跨境基建監管與解說 港有角色勿遷就內地

<轉載自2018年4月10日 明報 社評>

港珠澳大橋東人工島連接隧道防波堤出現「崩角」疑雲，路政署一度以東人工島屬主橋工程由港珠澳大橋管理局負責為由，着傳媒向管理局查詢。翌日，管理局才在網站撰文回應質疑，否認防波堤被冲散的說法，惟解釋未消除香港公眾疑慮，也有本港工程界人士不信服。港珠澳大橋耗資逾千億元，是一國兩制之下，粵港澳首次合作建設的大型跨境交通基建設施，港方出資比例近43%，香港市民要求港府和大橋管理局進一步交代，合情合理。周日，路政署官員赴珠海會見大橋管理局成員後， 延至昨天才向傳媒交代， 應對拖泥帶水，令人氣結。

大橋東人工島防波堤「崩角」疑雲，突顯跨境基建工程監管與事故解說有待加強，更折射部分港人基於對內地當局不信任，連帶對跨境工程質量也投以懷疑眼光。隨着香港與內地進一步融合，類似問題將持續浮現，兩地當局需要建立有效機制，回應關於工程安全和交通設施運作的查詢，提升透明度，通過事實和數據營造相互信任。

管理局有港方成員 港府應對責無旁貸

港珠澳大橋人工島「崩角」，源於社交網站一幅航拍照片，顯示人工島防波堤邊緣參差不齊，惹來弱波石（即扭工字塊）被海水冲散的質疑。根據2009年粵港澳三地政府達成的協議，港府在大橋建設費用出資42.91%，本港納稅人為大橋及其連接道路相關工程已負擔逾千億元公帑。按照協議，「三地聯合工作委員會」共有9名成員，港方代表來自運房局和路政署官員，職責包括監督大橋主橋工程質量和安全，並負責授權成立的大橋管理局的主要人事任免。管理局副局長由三方各提名一人，現時港方代表是借調路政署一名高級工程師出任。按此結構而言，大橋工程發生任何問題事故，不管涉及路段是否位於香港水域，路政署和港府相關部門理應知情，對跟進事態也責無旁貸。

上周三，大橋管理局在網頁發文，解釋原本設計正是將防波堤組件弱波石放在水下，並隨機擺放，「完全滿足防護、消浪等要求」。但管理局的解說只有700字和一張橫切面圖，隨即引起本港一些工程界人士質疑弱波石隨機擺放水下，會失去保護作用。上周五，特首林鄭月娥回應傳媒提問，表示大橋管理局已作出解釋，如果資料太深奧而未能讓公眾明白，會與大橋管理局再跟進，看看有什麼資料可以分享，云云。上周五晚上，管理局再次在網站撰文，強調隨機安放有訣竅，並非「隨意安放」。周日，路政署長鍾錦華率團前往珠海，與大橋管理局商討事件。不過，路政署此行並無採訪安排，鍾錦華等人會後迅即返港，沒有向在當地苦候的香港傳媒作簡報，遲至昨日才見傳媒，連串自製公關災難，令人費解。

大橋管理局副局長余烈解釋，由於人工島西面風浪不算大，故以「水下定點隨機」方式擺放「消波塊」（弱波石），互相之間勾連，起到消浪作用，並非「隨便亂擺」，認為「香港有香港做法，我們（內地）有內地的做法」，又認為香港市民不應炒作問題。大橋管理局是在珠海註冊成立的項目法人，面向公眾的習慣和問責文化與香港存在差異，余烈的說法多少流露一些內地官員「高高在上」、「我知得比你們多」的心態，港人難以接受。

堅持港事港辦作風 促升內地辦事文化

另外，本月開始測試運作的廣深港高鐵香港段，上周二晚上，一列「動感號」列車完成試行返回石崗車廠時，發現尾卡右邊4個車輪出軌。翌日，港鐵派員到場視察，當日傍晚，港鐵車務營運總管李聖基向傳媒交代事件，有問必答，透明度高，值得肯定。港鐵處理手法與大橋管理局迥異，正好反映港鐵作為受港府監管的上市公司，貫徹「港事港辦」的應有作風。

雖然香港是彈丸之地，近代在中國現代化過程發揮過重要作用。內地改革開放後，香港與內地交往頻繁，發揮過積極影響，促進提升內地辦事文化的事例，港人應珍惜互動過程中對內地辦事文化產生良性影響的機會，切勿倒過來遷就、迎合內地個別官員和部門處事欠透明度，甚至逃避問責、交代的不良作風。1980年代《基本法》起草，初期起草委員會各專題小組不願在會議後向傳媒交代，其後在香港媒體要求下，內地召集人從善如流，每次會議後均會見記者，簡介討論情況，一定程度上增加了起草過程的透明度。

1923年，孫中山在香港大學發表演說，坦言從香港得到革命和現代思想，他在比較家鄉香山（現易名為中山）和香港後，對兩地政府管治差異留下深刻印象。孫中山表示：「如果沒有良好的政府，人民什麼事情都做不了。」去年5月，見證回歸歷程的前新華社香港分社（中聯辦前身）副社長張浚生接受本報專訪時也強調，香港優勢仍在，香港人「既不要自高自大，也不要妄自菲薄」。特區政府與各界人士與內地交往時，應該堅持香港的辦事手法，促使兩地交流合作出現良性互動結果。

The mega bridge saga

THE BREAKWATER of the eastern artificial island of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) which is connected to a tunnel is suspected of having "chipped off". At one time the Highways Department referred the press to the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Authority claiming that the latter was responsible for the eastern island, which is part of the construction of the main bridge. In response to queries, the HZMB Authority only published an article on its web page the next day denying that the breakwater had fallen apart. However, the explanation failed to dispel the suspicions and worries of the Hong Kong public. Some Hong Kong engineering professionals were not convinced either. With a price tag of over a hundred billion dollars, the HZMB marks the first time Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao have collaborated on a piece of mega cross-boundary transportation infrastructure under "One Country, Two Systems", and Hong Kong shoulders nearly 43% of the cost. It is reasonable and fair that the Hong Kong public ask for more clarification from the Hong Kong government and the HZMB Authority. The officials of the Highways Department went to Zhuhai last Sunday to meet with members of the HZMB Authority, but the officials postponed briefing the press until yesterday (April 9). The slow response of the government is frustrating.

The suspicion that the breakwater of HZMB's eastern artificial island has "chipped off" highlights the need to strengthen monitoring and incident response of cross-boundary infrastructure projects. It also reflects the distrust harboured by some Hong Kong people towards mainland authorities which has led them to look at the quality of cross-boundary projects with doubts. As Hong Kong further integrates with the mainland, similar incidents will continue to happen. Authorities of both regions should establish effective mechanisms to respond to questions and queries about project safety and the operation of transport facilities. Only by enhancing transparency and relying on facts and data can mutual trust be built.

According to the agreement reached by the governments of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao in 2009, there are 9 members on the Joint Works Committee of the Three Governments. Hong Kong representatives comprise officials of the Transport and Housing Bureau and the Highways Department. Their duties include monitoring the quality and safety of the construction of HZMB's main bridge as well as the appointment and removal of key personnel of the HZMB Authority, a body authorised by the Joint Works Committee. The deputy directors of the HZMB Authority were each nominated by the three governments. Hong Kong's representative is a senior engineer of the Highways Department who has been temporarily transferred to the body. Under this arrangement, if the project has any problem or incident, no matter whether the section involved is located in Hong Kong waters or not, the Highways Department and other concerned departments of the Hong Kong government ought to know and it is incumbent on them to follow up.

Daniel Chung Kum-wah, Director of Highways Department, led a delegation to Zhuhai last Sunday to discuss with the HZMB Authority the incident. However, the press was not invited. Chung returned to Hong Kong right after the meeting and did not brief the Hong Kong press who had been waiting there for a long time. Chung met the press only yesterday. This is a PR disaster. It is puzzling why the Hong Kong government has dug a hole for itself.

A small city as it might be, Hong Kong has played an important role in the modernisation of China in contemporary times. Since the mainland adopted the reform and opening-up policy, Hong Kong has been engaging in frequent exchanges with the mainland and has been a positive influence on the mainland in terms of fostering improvement of its culture of how to get things done. In the course of interacting with the mainland, Hong Kong people should treasure the opportunities of making a positive impact on its culture of how to get things done and must not act the other way round by accommodating and catering to the undesirable ways of some mainland officials and departments who lack transparency in what they do and even evade accountability and avoid clarification.

跨境基建監管與解說 港有角色勿遷就內地

港珠澳大橋東人工島連接隧道防波堤出現「崩角」疑雲，路政署一度以東人工島屬主橋工程由港珠澳大橋管理局負責為由，着傳媒向管理局查詢。翌日，管理局才在網站撰文回應質疑，否認防波堤被冲散的說法，惟解釋未消除香港公眾疑慮，也有本港工程界人士不信服。港珠澳大橋耗資逾千億元，是一國兩制之下，粵港澳首次合作建設的大型跨境交通基建設施，港方出資比例近43%，香港市民要求港府和大橋管理局進一步交代，合情合理。周日，路政署官員赴珠海會見大橋管理局成員後，延至昨天才向傳媒交代，應對拖泥帶水，令人氣結。

大橋東人工島防波堤「崩角」疑雲，突顯跨境基建工程監管與事故解說有待加強，更折射部分港人基於對內地當局不信任，連帶對跨境工程質量也投以懷疑眼光。隨着香港與內地進一步融合，類似問題將持續浮現，兩地當局需要建立有效機制，回應關於工程安全和交通設施運作的查詢，提升透明度，通過事實和數據營造相互信任。

根據2009年粵港澳三地政府達成的協議，「三地聯合工作委員會」共有9名成員，港方代表來自運房局和路政署官員，職責包括監督大橋主橋工程質量和安全，並負責授權成立的大橋管理局的主要人事任免。管理局副局長由三方各提名一人，現時港方代表是借調路政署一名高級工程師出任。按此結構而言，大橋工程發生任何問題事故，不管涉及路段是否位於香港水域，路政署和港府相關部門理應知情，對跟進事態也責無旁貸。

周日，路政署長鍾錦華率團前往珠海，與大橋管理局商討事件。不過，路政署此行並無採訪安排，鍾錦華等人會後迅即返港，沒有向在當地苦候的香港傳媒作簡報，遲至昨日才見傳媒，連串自製公關災難，令人費解。

雖然香港是彈丸之地，近代在中國現代化過程發揮過重要作用。內地改革開放後，香港與內地交往頻繁，發揮過積極影響，促進提升內地辦事文化的事例，港人應珍惜互動過程中對內地辦事文化產生良性影響的機會，切勿倒過來遷就、迎合內地個別官員和部門處事欠透明度，甚至逃避問責、交代的不良作風。