<轉載自2018年4月27日 明報 社評>
土地供應專責小組展開為期5個月的「土地大辯論」，就增加土地供應，提出18個選項，讓社會討論尋求共識。本港土地短缺，已屆危急存亡之秋，政府官員失職短視，固然難辭其咎，部分持份者只顧小我、堅持一己之見，亦把香港社會逼進死胡同。「大辯論」成敗關乎未來香港榮枯，政府需要拿出政治決心，頂住既得利益壓力，利用可信的民意蒐集機制，協助沉默大多數發聲；不同持份者應放下一己之私理性討論，而非一味搞政治小動作；升斗市民則應積極參與，勿讓「大辯論」遭小撮人騎劫。
土地供應蹉跎多年 人禍交織香港沉淪
現今社會仍然有一些不切實際的聲音，揚言房屋問題與土地供應「無關」。有環保人士聲言，控制外來人口增長和打擊炒賣，就是「釜底抽薪」之道；也有環保人士拋出邏輯迥異的「論證」，認為過去10年居港人口增長7％，同期房屋單位供應數目增長超過一成，所以「不存在供求失衡」，只要收回粉嶺高球場170公頃土地，已幾乎足夠解決問題，云云。
「土地大辯論」必須實事求是，不應意識形態先行，然後片面堆砌一些數字和理據自圓其說。根據土地小組分析，本港缺乏的不獨是住宅用地，經濟用地和社會設施用地同樣嚴重不足，政府原先估計本港未來28年欠缺1200公頃用地，已是保守預測，實際數字恐怕遠不止於此，若不及時行動，8年後本港便會短缺815公頃土地。眼前所有中短期選項，諸如全數收回粉嶺高球場、動用私人新界農地儲備和發展棕地等，就算全部派上用場，都不夠填補這個缺口。土地短缺惡化，公屋輪候時間勢必進一步延長，增建醫院和安老院也難有着落，私樓樓價則可能愈飈愈高，笑逐顏開的是發展商，受罪的是普羅大眾。
本港陷入如斯窘境，實是種種人禍交織而成。過去十多年，政府官員無心「造地」，導致土地供應幾近原地踏步，連帶影響房屋供應，過去10年平均每年住宅落成量僅約2.5萬伙，較之前10年約6萬伙下跌逾五成。一些持份者只顧私利，不理社會大局，凡是不利於己的造地方案都大力反對。也有一些人胸懷公義環保之心，然而陳義過高，流於空想主義，令到增加土地供應這一務實議題，變成意識形態鬥爭。部分政黨看風駛𢃇，要麼走民粹路線西瓜靠大邊，要麼以自己代表的某一階層利益為依歸，一邊高談增加房屋供應，一邊又阻撓起樓建屋。不同持份者各有盤算，官員怕事畏難，深知任何方案必然會動了某些人的乳酪，阻力重重，為免成為箭靶，索性「無為而治」，任由香港沉淪。
沉默大多數站起來 勿讓大辯論被騎劫
「土地大辯論」是打破當前困局的良機，市民應主動參與，「沉默大多數」更要積極發聲。部分持份者出於一己之私，必然會展開政治動員或公關攻勢，企圖騎劫「大辯論」，當局應確保沉默大多數的聲音不被淹沒。政府必須大張旗鼓，發動市民參與討論，不能擺擺街站、搞幾場公眾諮詢會便低調了事。當局應投入更多人力物力，以科學可信的機制蒐集「優質民意」。部分土地選項較為複雜，並非三言兩語便可明言，單靠擺街站讓市民勾填選項，未必能得出優質民意。當局可以參考人口普查做法，組織大規模的隨機抽樣上門問卷調查，讓受訪者有機會聽取講解，再作決定。
另外，當局也可以參考協商民主（deliberative democracy）理念，以「協商民意測驗」蒐集民意。一般民調和公投雖然能反映「原始民意」，然而民眾有時可能只是憑印象做決定，容易受到公關宣傳和政治偏見影響，英國「脫歐公投」正是一次經驗教訓。近年一些學者便主張，將隨機抽樣科學原則，與民主討論精神相結合，進行「協商民意測驗」，以隨機抽樣方式，先組織一個能夠大致反映社會整體構成的「民意代表團」，然後安排大型研討會，邀請代表們出席，聽取不同持份者和專家觀點，然後再回答問卷或投票。全球已有廿多國家試行「協商民意測驗」，就公共政策表達意見，專家普遍認為，這種調查能得出更優質民意，確保受訪者有深思熟慮，不是憑主觀直覺作判斷。有關做法值得當局考慮。
爭取社會公義是永恆議題，不會一蹴而就，相比之下，增加土地供應卻是刻不容緩的問題。各界必須面對現實，先找辦法處理普羅大眾住屋需要，原地踏步糾纏不休只會令樓價進一步狂飈，最大得益者就是地產霸權。每一土地供應選項，必然有得有失，沒有無痛選擇，各界需要以開放態度理性討論；政府官員則必須有腰骨有擔當，鼓勵沉默大多數發聲，不能向既得利益傾斜，就算主流民意與政府想法有異，當局也應該從善如流。
The silent majority should speak out in the land supply debate
THE TASK FORCE ON LAND SUPPLY has launched a 5-month "big
debate" on land supply and put forth 18 options so that the public can
discuss them and come up with a consensus on how to increase land supply. In
Hong Kong, the problem of land shortage has reached a critical point. While
government officials should be blamed for their myopic attitude and failure to
carry out their duties, some stakeholders who have only their personal
interests on their minds and are too stubborn to change their points of view
have pushed Hong Kong society into a blind alley. Hong Kong's prosperity hinges
on the outcome of the "big debate". The government must summon up its
political will and withstand the pressure from vested interests. Through
credible mechanisms to gauge public opinion, it must help the silent majority
make themselves heard. Instead of engaging in petty politicking, different
stakeholders should also put aside their personal interests and take part in
the discussion rationally. Ordinary citizens should participate in the
"big debate" actively to prevent it from being hijacked by a handful
of people.
In the past ten-odd years, government officials have given little
attention to land production and land supply has almost remained the same. Some
stakeholders who have only their personal interests on their minds oppose any
land production plan that has an adverse impact on them. There are also some
people who care deeply about justice and environmental protection. Their
ideals, though noble, are also utopian. Some political parties are
opportunists. They either toe the populist line and side with what has the most
support or oppose building flats and houses while talking about increasing
housing supply, when in fact it all depends on the interest of their class that
they represent.
The "big debate" of land supply is an excellent opportunity to
break the current deadlock. The public should take the initiative to take part
in the debate, and the "silent majority" should speak up proactively.
The government should invest more human power and resources to use scientific
and credible mechanisms to collect "quality public opinion". The
government can refer to the conduct of population censuses and carry out a
large-scale random door-to-door questionnaire survey. In this way, interviewees
will have a chance to listen to some explanation about the options before they
decide.
The government may also draw inspiration from the philosophy of
deliberative democracy and use "deliberative opinion polling" to
gauge public opinion. Though ordinary opinion polls and referendums reflect
"rudimentary public opinion", people sometimes base their choices on
impressions only and can be easily swayed by public relations exercises and
political bias. In recent years, some scholars have advocated organising a team
of "public opinion representatives" who are selected randomly to
reflect roughly the overall composition of the society. They are invited to
take part in large seminars and listen to views of different stakeholders and
experts. They are then asked to respond to questionnaires or take a vote.
Experts generally believe that this kind of survey can better reflect public
opinion.
Social justice is a perpetual issue and cannot be achieved overnight.
Increasing land supply is, however, an issue that cannot be delayed. Every
option of land supply has its pros and cons. All sectors of the society should
take part in the discussion rationally with an open mind. Government officials
must have the backbone and the commitment to encourage the silent majority to
speak out. It should not show any favour to any vested interests. It should
accept mainstream public opinion even if it does not accord with that of the
government.
土地供應辯論啟動 沉默大多數須發聲
土地供應專責小組展開為期5個月的「土地大辯論」，就增加土地供應，提出18個選項，讓社會討論尋求共識。本港土地短缺，已屆危急存亡之秋，政府官員失職短視，固然難辭其咎，部分持份者只顧小我、堅持一己之見，亦把香港社會逼進死胡同。「大辯論」成敗關乎未來香港榮枯，政府需要拿出政治決心，頂住既得利益壓力，利用可信的民意蒐集機制，協助沉默大多數發聲；不同持份者應放下一己之私理性討論，而非一味搞政治小動作；升斗市民則應積極參與，勿讓「大辯論」遭小撮人騎劫。
過去十多年，政府官員無心「造地」，導致土地供應幾近原地踏步。一些持份者只顧私利，凡是不利於己的造地方案都大力反對。也有一些人胸懷公義環保之心，然而陳義過高，流於空想主義。部分政黨看風駛??，要麼走民粹路線西瓜靠大邊，要麼以自己代表的某一階層利益為依歸，一邊高談增加房屋供應，一邊又阻撓起樓建屋。
「土地大辯論」是打破當前困局的良機，市民應主動參與，「沉默大多數」更要積極發聲。當局應投入更多人力物力，以科學可信的機制蒐集「優質民意」。當局可以參考人口普查做法，組織大規模的隨機抽樣上門問卷調查，讓受訪者有機會聽取講解，再作決定。
當局也可以參考協商民主（deliberative democracy）理念，以「協商民意測驗」蒐集民意。一般民調和公投雖然能反映「原始民意」，然而民眾有時可能只是憑印象做決定，容易受到公關宣傳和政治偏見影響。近年一些學者主張，以隨機抽樣方式，先組織一個能夠大致反映社會整體構成的「民意代表團」，然後安排大型研討會，邀請代表們出席，聽取不同持份者和專家觀點，再回答問卷或投票。專家普遍認為，這種調查能得出更優質民意。
沒有留言:
張貼留言