政府沒善用儲備盈餘 不代表民粹派錢可取

<轉載自2018年1月23日 明報 社評>

政府庫房嚴重水浸，本財政年度盈餘有機會高達1600億元，連日來政界和社會有不少聲音，要求政府直接「派錢」還富於民。香港社會問題多多，深層次矛盾嚴重，市民怨氣冲天，政府坐擁近萬億元財政儲備，卻一直未有好好運用，辜負公眾期望，必須嚴厲批判，可是當局沒有善用財政盈餘和儲備，不代表民粹式派錢可取。政府應該集中火力處理經濟民生難題，「派錢」討好市民，等同放棄善用手上資源改革求進，與懶惰怠政無異。

政府盈餘料見新高 要求派錢聲音湧現

澳門於2008年起推出「現金分享計劃」，至今已先後「派錢」11次，至於香港亦試過在2011年耗資360億元「派錢」，年滿18歲以上香港永久居民一律獲發放6000元。當年特區政府「派錢」一大原因，是錄得超過700億元巨額盈餘，惟有關做法被指破壞謹慎理財原則，之後政府亦未再推出類似措施。然而由於今年盈餘金額驚人，料見新高，要求「派錢」還富於民的聲浪，近日又再捲土重來，並有愈來愈響亮之勢。有政黨和行會成員聲稱，「派錢」可以刺激消費，同時有利改善社會氣氛，爭取市民支持政府，有助未來數年施政，云云。

很多政府都因為捉襟見肘惆悵不已，特區當局因為庫房滿瀉而苦惱，背後反映的問題值得深思。本港民生問題堆積如山，社會充滿怨氣，貧富懸殊惡化、樓價愈飈愈高、公屋輪候時間愈來愈長、安老服務嚴重不足、公立醫院牀位不足經常「迫爆」等，無不招來市民怨懟。政府明明有雄厚財力改善民生，可是市民卻得不到需要的服務，只見各大基建工程超支嚴重，涉款動輒數以百億元計。部分市民寧可政府「派錢」，一大原因是當局未能給予公眾信心，令人相信政府有決心有能力改善民生。市民覺得與其讓政府將公帑花在不切實際地方，還不如「回水」，讓市民花掉更為實際。

市民不滿情緒可以理解，政府有責任回應，然而做法不應該是「順應要求」派錢，而是回歸基本，以果斷行動迎難而上，切實解決民生問題，贏回市民信任。「派錢」換取一時掌聲，其實是飲鴆止渴，治標不治本，完全無助化解社會深層次矛盾，反而容易令人產生錯覺，以為貧富懸殊等問題，並未如想像般嚴重，以致遲遲未有對症下藥，社會頑疾不斷惡化。

近年芬蘭等發達國家嘗試推行「無條件基本收入」（簡稱UBI）制度，研究由政府每月給市民「出糧」派錢，成效備受國際關注，然而UBI與民粹式派錢有根本分別，不宜相提並論。UBI着眼長遠發展，左派關注自動化生產加劇失業和低薪化，希望政府每月向市民提供基本收入，讓他們有更多空間尋找較佳工作，鼓勵就業；右派則希望以簡單派錢制度，取代繁複和官僚的福利制度安排。兩者視點各有不同，然而都是放眼未來。

投資未來需求迫切 派錢助長官員怠政

相比之下，民粹式派錢完全是短視措施，可以收買人心一陣子，惟不足以成為長遠維持政府認受性的手段，如果市民覺得政府無能，民怨還是會爆發。澳門的經驗說明，派錢先例一開，市民會產生「年年有錢派」的預期，不易扭轉，政府每年派錢金額「有多無少」是必然趨勢。「派錢」措施的本質，是「錦上添花」而非「雪中送炭」，政府在好景有錢派，當然皆大歡喜，可是市民更加需要的，是逆境時政府能幫上一把。「派錢」成為常態，最大問題在於一旦經濟吹起逆風，政府收入減少，勉強派錢有可能加深財政困難，可是不派又如同不理民間疾苦。

財政政策的目標，應該是透過財富再分配，一邊維持經濟增長動力， 一邊照顧弱勢人士，將資源投放在有需要的人身上。民粹式全民劃一派錢，有違財政紀律，對於解決結構性的社會經濟問題，更是毫無幫助，實際是縱容官員怠政，不用花心機思考善用公帑，配合政策改善民生。對香港來說，「派錢」最實際作用，不過是令到庫房水浸不至於那麼誇張，令政治觀感稍好一點。

善用公帑是一門學問。近年政府被轟「守財奴」，為此當局經常巧立名目，成立林林總總「基金」，聲言是要「積穀防饑」，卻忽略市民即時需要。下月發表的財政預算案，不應該再搞這一套。政府有責任善用手上龐大盈餘，造福市民，當中必然牽涉財富再分配，關鍵在於公道合理。本港利得稅率已相當低，即使美國減稅，本港也沒必要跟隨，就算真要減稅也應該針對創科等產業，看不到有需要一刀切削減利得稅。目前本港經濟勢頭良好，政府運用盈餘，應以投資未來為先，派糖為次，當局與其推出減免公屋租金一類「派糖」措施，還不如多想怎樣可以加強醫療安老教育等服務，為未來人口老化多作綢繆。

Cash handouts—not a good idea

WITH the public coffers exceedingly flush with money and an expected surplus reaching $160 billion for the current fiscal year, many politicians and members of society have been voicing their demand for a direct cash handout so as to return wealth to the people.

While many governments are despondent about the shortage of funds, what is troubling the Hong Kong government is its public coffers that are flush with money. The problem behind such a phenomenon is food for thought. Hong Kong is faced with a mountain of problems about people's livelihood, with a mood of discontent pervading society—the deterioration of wealth inequality, the incessant rise of property prices, the continuous lengthening of the waiting time for public housing, the serious lack of elderly services and the shortage of beds in public hospitals (which are often packed to the rafters) are all dissatisfying citizens. With its significant financial resources, the government, obviously, should be able to enhance people's livelihood. But citizens do not receive the services that they need, while the cost overruns of infrastructural projects easily cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Some people would rather the government gave them a cash handout primarily because the government can hardly inspire confidence that it has the determination and ability to improve people's livelihood. Citizens think that instead of wasting public money on unrealistic pursuits, the government should return it to the people and let them spend it themselves, which they think is more realistic.

People's dissatisfaction is understandable; the government should respond to it. However, it should not give in to the request by issuing cash handouts. It should return to the basics and rise to the challenge with resolute action, i.e. by solving the livelihood problems and winning back the trust of citizens. Issuing cash handouts can win the government ephemeral applause. It is no different from drinking poison to assuage thirst. It is also a cosmetic exercise that will achieve little in resolving society's deep-rooted conflicts. It will instead create a false impression that the problem of wealth inequality is not as serious as we think, thus postponing the finding of a real solution, as a result of which society's maladies continue to worsen.

In recent years, an "Unconditional Basic Income" scheme has been introduced on a trial basis in developed countries such as Finland, under which the possibility of the government paying salaries to citizens every month is studied. In the international community, all eyes are on how well the scheme works. There is a fundamental difference between UBI and the populist issuance of cash handouts, so much so they are not comparable. UBI is about long-term development. The left, concerned about the problem of unemployment and low wages exacerbated by automated manufacturing, hopes that the government can enable citizens to find better jobs and encourage employment by giving them a basic income on a monthly basis. The right, meanwhile, hopes that a simple payout system can replace complicated, bureaucratic welfare arrangements. They might see the matter from different vantage points, but they are looking ahead to the future nevertheless.

Populist cash handouts, by comparison, are not a good way to maintain a government's acceptability in the long term, though it might win the government the favour of the people for a short period of time. If the people think that the government is inept, their dissatisfaction will come to a breaking point anyhow.

Given Hong Kong's sound economy, the government should focus on investing in the future when it seeks to use the surplus, while cash handouts should take second seat. Instead of issuing "sweeteners" such as the remission of public housing rents, the government should think more about better ways to enhance medical, elderly and educational services to plan for an ageing population.

政府沒善用儲備盈餘 不代表民粹派錢可取

政府庫房嚴重水浸，本財政年度盈餘有機會高達1600億元，連日來政界和社會有不少聲音，要求政府直接「派錢」還富於民。

很多政府都因為捉襟見肘惆悵不已，特區當局因為庫房滿瀉而苦惱，背後反映的問題值得深思。本港民生問題堆積如山，社會充滿怨氣，貧富懸殊惡化、樓價愈飈愈高、公屋輪候時間愈來愈長、安老服務嚴重不足、公立醫院牀位不足經常「迫爆」等，無不招來市民怨懟。政府明明有雄厚財力改善民生，可是市民卻得不到需要的服務，只見各大基建工程超支嚴重，涉款動輒數以百億元計。部分市民寧可政府「派錢」，一大原因是當局未能給予公眾信心，令人相信政府有決心有能力改善民生。市民覺得與其讓政府將公帑花在不切實際地方，還不如「回水」，讓市民花掉更為實際。

市民不滿情緒可以理解，政府有責任回應，然而做法不應該是「順應要求」派錢，而是回歸基本，以果斷行動迎難而上，切實解決民生問題，贏回市民信任。「派錢」換取一時掌聲，其實是飲鴆止渴，治標不治本，完全無助化解社會深層次矛盾，反而容易令人產生錯覺，以為貧富懸殊等問題，並未如想像般嚴重，以致遲遲未有對症下藥，社會頑疾不斷惡化。

近年芬蘭等發達國家嘗試推行「無條件基本收入」（簡稱UBI）制度，研究由政府每月給市民「出糧」派錢，成效備受國際關注，然而UBI與民粹式派錢有根本分別，不宜相提並論。UBI着眼長遠發展，左派關注自動化生產加劇失業和低薪化，希望政府每月向市民提供基本收入，讓他們有更多空間尋找較佳工作，鼓勵就業；右派則希望以簡單派錢制度，取代繁複和官僚的福利制度安排。兩者視點各有不同，然而都是放眼未來。

相比之下，民粹式派錢完全是短視措施，可以收買人心一陣子，惟不足以成為長遠維持政府認受性的手段，如果市民覺得政府無能，民怨還是會爆發。

目前本港經濟勢頭良好，政府運用盈餘，應以投資未來為先，派糖為次，當局與其推出減免公屋租金一類「派糖」措施，還不如多想怎樣可以加強醫療安老教育等服務，為未來人口老化多作綢繆。