扭曲扶貧基金宗旨 「補漏拾遺」治絲益棼

<轉載自2018年3月7日 明報 社評>

政府派錢不派錢的爭議，並未隨着財政預算案出爐而塵埃落定，反而有一發不可收拾之勢。政府進退失據，既不想貿然改變理財原則，自毁僅有的管治威信，又不得不回應政治壓力，於是匆匆搬出「補漏拾遺」之說，不惜扭曲關愛基金扶貧宗旨，將之變成派糖工具，結果卻是治絲益棼，自製麻煩。政府不知不覺被民粹政治牽着鼻子走，深陷「派糖」泥漿摔角之中，不管當局如何努力「補漏拾遺」，也總有人會不滿未有受惠，蜩螗沸羹，沒完沒了。政府不想搞亂公共理財原則，然而若因此搞亂扶貧工作，同樣殊不足取。

面對「派糖不均」指控 政府應對慌亂失措

港人常拿新加坡作比較，然而諷刺的是，本港多個政黨無分泛民建制，異口同聲批評政府「派糖不均」，要求「派錢」，可是新加坡卻有不止一名學者撰文，認為「我們（新加坡人）不應要求預算案派紅包」、「星港兩地預算案顯示，紅包思維必須遏抑」，對今年新加坡政府向全國成年人派錢尤其保留，認為派錢是短視措施，除了幫輕一下生活開支，對推動社會進步缺乏好處。當然，港星情况有異，兩地政府施政能力有分野、盈餘多寡有分別，然而若論「派錢不派錢」，基本道理原則並沒有分別。港星輿情南轅北轍，反映的是兩地社會政治氣氛截然不同。

預算案爭拗紛紛擾擾，有必要先看清事態本質。政府施政失當，民心憤懣積累多年，轉化為民粹主義，要求政府「回水」，政黨放眼選舉，看風駛𢃇，改變原則立場，鼓吹全民派錢，進一步強化市民對全民派錢的期望，變成「只要不派錢就是不合理」。「派糖不均」只是「派錢不派錢」爭議的延續。除非政府劃一金額全民派錢，否則任何「派糖」措施，受惠對象必然有針對性，分多分少必有差異。部分人抨擊預算案「派糖不均」，只是換了一個說法，投訴未有全民派錢，從這一角度而論，「派糖不均」是一個偽命題。

當然，如果「派糖不均」的意思，是某些有需要人士未獲惠澤，則是另一回事。新一份預算案，「N無人士」和初出茅廬青年受惠甚少，政府應該修正，問題是當局處理太過慌亂，愈說愈糊塗。

預算案針對基層紓困，除了提出綜援、生果金等「出三糧」，亦邀請關愛基金針對非領取綜援、非公屋低收入住戶，推行短期紓困措施，考慮重推「N無」津貼。政府眼見「派糖不均」批評此起彼落，遂想出利用這個不知有心還是無意埋下的「伏筆」，由關愛基金「補飛」。政府高官三番四次強調，現屆政府有理財新哲學，希望將公共資源用在比較有需要的人身上，不會全民派錢，如果現在向民粹政治壓力屈服，過去半年政府累積的有限管治威信，將蕩然無存，未來各種民粹訴求必然變本加厲，政府施政將舉步維艱，要理性討論社會長遠規劃就更難。政府盼以一招「補漏拾遺」抽身而退，以為既無損不會全民派錢立場，又可紓減政治壓力，未料實際效果，反而令到政府更加深陷政治泥沼當中。

扶貧政策須一貫 「N無」不應搬龍門

政府官員提出透過關愛基金「補漏拾遺」，協助沒有領取綜援的低收入人士、未滿65歲的退休公屋住戶、月入萬多元的青年，乃至基層家庭主婦。然而「補漏拾遺」的本質，始終是鎖定某些群體，有選擇地派糖，就算派給了某幾批人，也必然有其他人投訴被「遺漏」，到頭來可能更難堵住「何不人人派錢」的民粹呼聲。更令人憂慮的，是政府會否為了應付民粹政治壓力，寧可扭曲一貫扶貧政策，改變關愛基金本質。

關愛基金旨在扶貧，支援社會福利網未能涵蓋的有需要群體，本身確有「補漏拾遺」之意，然而關愛基金有清晰扶貧目標，重點援助「N無人士」。「N無」定義是為了配合扶貧政策，經過深思熟慮定出，根據多年來政府和社福界共識，「N無人士」泛指全港10多萬「非公屋、非綜援低收入戶」。當然，世上沒有不可改動的政策，「N無」定義也非不可改變，惟必須建基於實際需要，不違扶貧原則，如果政府出於一時政治需要「搬龍門」，匆匆擴闊「N無人士」定義，將基層家庭主婦和退休公屋住戶等「共冶一爐」，把「無」與「有」混為一談，只會導致扶貧政策變得混亂。

誠然，今次「補漏拾遺」討論也有正面之處，就是促使各界關注一些收入不高、處境只較「N無人士」稍好一籌的市民，未來政府應多思考如何照顧他們，然而這些人不應該歸入「N無人士」。政府應循「正途」為有需要人士「補漏拾遺」，而不是巧立名目，硬要關愛基金急就章另立新計劃擴大援助範圍、幫政府「拆彈」。政府財政預算案與關愛基金各有角色，不應隨便混淆，一旦關愛基金協助「派錢」開了先例，長遠恐令部分市民對基金產生不合理的期望。「補漏拾遺」客觀效果會否搞亂香港，政府有必要靜下來想一想。

Exploiting poverty alleviation fund in the name of "plugging the gap"

THE DISAGREEMENTS over whether the government should give cash handouts to the people have not subsided despite the announcement of the budget. They are, instead, threatening to spiral out of control. In response the government has, in the name of "plugging the gap", arbitrarily turned the Community Care Fund — supposedly a mechanism for poverty — into a vehicle for distributing sweeteners. By doing so the government has caused itself further trouble — like a man who gets his threads further entangled when he tries to separate them. The government has become led by the nose by populist politics without itself knowing it, caught up in the ugly debate over "candy-giving". However hard the government tries to "plug the gap", it will always displease those who are not benefited. Like a hubbub of cicada noises or a bowl of simmering soup, there seems to be no foreseeable end to the cacophony of arguments.

Amid all the noise surrounding the budget, one must first look clearly at the crux of the matter. The controversy over "uneven distribution of sweeteners" is simply a continuation of the "cash handouts or not" debate. Unless the government chooses to give cash handouts to all, it can only take "sweetener dishing" measures that benefit a portion of society unevenly. That is exactly the criticism levelled by some people on the budget. However, such a criticism and the accusation that the government has failed to give cash handouts are two sides of a coin. One can see from this angle that the topic of "uneven distribution of sweeteners" is not a real one for discussion.

In the budget, the Financial Secretary proposes issuing an extra two months of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) and the Old Age Allowance (fruit money) as well as inviting the Community Care Fund to consider reinstating an allowance for low-income households not living in public housing and not receiving CSSA (commonly known as the "N have-nots"). With criticisms of "uneven distribution of sweeteners" flying around, the government unveiled a trick that it might have kept up its sleeve all along, with the Community Care Fund being used as a remedial measure.

Top government officials have emphasised many times that the incumbent government has a new fiscal philosophy and that it seeks to spend public resources on people relatively more in need instead of handing out cash universally. If it succumbs to populist politics now, the limited credibility of governance it has accumulated over the past six months will vanish completely. Populist demands of all kinds will then certainly be more ridiculous in the future, making it hard for the government to implement its policies and even harder for the public to have rational discussions on the long term planning of society.

Government officials have proposed to "plug the gap" of the budget by using the Community Care Fund to help low-income people who are not CSSA recipients, retired public housing tenants who have not yet turned 65, young people with an income of just over $10,000 and even grass roots housewives. However, the essence of "gap plugging" after all is targeting some certain groups and giving out candies selectively. Even if you have given sweeteners to some certain people, inevitably there will be others who complain of "being left out". In the end, it may only become harder to resist the populist call of "why don't we just give cash handouts to everyone". Even more worrying is whether the government will twist its long-standing policy of poverty alleviation and change the nature of the Community Care Fund in order to deal with pressure from populist politics.

Aimed at alleviating poverty and supporting needy groups who are not covered by the social welfare network, the Community Care Fund is indeed meant for "plugging the gap". However, the fund has clear objectives on poverty alleviation and is mainly for supporting the "N have-nots". The definition of "N have-nots" came of a lengthy discussion as part of the poverty alleviation policy. There is a long-standing consensus between the government and the social welfare sector that the term "N have-nots" generally refers to the "low-income households not living in public housing and not receiving CSSA". These people number more than 100,000 in Hong Kong.

Of course, there are no unchangeable policies in the world. Neither is the definition of "N have-nots" unalterable. But any alteration to its definition should be based on practical needs and should not violate the principles of poverty alleviation. If the government resorts to "moving the goalposts" out of short-term political needs and hastily expands the definition of "N have-nots" to include grassroots housewives and retired public housing tenants into a "vast melting pot", it is tantamount to mixing up "haves" and "have-nots" and will only result in confusion about its poverty alleviation policy.

扭曲扶貧基金宗旨 「補漏拾遺」治絲益棼

政府派錢不派錢的爭議，並未隨着財政預算案出爐而塵埃落定，反而有一發不可收拾之勢。政府匆匆搬出「補漏拾遺」之說，不惜扭曲關愛基金扶貧宗旨，將之變成派糖工具，結果卻是治絲益棼，自製麻煩。政府不知不覺被民粹政治牽着鼻子走，深陷「派糖」泥漿摔角之中，不管當局如何努力「補漏拾遺」，也總有人會不滿未有受惠，蜩螗沸羹，沒完沒了。

預算案爭拗紛紛擾擾，有必要先看清事態本質。「派糖不均」只是「派錢不派錢」爭議的延續。除非政府劃一金額全民派錢，否則任何「派糖」措施，受惠對象必然有針對性，分多分少必有差異。部分人抨擊預算案「派糖不均」，只是換了一個說法，投訴未有全民派錢，從這一角度而論，「派糖不均」是一個偽命題。

預算案針對基層紓困，除了提出綜援、生果金等「出三糧」，亦邀請關愛基金針對非領取綜援、非公屋低收入住戶，推行短期紓困措施，考慮重推「N無」津貼。政府眼見「派糖不均」批評此起彼落，遂想出利用這個不知有心還是無意埋下的「伏筆」，由關愛基金「補飛」。

政府高官三番四次強調，現屆政府有理財新哲學，希望將公共資源用在比較有需要的人身上，不會全民派錢，如果現在向民粹政治壓力屈服，過去半年政府累積的有限管治威信，將蕩然無存，未來各種民粹訴求必然變本加厲，政府施政將舉步維艱，要理性討論社會長遠規劃就更難。

政府官員提出透過關愛基金「補漏拾遺」，協助沒有領取綜援的低收入人士、未滿65歲的退休公屋住戶、月入萬多元的青年，乃至基層家庭主婦。然而「補漏拾遺」的本質，始終是鎖定某些群體，有選擇地派糖，就算派給了某幾批人，也必然有其他人投訴被「遺漏」，到頭來可能更難堵住「何不人人派錢」的民粹呼聲。更令人憂慮的，是政府會否為了應付民粹政治壓力，寧可扭曲一貫扶貧政策，改變關愛基金本質。

關愛基金旨在扶貧，支援社會福利網未能涵蓋的有需要群體，本身確有「補漏拾遺」之意，然而關愛基金有清晰扶貧目標，重點援助「N無人士」。「N無」定義是為了配合扶貧政策，經過深思熟慮定出，根據多年來政府和社福界共識，「N無人士」泛指全港10多萬「非公屋、非綜援低收入戶」。

當然，世上沒有不可改動的政策，「N無」定義也非不可改變，惟必須建基於實際需要，不違扶貧原則，如果政府出於一時政治需要「搬龍門」，匆匆擴闊「N無人士」定義，將基層家庭主婦和退休公屋住戶等「共冶一爐」，把「無」與「有」混為一談，只會導致扶貧政策變得混亂。