善用盈餘謀劃未來 勿再寬免公屋租金

<轉載自2015年1月30日 明報 社評>

財政司長曾俊華行將發表下年度財政預算案，鑑於他再一次「估錯」預算收支，本年度將有大量盈餘，在民粹當道之際，預期政客為了選票，極可能會慷納稅人之慨，要求曾俊華「派糖」。財政資源應該用於有需要之處或投資未來，證諸過去「派糖」多年，形同浪費，曾俊華要頂住政治壓力，勿再順從政客的無理要求，特別是今年不應該再實行「公屋租金寬免」，匡正過去幾年扭曲了的公屋租戶權利與義務關係，使之重回正軌。

前任派糖形同浪費 現政府勿重蹈覆轍

本年度預算案，曾俊華原本估計有91億元盈餘。不過，各方傳來消息，包括會計專業界別的估計，本年度盈餘遠超原先預期，估計多達600億元至超過700億元不等。較早前，政府已經宣布把今年從外匯基金分得的270億元，撥入新成立的「房屋儲備金」，用以應對未來10年興建約30萬個出租和資助單位的財政需要。若把這筆錢計算在內，則本年度財政盈餘將接近1000億元，再加上政府財政儲備已經接近8000億元。因此，以「水浸」形容政府的財政狀，基本切合事實。

府庫充盈，衍生了如何善用辛勤累積的資源以有益於整體社會的問題。前任特首曾蔭權任內「派糖」，甚至派錢，7年內派出約2000億元，但是並無解決根本問題，反而使深層次矛盾惡化。當年政府罔顧財政紀律，浪費公共資源種下惡果，現在政府仍然要逐步匡正和清理；這個教訓，梁振英政府切勿重蹈覆轍，要使有限資源用於有需要之處，並非為討好市民而隨意分派。

事實上，本港正在面對和日後要應對的諸多狀況，都需要大量資源。例如人口老化不可逆轉，老年社會對醫療服務大幅增加；食物及衛生局長高永文最近就表示，未來20至30年，預計需要增加6000至8000張病床才可以應付需求。另外，環繞人口老化，還需要增設更多安老護老設施等。單是應對老年社會問題，政府把部分盈餘投放在興建醫院，增加病床，是責任所在，也肯定是市民對政府的期望。

去年2月曾俊華發表本年度預算案時，預告一次過紓困措施將逐步取消，當時取消了實行多年的電費補貼、公屋免租由前年兩個月減為一個月；今年消息傳來，曾俊華繼續減少所謂紓困措施，其中公屋免租傾向徹底取消。若落實，在下一個財政年度，公屋租戶就不會再獲租金寬免。曾俊華這個構思值得支持，希望他堅持落實，重回嚴守財政紀律和正確的理財軌道。

政府給公屋寬免租金始於2008年，本年度已經是第7年，寬免由一個月至兩個月不等。據非正式統計，當局因此少收公屋住戶租金接近120億元！這一大筆錢，並非由天掉下來、地長出來，而是最終由納稅人埋單。近期確定的10年建屋計劃，顯示房委會陷入財政困境，這筆錢若非免租花掉，就可以減輕公共財政的負擔。

公屋租金低廉，相對於無緣入住公屋的中低收入人士需要負擔高昂租金，公屋已經成為一種福利；若再免租，則成為雙重福利。至於那些租住私樓的市民，卻承受連年加租之苦；從公義角度，公屋租金就不應該寬免。另外，公屋租戶若遇到特殊情況，暫時無能力繳交租金，房委會有既定機制處理可以協助這類租戶渡過難關；至於領取綜援的住戶，本已毋須交租，對他們並無影響。

公屋戶享雙重福利 對私樓租客不公平

公屋政策的基本精神，是以公共資源協助有需要的人解決居住問題。因此，富戶政策、公屋租戶較容易購買居屋，以至構思中的綠表置居計劃等，都是鼓勵有能力的公屋租戶交還單位，另行分配給有需要的人。放在這個基本精神檢視公屋租戶的優渥地位，若他們再享受免租優惠，於情於理都說不過去。近日申訴專員公署揭發有公屋戶三父子，透過長者優先配屋計劃，由三人一個單位變成一人一個單位，也有公屋單位由坐擁300萬元私樓的富裕兒子繼承居住等。申訴專員揭露這些不合理佔奪公屋資源的情，只是冰山一角，可是若寬免公屋租金，類似自私自利的人和富戶同樣受惠，對於捱住私樓貴租或棲身「房」的市民，真是情何以堪？絕不公平。

曾俊華傾向下年度不再寬免公屋租金，方向正確，期望他頂住政治壓力而做得到。現在民粹當道，政客只求眼前選舉利益，不會顧及長遠大局；另外，今年是區議會選舉年，公屋這個大票倉，政黨、政客為了選票，都會籠絡公屋居民，對當局不再免租或許會有反彈。因此，取消公屋寬免租金，無可避免會有阻力。曾俊華應該迎難而上，緊守財政紀律，做對的事，不再搞偏離原則的派糖和派錢，讓政府把有限的資源用於必需之處，促進經濟發展，改善整體民生。

Public Housing rent remission

FINANCIAL SECRETARY John Tsang first forecast a surplus of $9.1 billion in this year's budget. However, according to various sources, this year's surplus may reach $60 billion and even top $70 billion, far exceeding the original estimate. The government announced earlier it had put $27 billion from the Exchange Fund into a newly-created Housing Reserve so that the authorities will have the money they need to carry out their plan of building around 300,000 public rental housing (PRH) units and subsidised sale flats in the next decade. This sum taken into consideration, this year's financial surplus will amount nearly to $100 billion. Because of this and the fact that the government's financial reserves will come nearly to $800 billion, it is basically accurate to say the public coffers are flooded with money.

A question has arisen because the government has huge fiscal surpluses: What is the best way to utilise such hard-earned money so that society as a whole will benefit? During his seven-year tenure as Chief Executive, Donald Tsang spent around $200 billion on "sweeteners" and money handouts. However, instead of solving any fundamental problems, he worsened deep-seated contradictions. The Tsang administration had no regard to fiscal discipline. In wasting public resources, it did what has had damaging consequences, which the Leung administration is still working hard to rectify and straighten out. This is a lesson to learn. The Leung administration must not make the same mistake. Resources are not inexhaustible. They should be spent where they are needed instead of being wasted to curry citizens' favour.

The government first granted PRH rent remission in 2008. Over the past seven years, PRH rent remission has been one or two months' rent a tenant a year. It is unofficially estimated that the government has therefore received nearly $12 billion less than it would otherwise have from PRH tenants. Such a large sum of money does not come from nowhere. It is the taxpayer that must eventually foot the bill. The 10-year housing plan, which the government has adopted recently, shows that the Housing Authority is in financial difficulty. Had the large sum of money not been wasted through PRH rent remission, the public financial burden would be lighter.

PRH rents are low. Those in the middle or lower income brackets who have not the good fortune of living in PRH must pay high rents. Therefore, PRH tenancy is a benefit. PRH tenants granted rent remission actually enjoy double benefit. Furthermore, a mechanism is in place under which the Housing Authority can help PRH tenants who for certain reasons are not able to pay their rents duly. As for PRH tenants who are Comprehensive Social Security Assistance recipients, they will not be affected because they are not required to pay any rent.

Populism is now prevalent in the SAR. Politicians concern themselves with what may immediately affect their advantage in elections rather than the long-term general interest. Furthermore, as the District Council elections are to be held this year, political parties and politicians are likely to ingratiate themselves with PRH tenants for their votes. There may be a backlash against the withdrawal of rent remission. The idea will inevitably meet with resistance. However, John Tsang should rise to the challenge and abide by fiscal discipline. He must do the right thing rather than hand out sweeteners or money. It deviates from principles to do either. To promote economic development and allow citizens to live better, the government ought to use its limited resources where they are needed.

善用盈餘謀劃未來 勿再寬免公屋租金

本年度預算案，財政司長曾俊華原本估計有91億元盈餘。不過，各方傳來消息，本年度盈餘遠超原先預期，估計多達600億元至超過700億元不等。較早前，政府已經宣布把今年從外匯基金分得的270億元，撥入新成立的「房屋儲備金」，用以應對未來10年興建約30萬個出租和資助單位的財政需要。若把這筆錢計算在內，則本年度財政盈餘將接近1000億元，再加上政府財政儲備已經接近8000億元。因此，以「水浸」形容政府的財政狀況，基本切合事實。

府庫充盈，衍生了如何善用辛勤累積的資源以有益於整體社會的問題。前任特首曾蔭權任內「派糖」，甚至派錢，7年內派出約2000億元，但是並無解決根本問題，反而使深層次矛盾惡化。當年政府罔顧財政紀律，浪費公共資源種下惡果，現在政府仍然要逐步匡正和清理；這個教訓，梁振英政府切勿重蹈覆轍，要使有限資源用於有需要之處，並非為討好市民而隨意分派。

政府給公屋寬免租金始於2008年，本年度已經是第7年，寬免由一個月至兩個月不等。據非正式統計，當局因此少收公屋住戶租金接近120億元！這一大筆錢，並非由天掉下來、地長出來，而是最終由納稅人埋單。近期確定的10年建屋計劃，顯示房委會陷入財政困境，這筆錢若非免租花掉，就可以減輕公共財政的負擔。

公屋租金低廉，相對於無緣入住公屋的中低收入人士需要負擔高昂租金，公屋已經成為一種福利；若再免租，則成為雙重福利。另外，公屋租戶若遇到特殊情況，暫時無能力繳交租金，房委會有既定機制處理可以協助這類租戶渡過難關；至於領取綜援的住戶，本已毋須交租，對他們並無影響。

現在民粹當道，政客只求眼前選舉利益，不會顧及長遠大局；另外，今年是區議會選舉年，政黨、政客為了選票，都會籠絡公屋居民，對當局不再免租或許會有反彈。因此，取消公屋寬免租金，無可避免會有阻力。曾俊華應該迎難而上，緊守財政紀律，做對的事，不再搞偏離原則的派糖和派錢，讓政府把有限的資源用於必需之處，促進經濟發展，改善整體民生。