勿各自為政 應以發展目光建大灣區思維

<轉載自2018年4月9日 明報 社評>

特首林鄭月娥以及香港很多團體近日紛紛北上粵港澳大灣區考察，探討未來合作的模式及商機，立法會議員也即將出發去了解大灣區的發展，這是積極響應建設大灣區的交流行動。借用全國政協主席汪洋的說法，大灣區城市之間，不但要交流，還要交往，最終達到交融。然而，無論政府還是民間，缺乏大灣區的大局思維，各自為政、劃地為牢、功能重疊，甚至互相競爭，再多的交流交往，都難達到交融的目的。

各自陳述城市優勢 均缺攜手發展策略

總理李克強去年在《政府工作報告》中，提出發展粵港澳大灣區，是國家區域協作的重大策略部署，大灣區內各城市分別向中央提交報告，目前由國家發改委總其成，制訂總體部署方案。從大灣區各城市自我介紹的表述可見，各自都在陳述自身優勢，如深圳表示有創新科技雄厚的開發與研究能力，中山表示有鄰近5個機場和3個港口的交通便捷優勢，香港有國際金融中心和與國際法律接軌的特長，但都缺乏與其他城市連接的發展策略。這是缺乏大局思維的典型表現之一。

香港欠缺土地供應，房地產價格高居不下，政府成立土地供應專責小組，為覓地提供意見，其中一條建議是在葵涌貨櫃碼頭上蓋建住宅，所能提供的土地相當於14個太古城，建議是否可行，留待專家研討。但為什麼不可以將貨櫃碼頭整體搬遷到廣州南沙港，騰出整塊土地重新規劃呢？這個乍聽起來瘋狂的提法，茲事體大，且會令數以萬計碼頭和運輸業工人失業，如果能夠換回來更大的好處，令大灣區內不同城市重新分工，減少功能重疊甚至互相競爭，形成協同效應，是否可行？如何促進？可以從長計議，但關鍵是要有思維的轉變。

廣東在汪洋主政期間提出「騰籠換鳥」的轉型思維，而今已經取得一定成績。其實，如果不主動轉變，也會因為情勢的轉變而要被動接受。環境保護是無論是否建設大灣區都要由區內城市共同面對的問題，目前各自以不同的標準規限氣體排放，顯然不能取得整體效益，因為採納低標準的城市，其排放的氣體也會吹到周邊城市。目前全球先進的城市都在試驗無人駕駛汽車，很難想像，將來無人駕駛汽車的技術成功了，但因為不同城市採用不同標準而使無人駕駛汽車不能跨城市行駛，成為協同效應的阻力。共同制定一套大灣區標準，在各個方面都有急不及待的需要。港珠澳大橋的興建為此樹立了一個典範，由於粵港澳對於各種工程有不同的標準，三方決定，採納任何一方實施的最高要求作為標準，將來大灣區的各種標準，也可以考慮這種思維模式。

要做到粵港澳全方位採用一套大一統的標準，是不可能的，畢竟三地分屬「一國兩制三個關稅區」，情况之複雜古今中外未見，問題在於三地政府與民間是否具有高瞻遠矚的目光，是採取進取還是「防禦」的態度。目前對於促進人員、資金、貨物和資訊自由流動的障礙很多，人員流動就出現港人在內地未能享受國民待遇的難關，內地的各種設施，火車票、長途汽車票預定網站，以至博物館入場券預定，香港身分證未能像內地居民身分證般做到無縫銜接，只要將回鄉證號升級到跟內地身分證14個數位，技術上就可能解決問題，但內地機構就是沒有這種大灣區思維，而香港特區政府最近雖然對生果金發放和醫療券在廣東使用方面有所放寬，但還是有限制的思維。

中央統籌分工 城市官民要換換腦袋

限制的思維在遇到經濟難題時更是一種習慣模式，為防止內地人到香港購房炒高房價，香港是以實施提高印花稅的經濟手段；廣東的限購令則是以戶籍的行政手段限制港人購房，這些都是妨礙人員與資金流通的做法。大灣區需要中央政府統籌政策，協調不同城市的分工，但真正需要的是大灣區各城市政府與民間在思維上的轉變。

粵港澳大灣區的目標，是要建成世界級的大灣區，「一國兩制三個關稅區」是其他大灣區沒有的障礙，但粵港澳地區所擁有的優勢也有勝場，深交所和港交所每年的新股IPO上市數量遠高於紐約與東京灣區，如何做到連接優勢則可以做到錦上添花；世界100強大學數量，粵港地區擁有4所，東京和紐約灣區分別只有兩所，舊金山灣區也只有3所，香港的兩所大學已經分別在珠海和深圳設立分校，但在科研方面，則缺乏分享資訊與成果的平台，要轉變思維促進聯繫，起步可以是實施學生交換加強交流交往，採用三方中的最高標準，任何高校達到統一的標準就可以學分互認，人員和資訊互通就不難做到。

粵港澳大灣區這個國家戰略，只許成功不許失敗，國家可以制訂政策，但執行起來還是需要每一個範疇的每一個群體，以積極進取的態度配合，但如果互相抵制或者仍然留在競爭的思維不改變，再好的政策，也難以取得成功。

Building a Greater Bay Area outlook with a view towards development

RECENTLY the Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor and many organisations from Hong Kong have travelled one after another to visit the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, exploring future modes of collaboration and business opportunities. Legislative Councillors are to visit the area as well soon to learn about the development of the Greater Bay Area. These exchange activities are positive responses to the construction of the Greater Bay Area. To quote Wang Yang, Chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, the cities in the Greater Bay Area should not only exchange ideas but should also engage with each other and finally converge. However, neither the government nor Hong Kong's civil society has displayed a breadth of vision necessary for the Greater Bay Area project. Instead, they have showcased a complete lack of coordination and a reluctance to think out of the box, with their roles they are supposed to play so poorly delineated as to contain much repetition and even invite competition. Such being the case, no amount of exchanges and engagement activities will suffice to achieve the goal of convergence.

Last year Premier Li Keqiang put forward the idea of developing the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area in the Report on the Work of the Government. It is a major national strategic plan for coordinated regional development. Cities in the Greater Bay Area have submitted their reports respectively to the central government. It is now the responsibility of the National Reform and Development Commission to draft the overall plans and programmes. From the way the cities in the Greater Bay Area present themselves in their reports, it is clear that they only talk about their own advantages and there are no development strategies in terms of linking up with other cities, revealing their typical lack of big-picture thinking.

In fact, even if one does not change proactively, change will still be thrust on one as the changing circumstances require. Whether the Greater Bay Area is to be built or not, environmental protection is a problem that all cities in the area must tackle together. Currently each city has its own set of standards for the restriction of gas emission. Such being the case, it is impossible to achieve a synergistic effect, since gases emitted by a city whose standards are lower will drift to neighbouring cities. There is a pressing need in every respect for all cities to establish a set of common standards for the Greater Bay Area.

There is a goal in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area project: the construction of a greater bay area that ranks among the world's best. While the project is faced with the obstacle posed by the "one country, two systems, three customs territories", which other greater bay areas have not been, the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao area also enjoys advantages that could be its winning hand. Of the 100 top universities in the world, four are located in the Guangdong-Hong Kong area. Tokyo and New York bay areas each have two only; San Francisco Bay Area has three. Two Hong Kong universities have already built second campuses in Zhuhai and Shenzhen respectively. However, there is still a lack of platforms for sharing information and outcomes of scientific research. The implementation of student exchange programmes to strengthen exchange and engagement could be the first step towards changing one's way of thinking and fostering connections. The sharing of the talent pool and information pool will also be made easier through the creation of a credit transfer and accumulation system, in which any tertiary institution in the three regions can take part as long as it meets a set of common standards created through the adoption of the highest benchmarks in the three regions.

As a national strategic plan, the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area project must not end in failure. While policies may be formulated at the national level, only through proactive cooperation among groups of people from all areas can such policies be put into practice. Success will be unlikely if they go against one another with a competitive mindset, no matter how good the policies are.

勿各自為政 應以發展目光建大灣區思維

特首林鄭月娥以及香港很多團體近日紛紛北上粵港澳大灣區考察，探討未來合作的模式及商機，立法會議員也即將出發去了解大灣區的發展，這是積極響應建設大灣區的交流行動。借用全國政協主席汪洋的說法，大灣區城市之間，不但要交流，還要交往，最終達到交融。然而，無論政府還是民間，缺乏大灣區的大局思維，各自為政、劃地為牢、功能重疊，甚至互相競爭，再多的交流交往，都難達到交融的目的。

總理李克強去年在《政府工作報告》中，提出發展粵港澳大灣區，是國家區域協作的重大策略部署，大灣區內各城市分別向中央提交報告，目前由國家發改委總其成，制訂總體部署方案。從大灣區各城市自我介紹的表述可見，各自都在陳述自身優勢，但都缺乏與其他城市連接的發展策略。這是缺乏大局思維的典型表現之一。

其實，如果不主動轉變，也會因為情勢的轉變而要被動接受。環境保護是無論是否建設大灣區都要由區內城市共同面對的問題，目前各自以不同的標準規限氣體排放，顯然不能取得整體效益，因為採納低標準的城市，其排放的氣體也會吹到周邊城市。共同制定一套大灣區標準，在各個方面都有急不及待的需要。

粵港澳大灣區的目標，是要建成世界級的大灣區，「一國兩制三個關稅區」是其他大灣區沒有的障礙，但粵港澳地區所擁有的優勢也有勝場。世界100強大學數量，粵港地區擁有4所，東京和紐約灣區分別只有兩所，舊金山灣區也只有3所，香港的兩所大學已經分別在珠海和深圳設立分校，但在科研方面，則缺乏分享資訊與成果的平台，要轉變思維促進聯繫，起步可以是實施學生交換加強交流交往，採用三方中的最高標準，任何高校達到統一的標準就可以學分互認，人員和資訊互通就不難做到。

粵港澳大灣區這個國家戰略，只許成功不許失敗，國家可以制訂政策，但執行起來還是需要每一個範疇的每一個群體，以積極進取的態度配合，但如果互相抵制或者仍然留在競爭的思維不改變，再好的政策，也難以取得成功。