遷就商界成常態 包底思維不可長

<轉載自2017年10月17日 明報 社評>

政府財政儲備逾萬億元，庫房水浸，善用銀彈投資社會改善民生，放棄再當守財奴，是應有之義，惟公帑必須用得其所。近年政府管治出現了一種勢頭，一碰到爭議困難，就嘗試用錢擺平，慷市民之慨。由取消強積金對冲，到港鐵車費乃至延長產假等問題，政府面對商界巨企「企硬」，政策寸步難行，就索性出錢幫商界「埋單」，彷彿成為了常態。政府花錢需要講立場講原則，沒理由容許商界巨企「卸膊」，包底思維絕不可長。

不敢叫商界埋單 政府寧付鈔包底

「不敢叫商界埋單，唯有由政府包底」的趨勢，上屆政府已開始出現，取消強積金對冲方案是最明顯例子，現屆政府似有「發揚光大」之勢。政府在一些民生政策難題上，對商界投鼠忌器，只要商界立場強硬一點，政府就寧可代為付鈔，息事寧人。以免審查交通費補貼措施為例，市民當然樂見每月最多可享300元補貼，然而追源溯本，政策出台的一大背景，是市民不滿港鐵年年大賺卻幾乎年年加價，車費負擔愈來愈重，促使社會開始討論，政府作為港鐵大股東，應否動用港鐵股息補貼市民車費。

政府公共運輸政策偏重鐵路，令港鐵成為難以駕馭的巨獸，強調股東利益多於市民利益，形成尾大不掉局面，就算年年加價，政府和市民也無可奈何，行政長官林鄭月娥亦形容，港鐵是民生問題「三座大山」之一。雖然政府官員強調，今次車費補貼是直接動用庫房公帑，不是運用港鐵股息，並且盡量涵蓋多種公共交通工具，巧妙地將補貼措施與港鐵問題「脫鈎」，不過歸根究柢，如果港鐵願意負起更大社會責任，降低車費回饋市民，相信政府也未必需要「代勞」。政府推出交通補貼利民紓困，其實亦是迴避觸碰港鐵這個燙手山芋，捨難取易。

政府處理勞資難題的方法，也愈來愈傾向「包底」代勞，幫商界付鈔。施政報告除了提出侍產假由3天增至5天，又表示會研究延長產假，由10周有薪產假變成14周，一旦措施落實，估計僱主會有數以億元計額外開支。增加侍產假涉及金額相當有限，僱主一年額外開支估計大約8000萬元，商界認為可以接受，惟對於延長產假卻明顯有所抗拒。綜觀政府官員之言，延長有薪產假事在必行，雖然未知具體方案如何，惟當局勢將出錢資助僱主，甚至有可能由政府「包底」，所有新增支出均由政府支付。

14周產假是國際勞工組織的建議，香港作為一個發展成熟的社會，沒理由在這方面落後於國際標準，資方有責任作出合理承擔，不應該連達至婦女勞工基本權益，也要由政府出錢全數「貼」夠。現在政府還未正式與資方磋商，已率先透露願意「包底」，自揭底牌，商界當然心裏有數，不會願意額外多付一分一毫。

投資社會不忘財政紀律 用錢擺平阻力並非正道

政府對於取消強積金對冲機制，所展現的同樣是「包底思維」。當年政府為了爭取商界支持落實強積金計劃，容許資方動用強積金僱主供款，抵消僱員的遣散費和長期服務金。對冲機制15年間合共「冲走」打工仔逾300億港元，對勞方極不公道，早應廢除，然而商界聲稱取消對冲機制將令中小企開支大增，僅願承擔小部分，堅持政府要出更多錢幫手「埋單」，結果政府這位魯仲連，又要充當濫好人。梁振英政府拋出的方案，提出預留79億元，協助僱主分擔部分開支，為期10年。雖然方案最終拉倒，惟現屆政府表明，處理取消對冲機制方向，與上屆政府思維脗合，意味政府又要「落水」動用公帑。

政府坐擁萬億元儲備，應當多花錢投資社會，改善基建，多建醫院，奠基未來，沒理由充當守財奴，惟必須確保公帑用得其所，緊守財政紀律。政府動輒代商界包底埋單，但求用錢擺平阻力，不僅犧牲公道和原則，更有可能影響財政紀律，做法並不可取。交通費補貼一類政策，一旦開了頭，便很難取消，所謂由政府花「開心錢」讓人人皆大歡喜，不過是慷市民之慨。商界看準了政府這種「包底思維」，未來在劃一勞工假期等問題，必然傾向「企硬」，靜待政府又一次「落水」出錢，「包底」風氣一成，要扭轉將極為困難。

Government too ready to accommodate interests of business sector

WITH its fiscal reserves exceeding $1 trillion, the government is flush with money. Instead of being miserly, it has a moral obligation to make good use of its financial resources to invest in society and improve people's livelihood. However, taxpayer's money must be used in an appropriate manner. In recent years, when it comes to governance, there has been a trend towards resolving controversies with money, with the government being generous at citizens' expense. From the abolition of the MPF offsetting mechanism to MTR fares to the extension of maternity leave, the government, faced with an intransigent business sector that makes it difficult for the government to implement its policies, has often resorted to paying the bill on behalf of the business sector. This has become the norm rather than the exception.

Since the last administration, the government has been seen to be so afraid of the business sector as to foot the bill itself, with the abolition of the MPF offsetting mechanism the most obvious example. The incumbent government seems to be doubling down on such a practice. When it comes to those vexing bread-and-butter issues, the government is wary of the business sector. As soon as the business sector strikes a more hardline stance, the government chooses to foot the bill to avoid confronting the sector. Take the non-means-tested transportation subsidy scheme. True, citizens are happy to receive a monthly subsidy of a maximum of $300. However, if we retrace the developments of the plan, it is obvious that the scheme was launched because citizens were unhappy that the MTR had been hiking fares nearly yearly despite its sky-high profits. As the burden of transportation fees becomes increasingly heavy, there was discussion whether the government, as the biggest shareholder in the MTR, should use its MTR dividends to subsidise citizens' transportation fee.

Government officials have stressed that the public coffers — rather than dividends from the MTR — will be drawn on for the subsidy, adding that the scheme will cover a large number of means of public transportation. By saying so the government cleverly isolates the subsidy scheme from the MTR issue. However, in the final analysis, were the MTR willing to shoulder more social responsibilities and lower MTR fares to give back to citizens, the government would not have had to act on behalf of the MTR. The subsidy scheme is in fact a way for the government to avoid the MTR issue, a hot potato, showing that the government has taken the easy way out.

The government's handling of thorny issues involving employers and employees also shows such a tendency. In the policy address, it is proposed that paternity leave be extended from three days to five days. A study will also be carried out into the possibility of prolonging paid maternity leave from 10 weeks to 14 weeks. It is estimated that the policy, if implemented, will mean that employers will have to pay extra expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars. The extension of paternity leave will involve only an extra cost of around $80 million for employers. As the effect will be limited, the business sector has found the proposal acceptable. But the sector is obviously opposed to the prolongation of maternity leave. Judging from what government officials have said, the government will press ahead with the extension of paid maternity, and, despite the lack of concrete details, is set to subsidise employers or even foot the entire bill by shouldering all the new expenses.

As the government is sitting on fiscal reserves of more than $1 trillion, it should increase investment in society, improve infrastructure, build more hospitals and lay the foundations for the future. There is no reason why it should be miserly. However, it must make sure that taxpayers' money is used properly in strict adherence to fiscal discipline. That the government has footed the bill for the business sector without good reason is not only antithetical to fairness and principles; it could also harm fiscal discipline. This is not advisable.

遷就商界成常態 包底思維不可長

政府財政儲備逾萬億元，庫房水浸，善用銀彈投資社會改善民生，放棄再當守財奴，是應有之義，惟公帑必須用得其所。近年政府管治出現了一種勢頭，一碰到爭議困難，就嘗試用錢擺平，慷市民之慨。由取消強積金對冲，到港鐵車費乃至延長產假等問題，政府面對商界巨企「企硬」，政策寸步難行，就索性出錢幫商界「埋單」，彷彿成為了常態。

「不敢叫商界埋單，唯有由政府包底」的趨勢，上屆政府已開始出現，取消強積金對冲方案是最明顯例子，現屆政府似有「發揚光大」之勢。政府在一些民生政策難題上，對商界投鼠忌器，只要商界立場強硬一點，政府就寧可代為付鈔，息事寧人。以免審查交通費補貼措施為例，市民當然樂見每月最多可享300元補貼，然而追源溯本，政策出台的一大背景，是市民不滿港鐵年年大賺卻幾乎年年加價，車費負擔愈來愈重，促使社會開始討論，政府作為港鐵大股東，應否動用港鐵股息補貼市民車費。

雖然政府官員強調，今次車費補貼是直接動用庫房公帑，不是運用港鐵股息，並且盡量涵蓋多種公共交通工具，巧妙地將補貼措施與港鐵問題「脫鈎」，不過歸根究柢，如果港鐵願意負起更大社會責任，降低車費回饋市民，相信政府也未必需要「代勞」。政府推出交通補貼利民紓困，其實亦是迴避觸碰港鐵這個燙手山芋，捨難取易。

政府處理勞資難題的方法，也愈來愈傾向「包底」代勞，幫商界付鈔。施政報告除了提出侍產假由3天增至5天，又表示會研究延長產假，由10周有薪產假變成14周，一旦措施落實，估計僱主會有數以億元計額外開支。增加侍產假涉及金額相當有限，僱主一年額外開支估計大約8000萬元，商界認為可以接受，惟對於延長產假卻明顯有所抗拒。綜觀政府官員之言，延長有薪產假事在必行，雖然未知具體方案如何，惟當局勢將出錢資助僱主，甚至有可能由政府「包底」，所有新增支出均由政府支付。

政府坐擁萬億元儲備，應當多花錢投資社會，改善基建，多建醫院，奠基未來，沒理由充當守財奴，惟必須確保公帑用得其所，緊守財政紀律。政府動輒代商界包底埋單，不僅犧牲公道和原則，更有可能影響財政紀律，做法並不可取。