間智庫新力量網絡上周公布的研究報告，提供了一個有效的框架去分析政府近年的所謂理財哲學。近年公眾對預算案的印象，就是派錢與派糖，報告統計出在過去6份預算案中，竟然共有高達1805億元的「一次過派糖措施」，平均每年高達300億，可惜政府愈派糖，社會卻愈不滿，與預算案有關的抗議行動愈演愈烈，2011年政府破紀錄派了608億元，但該年社會抗爭數目卻達到78次的歷史高位，可見效果適得其反。

政府近年猛推「一次過派糖措施」，有其歷史因由。早年香港陷入結構性財赤，主因之一是政府在經濟困難時，每每以減稅、派福利的方式紓解民困，但這些措施屬經常開支，易放難收，最終令政府「使大咗」而陷入財困。自此以後，政府改以「一次過派糖措施」來應付民間的紓困呼聲，拒絕承諾長期投資，派糖「鋪鋪清」。新力量網絡的研究發現，過去10年政府的總開支增加了52%，但經常開支只增加了24%，非經常開支卻大增了10倍，究其原因，正正是每年預算案都推出大量「一次過派糖措施」，反觀長遠社會投資則絕無僅有。

曾蔭權年代這種迷戀「一次過」、「鋪鋪清」的理財哲學，美其名為謹慎理財，避免過分承諾而開支大增，但實際上反映了政府懶惰、短視、欠缺長遠視野的思維。偶一為之還情有可原，若變成常態，則是徹頭徹尾的失職、浪費公帑、浪費光陰。最明顯例子是政府每次派糖，就只會想到利用早已建立的資料庫網絡，如公屋、綜援、電費帳戶等，務求以最快捷方便的方法把公帑送出去，但這種所謂的利民紓困模式，根本不科學不公平，最困苦、不合資格上公屋的N無人士、自力更生拒領綜援的低下階層，統統無法受惠。結果，公帑花了，錢卻如泥牛入海，到頭來還要動用關愛基金「補鑊」，社會愈扶愈貧。

投資教育減少跨代貧窮 肯定較派錢更有效

其實，即使派糖，也可以配合長遠規劃政策。環保是本屆政府施政重點之一，例如，今年政府若仍然選擇給市民電費津貼，也可以加入鼓勵節省用電的誘因，省電愈多，津貼愈多，以培養和強化市民的環保減廢意識。這樣較單純的「扣數」，更有意義。

本屆政府絕對不應重蹈「曾治七年」的覆轍。事實上歷經多年停滯發展，社會百廢待舉，施政報告主力針對樓市，但扶貧、教育、產業發展等項目同樣亟待政府加強投資。

香港教育學院上周公布的研究發現，過去20年窮學生與富學生升大學比例的差距日漸拉闊，窮學生升讀大學的比率一向為大約一成，但2011年富學生升讀大學比率卻高達五成，長此下去，窮苦人家根本無法靠子女升讀大學脫貧，跨代貧窮只會更加嚴重。以公帑協助低下階層子女依靠知識改變命運，肯定較胡亂派錢能更有效扶貧。

同樣急待政府加大投資的例子俯拾皆是。政府欲推展源頭減廢，若能以公帑資助，或能讓公眾更易接受垃圾收費；近年不斷有聲音要求香港應推展產業多元化，避免過分依賴金融地產，同樣需要政府加強投資，庫房的公帑豈會無處可用？數以千億元計的財政儲備，如果不投放於改善福利及教育制度，協助低下階層脫貧，不用作有益整體社會發展的投資，反而用作一味派糖，實在是極大的罪惡。

Editorial

Fiscal Surplus Should Be Put to Good Use

THE GOVERNMENT has, in the first nine months of the year 2012/13, accumulated a fiscal surplus of HK$40 billion. It can confidently be expected that this massive surplus will further grow since the majority of the people have yet to pay their salaries tax. Political parties are urging the government to hand out more sweeteners to the public, and some even ask for cash giveaways. Now when there is a substantial fiscal surplus there can be no objection to tax rebates and a suitable increase in social welfare expenditure, but the most important thing to do is to invest in the future and not to court popular support by wild extravagance.

Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah is to deliver his budget speech on February 27. He had forecast a $3.4 billion deficit for this financial year, but now there is every possibility that the projected "deficit" will turn into a surplus.

As the government's revenue comes from the people, it is only right and proper that there should be tax rebates and an increase in social welfare to improve the people's living standards. As long as these measures are not carried to excess, they will be welcomed by the public. The problem is that an unpopular government is often unable to resist the temptation to generously give away sweeteners to win the applause of the public and political parties. If a major part of this year's fiscal surplus were to be used for the provision of sweeteners or cash handouts, the government would be abusing taxpayers' money and failing to discharge its responsibilities in public finance management.

Last week, the civilian think tank SynergyNet published a research report aimed at providing a framework for analysing the underlying philosophy of the government's public finance management. To the public, the government's budgets over the past few years have meant not much more than the provision of sweeteners and cash handouts. According to the report, the Financial Secretary's last six budgets have altogether given away a total of $180.5 billion's worth of one-off sweeteners, averaging as much as $30 billion a year. However, the increase in sweeteners seems only to have led to greater social discontent. There have been more and more protest demonstrations against the government's budgets. In 2011, the government handed out to the public a total of $60.8 billion, which was a record high; but in the same year, there were 78 public protests, which was also a record high. The doling out of sweeteners has evidently had the opposite effects to those intended.

And according to SynergyNet's findings, the government's total expenditure has over the past ten years increased by 52 percent, while there has only been a 24 percent increase in recurrent expenditure, compared with a tenfold increase in non-recurrent expenditure. The reason for this no doubt lies in the annual provision of "one-off sweeteners". At the same time, long-term social investment projects have been badly lacking.

The former Tsang Yam-kuen government's addiction to the "one-off" style of financial management reflected an idleness and short-sightedness that testified to a lack of vision. In fact, the handing out of sweeteners, even if considered necessary, should be so designed as to complement long-term planning. Hong Kong has for many years remained at a standstill, and there is much to be done. The Chief Executive's recent policy address is primarily concerned with the property market, but there are many other areas crying out for government investment, including assistance to the underprivileged, education, and the development of different industries.

So there are many productive ways to use public money. With fiscal reserves amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars, the government would be guilty of gross maladministration if it were to irresponsibly give away the money as sweeteners instead of trying to improve our welfare and education systems, help the underprivileged out of poverty, and invest for the development of society as a whole.

明報社評 2013.02.04﹕胡亂派糖浪費公帑 善用盈餘投資未來

2012/13年度政府首9個月錄得400億元盈餘，這是收稅「旺季」之前的數額，預期本年度很大機會有超過這個數目的巨額盈餘，政黨紛紛促請政府加大力度「派糖」，部分甚至要求政府直接派錢。有盈餘時適度退稅加福利無可厚非，但豐裕的盈餘最應用作投資於未來，而非為求贏取一時民望而大放煙花。

財政司長曾俊華將於2月27日宣布財政預算案，曾俊華早前推測本年度會有34億元赤字，現實卻極有機會「轉虧為盈」。

政府的收入來自市民，政府有盈餘時適度退稅、增加福利，減輕市民負擔，是應有之義，只要並非過量，公眾定會歡迎。問題是，民望低落的政府有極大誘因大舉派糖以贏取政黨及公眾的掌聲，若本年度盈餘的主要出路最終只是派糖甚或直接派錢，政府只是慷納稅人之慨，未有盡公共理財之責。

民間智庫新力量網絡上周公布的研究報告，提供了一個有效的框架去分析政府近年的所謂理財哲學。近年公眾對預算案的印象，就是派錢與派糖，報告統計出在過去6份預算案中，竟然共有高達1805億元的「一次過派糖措施」，平均每年高達300億，可惜政府愈派糖，社會卻愈不滿，與預算案有關的抗議行動愈演愈烈，2011年政府破紀錄派了608億元，但該年社會抗爭數目卻達到78次的歷史高位，可見效果適得其反。

新力量網絡的研究發現，過去10年政府的總開支增加了52%，但經常開支只增加了24%，非經常開支卻大增了10倍，究其原因，正正是每年預算案都推出大量「一次過派糖措施」，反觀長遠社會投資則絕無僅有。

曾蔭權年代這種迷戀「一次過」的理財哲學，反映了政府懶惰、短視、欠缺長遠視野的思維。其實，即使派糖，也可以配合長遠規劃政策。事實上歷經多年停滯發展，社會百廢待舉，施政報告主力針對樓市，但扶貧、教育、產業發展等項目同樣亟待政府加強投資。

庫房的公帑豈會無處可用？數以千億元計的財政儲備，如果不投放於改善福利及教育制度，協助低下階層脫貧，不用作有益整體社會發展的投資，反而用作一味派糖，實在是極大的罪惡。