《基本法》講原則留彈性 勿作繭自縛墨守成規

<轉載自2017年8月4日 明報 社評>

行政會議成員、金管局前總裁任志剛發表網誌，批評過去10年特區政府採取「守財奴」政策，拖經濟後腿，強調遵守《基本法》「量入為出」原則，不等於墨守成規。任何憲法的制定，總有其特定歷史時空，不可能預視未來社會種種變遷和需要，不少學者亦主張憲法是「活」的，需要因應社會變化而調整詮釋，不能生硬理解憲法條文。「量入為出」是一個好的理財原則，然而並非「絕對真理」，教條化看待《基本法》一些字眼和條文，無視現實環境需要，只會窒礙社會發展和進步。

基本法規定量入為出 任志剛提倡彈性處理

行政長官林鄭月娥提倡「理財新哲學」，主張「投資未來」。任志剛被視為林太財金事務「三大靠山」之一，其觀點主張自然格外受到注目。任志剛提出的一個核心問題，是特區政府「有否好好利用《基本法》第107條框架內容推動大眾利益」，而非囿於條款文字，作繭自縛放棄作為。適逢近日香港社會亦就一地兩檢是否符合《基本法》出現爭拗，今次任志剛所引發的討論，其實亦是一個機會，讓社會可以細心思考《基本法》。

《基本法》第107條訂明，政府「財政預算以量入為出為原則，力求收支平衡，避免赤字，並與本地生產總值的增長率相適應」。《基本法》1980年代中起草，1990年正式頒布，條文的制定無可避免是受到當時政經社會環境和意識形態的影響。以「量入為出」為例，這套理財哲學一直是英國殖民地管治傳統，殖民地政府不應為宗主國帶來任何財政包袱，所以特別強調財政自給自足。戰後港英政府定下財政儲備指標，70年代財政司夏鼎基提出「積極不干預政策」，強調小政府大市場，規定「財政開支不能超過收入八成」，量入為出更成了「金科玉律」。

隨着中英就香港前途問題談判，北京擔心英方使詐，在政權移交前掏空香港財富，所以對「量入為出」原則也相當重視，1989年港英政府拋出「玫瑰園計劃」興建新機場，北京便質疑有可能花光本港財政儲備，強調不能「你請客我付鈔」。將「量入為出」寫入《基本法》，固然是要確保特區政府審慎理財，亦跟獨特歷史時空息息相關。然而正如任志剛指出，遵守《基本法》的理財原則，不等於墨守成規，放棄以務實態度和適當彈性，審時度勢處理具體問題；「力求」收支平衡不排除力有不逮，「避免」赤字亦不代表不能發生。

當然，適度彈性看待《基本法》條文，不代表可以嚴重偏離，視規定如無物，審慎理財是特區政府應有之義，不過何謂「力求收支平衡」，卻可以有廣義和狹義的解讀。任志剛認為，合理的做法應該是在一個經濟周期達至收支平衡，讓政府有更大空間採取逆周期措施刺激經濟，甚至短暫利用赤字預算，積極投資未來提高生產力，沒必要生硬理解為必須「年年做到收支平衡」。教條主義者對於這種解讀大有可能嗤之以鼻，質疑所謂「經濟周期」定義不清，只是「鑽空子」，違反《基本法》，然而過度狹義理解條文也不利因事制宜，不符公眾利益，甚至窒礙社會發展。

一地兩檢到理財哲學 善用法律框架促公益

外國學者對於如何理解憲法條文和精神，有兩大主流，一派強調條文字眼和原意（稱為Originalism），另一派則認為憲法是「活」的（即所謂Living Constitution），主張因應社會變遷去實踐憲法。有美國憲法學者便指出，美國是全球其中一個最難修憲的國家，然而透過改變詮釋，毋須動輒修憲，一樣可因應社會需要，讓憲法與時並進，最明顯的例子就是1930年代羅斯福推出「新政」（New Deal）應付大蕭條，當中多項措施，例如由聯邦政府規管金融市場、建立全國社會保障等，均賦予聯邦政府巨大權力，改變個人和州跟聯邦政府的關係，引發連串違憲爭議，最終聯邦最高法院一錘定音，確認「新政」大多數創新措施合憲，為美國揭開一個憲法新時代。香港奉行一國兩制，是中國的一個特別行政區，《基本法》的特殊性也不能與一個國家的憲法相提並論，不過以「憲法是活」的觀點看待《基本法》，顯然有參考價值。

現時特區政府坐擁近萬億元財政儲備，遠比港英時代雄厚，理應好好運用，積極投資未來。其實《基本法》條文也刻意留下彈性，例如只是訂明「財政預算」需要量入為出，並非對「財政實况」作出規限；至於財政預算與經濟增長率「相適應」的說法，更是預留了相當大的發揮空間。以教條主義看待第107條，結果必然是鼓勵政府當守財奴，以今時今日本港財政情况而論，絕不應該。由一地兩檢到「量入為出」的討論，都牽涉如何理解《基本法》條文，以及善用《基本法》框架推動公眾利益的問題，如何在秉持原則之餘容許彈性處理，值得深思。

Principles of the Basic Law should be understood flexibly

JOSEPH YAM, a member of the Executive Council as well as former Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, has in his blog launched an attack on the HKSAR government's "miserly" fiscal policy over the past ten years, which he thinks has held back the economy. Yam stresses that the principle of "keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues" as stated in the Basic Law does not mean that one has to be stuck in a groove.

The "new fiscal philosophy" embraced by Chief Executive Carrie Lam comes with the theme "investing in the future". Joseph Yam, who is regarded as one of the three "giants" that Carrie Lam relies on concerning fiscal affairs, has quite understandably attracted attention for what he thinks and what he proposes. A key question that has been raised by Joseph Yam is whether the HKSAR government has "made good use of the framework provided by Article 107 of the Basic Law to advance the public interest" rather than be restricted by the clause, trammel itself and surrender its ability to achieve big things. Recently, as Hong Kong society has disagreed with each other on whether the "co-location" arrangements comply with the Basic Law, the discussion provoked by Joseph Yam's comments has in fact offered us a chance to contemplate the Basic Law carefully.

Article 107 of the Basic Law states that "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall follow the principle of keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues in drawing up its budget, and strive to achieve a fiscal balance, avoid deficits and keep the budget commensurate with the growth rate of its gross domestic product." The Basic Law was drafted in the mid-1980s and officially published in 1990. The drafting of its clauses was, inevitably, affected by the socioeconomic status and zeitgeist of that time. "Keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues", for example, was a fiscal philosophy traditionally maintained by British colonial governments. As colonial governments were not supposed to increase the financial burden of the central government, there was a lot of emphasis on fiscal self-sufficiency. After the second world war, the British colonial government set a target for its fiscal reserves. In the 1970s, Charles Haddon-Cave proposed the policy of "positive non-interventionism", emphasised "small government and big market" and required that "fiscal expenditure should not exceed 80 per cent of revenues". "Keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues" became a rigid rule.

When China and Britain negotiated on Hong Kong's future, the Beijing authorities, worried that Britain might employ artifice and hollow out Hong Kong's fiscal reserves before the handover, attached much importance to the "keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues" principle as well. In 1989, the British colonial government proposed the Rose Garden Project and the building of the new airport. The Beijing authorities argued that the project could cost Hong Kong's entire fiscal reserves, stressing that "you might want to give someone a treat, but I will not foot the bill." The inclusion of "keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues" was no doubt aimed at ensuring that the SAR government would manage the finances prudently. But it was also inextricably entwined with the specific time in history. However, just as Joseph Yam has said, to comply with the fiscal principles of the Basic Law does not mean that we have to be stuck in a groove and stop being pragmatic and flexible and handle specific problems in a way that befits the time and circumstances. While we "strive to achieve a fiscal balance", we might fall short of the goal. We should "avoid" deficits, but it does not mean that deficits must not be allowed to exist.

Of course, treating the clauses of the Basic Law with an appropriate amount of flexibility does not mean that we can wildly depart from them and view them as nothing. Managing Hong Kong's finances prudently is what the HKSAR government should do.

From the co-location arrangements to "keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues", these discussions are all about how the clauses of the Basic Law should be understood and how we can make use of the framework of the Basic Law to advance the public interest. It is food for thought how we can adhere to our principles in a way that also allows flexibility.

《基本法》講原則留彈性 勿作繭自縛墨守成規

行政會議成員、金管局前總裁任志剛發表網誌，批評過去10年特區政府採取「守財奴」政策，拖經濟後腿，強調遵守《基本法》「量入為出」原則，不等於墨守成規。

行政長官林鄭月娥提倡「理財新哲學」，主張「投資未來」。任志剛被視為林太財金事務「三大靠山」之一，其觀點主張自然格外受到注目。任志剛提出的一個核心問題，是特區政府「有否好好利用《基本法》第107條框架內容推動大眾利益」，而非囿於條款文字，作繭自縛放棄作為。適逢近日香港社會亦就一地兩檢是否符合《基本法》出現爭拗，今次任志剛所引發的討論，其實亦是一個機會，讓社會可以細心思考《基本法》。

《基本法》第107條訂明，政府「財政預算以量入為出為原則，力求收支平衡，避免赤字，並與本地生產總值的增長率相適應」。《基本法》1980年代中起草，1990年正式頒布，條文的制定無可避免是受到當時政經社會環境和意識形態的影響。以「量入為出」為例，這套理財哲學一直是英國殖民地管治傳統，殖民地政府不應為宗主國帶來任何財政包袱，所以特別強調財政自給自足。戰後港英政府定下財政儲備指標，70年代財政司夏鼎基提出「積極不干預政策」，強調小政府大市場，規定「財政開支不能超過收入八成」，量入為出更成了「金科玉律」。

隨着中英就香港前途問題談判，北京擔心英方使詐，在政權移交前掏空香港財富，所以對「量入為出」原則也相當重視，1989年港英政府拋出「玫瑰園計劃」興建新機場，北京便質疑有可能花光本港財政儲備，強調不能「你請客我付鈔」。將「量入為出」寫入《基本法》，固然是要確保特區政府審慎理財，亦跟獨特歷史時空息息相關。然而正如任志剛指出，遵守《基本法》的理財原則，不等於墨守成規，放棄以務實態度和適當彈性，審時度勢處理具體問題；「力求」收支平衡不排除力有不逮，「避免」赤字亦不代表不能發生。

當然，適度彈性看待《基本法》條文，不代表可以嚴重偏離，視規定如無物，審慎理財是特區政府應有之義。

由一地兩檢到「量入為出」的討論，都牽涉如何理解《基本法》條文，以及善用《基本法》框架推動公眾利益的問題，如何在秉持原則之餘容許彈性處理，值得深思。