理財方針見改變 切實執行更重要

<轉載自2018年3月1日 明報 社評>

新一份財政預算案出爐，政府撥出近四成財政盈餘與巿民共享，其餘大多用於改善服務和投資未來，未有再將巨款注入各式基金備而不用。政府看好來年經濟，預料新財年盈餘超過400億元，無論是「派糖」還是改善服務，其實可以更加慷慨。總體而言，理財方針確實有所改變，政府一改守財奴陋習，用錢較以往進取大膽，投放資源改善服務的方向，也較為具體清晰，然而單靠財政司長「開水喉」，不足以成大事。政府願意投入巨額開支改善醫療推動創科，還須政府各部門積極作為，切實配合，始能水到渠成。

放下「20％」緊箍咒 開支較以往大膽

本財政年度盈餘，預料高達1380億元，政府有責任善用公帑投資社會、還富於民。政府拒絕全民派錢，也許令部分人失望，惟財政政策應該講求策略和對準焦點，盈餘多就全民派錢，不僅是庸官怠惰的做法，也有違公共理財原則。今次預算案撥出520億元「與民共享」，接近盈餘總額四成，已經比上年的三成（328億元）為高。財富再分配，目標是讓有需要的人受惠，如何判斷難免見仁見智。520億元「共享」金額是否足夠、分配是否合理，自然亦言人人殊。

今次預算案中產受惠最多，「共享」金額達到380億元，向基層「派糖」的總額大約120億元。政府今年盈餘破紀錄，估計來年盈餘也有466億元，應否加碼給基層「派糖」，可以商榷，惟政府今次用於基層紓困的錢，已較去年高出兩倍，過去數年政府扶貧和社福開支增幅亦甚顯著。相比之下，中產人士不僅承擔交稅責任，又要面對租樓供樓沉重壓力，受惠的社福措施亦不多，預算案以較大力度給中產人士幫上一把，也是一件好事。本港房屋短缺租金昂貴，如果政府能推出租金扣稅措施，相信可以令基層和中產人士齊齊受惠。

過去政府屢惹守財奴批評，原因是不肯積極用錢改善服務，一味空談投資未來。新一份預算案，總算見到政府理財思維出現轉變，無論在經濟增長預測和開支方面，均較以往大膽。以往政府總是有意無意顯著低估盈餘，明明庫房滿瀉，卻經常高呼結構財赤危機逼近，硬要嚴控開支，妨礙改善民生。誠然，本港面對人口老化挑戰，惟如果政府能夠積極作為振興經濟，收入自然可以增加，紓減開支壓力。現在政府放下「公共開支不要超越本地生產總值20%」緊箍咒，拋開「小政府」意識形態包袱，實為重要突破。

預算案並且預留4000多億元，用於醫院建設及取消強積金對冲等。以往預算案常惹詬病之處，就是「口數」多多，光說不練，預留巨額款項「投資未來」，卻遲遲未見實際行動。相比之下，這次政府花在醫療和創科方面的投資，算是有較多具體細節和目標。

以改善醫療為例，預算案羅列了較為具體的用錢方向，諸如增加醫療教學設施、培訓更多醫護、向醫管局增加近60億元經常資助，以及主動邀請醫管局研究第二個10年醫院發展計劃，包括重建瑪嘉烈醫院和興建新醫院等。本港醫護嚴重短缺，公院牀位不足，預算案算是有對症下藥，問題只是有關措施的力度，是否足以長遠大減本港醫療系統壓力。政府在醫療方面的投入，明顯還須進一步加強。創科投資方面，預算案對於如何具體運用500億元撥款，諸如動用百億元吸引外國頂尖科研機構來港合作、如何催谷生物科技和人工智能機械人發展等，也有較清晰方向。當前真正的問題，是政府執事部門能否善用資源，說到做到。

財政司長「開水喉」，無疑有利政策推行，可是如果政府部門處事官僚，政策又不到位，投入資源效用必然大打折扣。舉例說，低收入在職家庭津貼本是濟貧紓困好措施，然而申請手續繁瑣，令不少低收入家庭卻步，結果受惠人數竟然較原定目標少了八成。政府有責任督促各部門高效落實政策，以免資源白白浪費。

官僚政策不到位 資源效益打折扣

今次預算案用錢方向正確，惟力度仍嫌不足，多項窒礙本港長遠發展的難題亦有待處理。財政司長陳茂波提出要善用盈餘，在土地和人才兩方面創造容量，然而由於土地供應小組尚需時間探討並諮詢公眾，新一份預算案對於增加土地房屋供應着墨不多。至於培訓人才方面，雖然政府進一步增加教育經常開支，又協助專上院校開拓經費來源，加強專才培訓，然而是否足以填補多個行業的人才缺口，仍是未知之數。去年政府因應人口老化，撥款300億元加強安老服務，今年政府又提出小學「一校一社工」政策，可是本港護理人員和社工人手均不足夠，若不加快培訓又或引入外地專才，就算政府投放更多資源、興建更多硬件，亦無補於事。政府要增加人才供應，既需要財力，亦要有迎難而上的政治決心。

The changes in the government's fiscal policy

N the budget just rolled out for the coming fiscal year, the government plans to share nearly 40 per cent of its fiscal surplus with the public and use the rest mainly for improving public services and investing in the future. It has also refrained from allocating enormous sums of money to various funds without putting it to good use. Overall, the government has indeed changed its fiscal policy, getting rid of penny-pinching and making expenditures in a more proactive manner. Its direction of investing in the improvement of services is also more concrete and clearer. However, to achieve these goals, it is never enough just for the Financial Secretary to splash out. Even if the government is willing to splash out on health care and innovation and technology, government departments need to be more proactive and tie in with the blueprint. Only by then will the conditions be ripe for accomplishing the goal .

With the current fiscal year's estimated surplus expected to reach $138 billion, the government is obligated to make good use of the public coffers to invest in society and return wealth to the community. Some may be disappointed the government has refused to give cash-handouts to everyone. However, a government's fiscal policies should be strategic and focused. It is typical of mediocre and complacent bureaucrats to give cash-handouts to everyone. It also violates the principles of public finance. The $52 billion allocated in this budget for "sharing with the community" is close to 40 per cent of the total surplus, which is higher than that of last year (30 per cent and $32.8 billion). The goal of redistributing wealth is to benefit people in need. It is inevitable that different people see it differently.

In the past the government has always been criticised for penny-pinching because of its reluctance to spend money proactively on improving public services and its perpetually empty talk of investing in the future. Now at least we see in the new budget some changes in the government's fiscal mindset. From predicting economic growth to planning expenditures, it has shown a bolder face than before. The government had, intentionally or unintentionally, always underestimated the surplus significantly in the past. Often when the public coffers were clearly overflowing, it cried about the looming of structural deficit crises and insisted on keeping expenses under control. That hindered the enhancement of people's livelihood. Now the government has abandoned the requirement that "public expenditure cannot exceed 20 per cent of GDP". It indicates that it has put aside the ideology burden of "small government", which is indeed an important breakthrough.

The budget has also set aside more than $400 billion for building hospitals, abolishing the MPF offsetting arrangement and so forth. Past budgets were often criticised for being full of "empty promises", with massive provisions dedicated to "investing the future" without any concrete action. By comparison, one may say this time the government has come up with more concrete details and targets in its allocation of money for health care and developing innovation and technology.

There is no doubt that the Financial Secretary's splashing out is beneficial to the implementation of the government's policies. However, if government departments handle matters in a bureaucratic manner and do not implement the policy measures, the effect of the injected resources will certainly be greatly reduced. The government must urge on all departments to implement the measures with high efficiency, so that the resources to be allocated will not go to waste.

In terms of the way money is spent, the budget is a step in the right direction. But it displays a lack of vigour when it comes to tackling the many thorny problems that have hindered Hong Kong's long-term development. The Financial Secretary has suggested optimising the use of surplus to create a larger pool of land resources and talent. However, as the Task Force on Land Supply still needs more time to explore land supply options and conduct public consultation, there are few passages in the new budget about increasing land supply for housing. As for talent nurturing, despite the government's plan to further boost recurrent expenditure on education and help post-secondary institutions tap more funding sources and strengthen professional training, it remains a wild card whether the measures are enough to fill the manpower gaps in the various industries.

理財方針見改變 切實執行更重要

新一份財政預算案出爐，政府撥出近四成財政盈餘與巿民共享，其餘大多用於改善服務和投資未來，未有再將巨款注入各式基金備而不用。總體而言，理財方針確實有所改變，政府一改守財奴陋習，用錢較以往進取大膽，投放資源改善服務的方向，也較為具體清晰，然而單靠財政司長「開水喉」，不足以成大事。政府願意投入巨額開支改善醫療推動創科，還須政府各部門積極作為，切實配合，始能水到渠成。

本財政年度盈餘，預料高達1380億元，政府有責任善用公帑投資社會、還富於民。政府拒絕全民派錢，也許令部分人失望，惟財政政策應該講求策略和對準焦點，盈餘多就全民派錢，不僅是庸官怠惰的做法，也有違公共理財原則。今次預算案撥出520億元「與民共享」，接近盈餘總額四成，已經比上年的三成（328億元）為高。財富再分配，目標是讓有需要的人受惠，如何判斷難免見仁見智。

過去政府屢惹守財奴批評，原因是不肯積極用錢改善服務，一味空談投資未來。新一份預算案，總算見到政府理財思維出現轉變，無論在經濟增長預測和開支方面，均較以往大膽。以往政府總是有意無意顯著低估盈餘，明明庫房滿瀉，卻經常高呼結構財赤危機逼近，硬要嚴控開支，妨礙改善民生。現在政府放下「公共開支不要超越本地生產總值20%」緊箍咒，拋開「小政府」意識形態包袱，實為重要突破。

預算案並且預留4000多億元，用於醫院建設及取消強積金對冲等。以往預算案常惹詬病之處，就是「口數」多多，光說不練，預留巨額款項「投資未來」，卻遲遲未見實際行動。相比之下，這次政府花在醫療和創科方面的投資，算是有較多具體細節和目標。

財政司長「開水喉」，無疑有利政策推行，可是如果政府部門處事官僚，政策又不到位，投入資源效用必然大打折扣。政府有責任督促各部門高效落實政策，以免資源白白浪費。

今次預算案用錢方向正確，惟力度仍嫌不足，多項窒礙本港長遠發展的難題亦有待處理。財政司長陳茂波提出要善用盈餘，在土地和人才兩方面創造容量，然而由於土地供應小組尚需時間探討並諮詢公眾，新一份預算案對於增加土地房屋供應着墨不多。至於培訓人才方面，雖然政府進一步增加教育經常開支，又協助專上院校開拓經費來源，加強專才培訓，然而是否足以填補多個行業的人才缺口，仍是未知之數。