官商勾結須嚴防 因噎廢食沒必要

<轉載自2018年5月8日 明報 社評>

土地大辯論涉及18個選項，發展新界私人農地，是其中一個爭議甚多的短中期選項。政府希望以公私營合作模式，發展新界私人土地，惟不少人擔心出現利益輸送，普羅大眾得益多寡未知，發展商卻肯定財源滾滾。從政府角度看，公私營合作是「快、靚、正」，未似引用《收回土地條例》般有法律風險，可是市民憂慮官商勾結亦非無因。本港短中期土地短缺嚴重，凡是可以大幅增加供應的方法，都應該考慮，沒必要因噎廢食，惟當局必須為公私營合作提出一套完善機制，嚴防官商勾結，始能贏得公眾信任。

公私合作惹垂涎 收回土地有難度

過去數十年，各大發展商在新界收購大量農地，估計累積超過1000公頃。這些土地缺乏交通基建等配套，不易發展，樓價地價雖然愈升愈高，發展商也不介意讓這些荒廢農地繼續「曬月光」。大片土地就在眼前，若能有效利用，對於紓緩房屋供應短缺，當有莫大裨益。

土地小組主張以公私營合作模式，由政府提供誘因，例如提供交通基建和水電排污等設施，吸引發展商改劃土地用途建屋，至於發展商則要滿足政府條件，有關地皮需要提供一定比例的資助房屋，如居屋和首次置業上車盤等。手握大片農地的發展商，普遍支持有關建議；鄉事派當然也歡迎公私營合作概念，強調政府不一定只跟地產商合作，也可以找原居民「商量」，有人甚至主動開出利益攤分條件。凡此種種正好說明，公私營合作開發土地是大肥肉，擁有新界土地者無不垂涎。

為了釋除「官商勾結」疑慮，土地小組強調，發展商需要依足法定程序改劃土地，兼要補足地價，做到「等價交換」，方向當然正確，只是具體落實執行，會否變形走樣「明益」發展商，市民始終缺乏信心，畢竟過去廿多年來，市民不斷見到的，就是政府縱容地產霸權，升斗市民既氣憤又無奈，對地產霸權深惡痛絕。公私營合作意味發展商必可分一杯羹，小市民容易有牴觸情緒，然而增加土地供應始終是務實問題，必須理智先行，不能意氣用事。若要短期內物色大量土地建屋，發展私人農地儲備，確是最快捷簡便做法，問題是怎樣做才稱得上公平公道。

近日不少人提出，當局應考慮引用《收回土地條例》，收回發展商在新界的私人農地。這種做法可以幫市民「消消氣」，惟是否可行和代價高低，必須先想清楚。《條例》容許政府徵用私人土地，只需提供合理補償即可，惟大前提是收地必須為了「公共用途」。回歸以來，特區政府偶有動用這把「尚方寶劍」收地，目的主要是興建公共設施和防洪，另有一部分是配合市區重建項目，單單為了興建公營房屋而收地的個案甚少。如果政府只是收回個別地皮，用來興建學校等設施，難度當然不大，可是大舉收回發展商新界土地，卻是另一回事。

政府可用興建公屋為由，引用《條例》收地，惟現實是當局不可能將所有收回的新界土地，全都用來興建公屋。不理後果收地全建公屋，有可能變相將大批基層市民「趕到」新界居住，令新界出現大量「基層屋邨」，長遠衍生嚴重社會問題。可是如果當局收回的土地，並非全數用於興建公屋或公共設施，發展商勢必提出法律挑戰，隨時纏訟10多年。理論上，政府可以選擇一邊收回發展商大片土地，另一邊則尋求公私營合作，然而這猶如一邊向發展商開戰，一邊又想共謀大事。發展商會否吃這一套，是一大疑問。

政府須借體制外力量 公正機制防官商勾結

市民不滿地產霸權，也不想土地發展主導權落在發展商手上，當局首務就是要確保這是真正「雙贏」合作，不會是發展商佔盡便宜，普羅大眾只能分得一丁點好處。政府需要製造更多談判籌碼，跟發展商討價還價，同時也需要設法釋除官商勾結疑慮，爭取市民支持。

冰封三尺非一日之寒。官商勾結的說法深入民間，公私營合作要行得通，政府必須借助體制外的力量，建立公正透明的審批決策機制，制訂清晰法規指引，妥善處理利益分配問題，例如補地價以及提供基建等安排，令外界不會質疑「公私營合作就是利益輸送」。由政府成立一個具有法定權力的公私營合作管理局，由體制外具有公信力的社會人士主持大局，廣納官方和民間有識之士作為成員，以公平公開原則處理公私營合作安排，是爭取市民信任的方法，值得政府認真考慮。

Ways to prevent government-business collusion

THE BIG DEBATE on land supply involves eighteen options, of which one is to develop private New Territories (NT) agricultural land. It is a short- to mid-term option that has provoked much controversy. The government wants to have private NT agricultural land developed by way of public-private partnership (PPP). However, many are worried that advantage transfers may occur — that a situation may arise in which developers will certainly make piles of money while there is no telling how ordinary citizens will benefit. From the government's perspective, PPP is "speedy, sleek and proper" and, unlike invoking the Lands Resumption Ordinance, unlikely to incur legal risks. But it is not for nothing for citizens to be worried about government-business collusion.

Recently many have suggested that the authorities should consider invoking the Lands Resumption Ordinance to take back private NT agricultural land held by developers. It may somehow mollify citizens to do so, but it is necessary first to think clearly whether this way is workable and how pricey it may prove. Under the Ordinance, the government may resume private land as long as it offers reasonable compensation, but a key proviso is that it intends to do so for public purposes. Since Hong Kong reverted to Chinese sovereignty, it has occasionally used this "almighty instrument" to resume land mainly for the purpose of building public facilities, preventing flood or doing what should be done in connection with urban renewal projects. There are few cases of taking back land for putting up public housing. It is of course not hard for the government to resume several sites for building schools or suchlike, but it is another matter to resume tracts of NT land which developers hold.

The government may invoke the Ordinance to take back pieces of land on the grounds that they are needed for producing public housing. However, it is actually impossible for the authorities to use all the NT land taken back for producing public housing. If all the land the government has taken back is not used for building public housing or public facilities, developers will certainly launch legal challenges. Such complicated litigation is very likely to drag on for more than a decade. In theory, it is open to the government to resume large tracts of land held by developers and at the same time to seek PPP. However, that is like the government trying to plan something big together with developers whom it is battling against. It is very doubtful that developers would buy that.

Citizens are unhappy about real-estate hegemony, and they do not want the land development initiative in developers' hands. The authorities' first priority is to make sure that PPP projects will prove genuinely "win-win" — that no situation would arise in which developers would get all the advantages and ordinary citizens benefit only minimally.

It takes more than one cold day to freeze three chi of ice. Allegations of government-business collusion have indeed gained much credence. To make PPP workable, the government must seek the assistance of extra-establishment forces, set up approval and policy-making mechanisms that are fair and transparent, lay down clear rules and guidelines and properly deal with questions of advantage distribution (such as arrangements for premium payments and the provision of infrastructure). One way in which the government can win citizens' trust is for it to set up a statutory PPP authority, leave it to extra-establishment figures who have credibility to take charge of the whole thing, and ask knowledgeable public officers and private citizens to sit on the authority so that PPP arrangements can be dealt with in accordance with the principle of fairness and openness and, as a result, none will suspect PPP means advantage transfers. This is well worth the government's consideration.

官商勾結須嚴防 因噎廢食沒必要

土地大辯論涉及18個選項，發展新界私人農地，是其中一個爭議甚多的短中期選項。政府希望以公私營合作模式，發展新界私人土地，惟不少人擔心出現利益輸送，普羅大眾得益多寡未知，發展商卻肯定財源滾滾。從政府角度看，公私營合作是「快、靚、正」，未似引用《收回土地條例》般有法律風險，可是市民憂慮官商勾結亦非無因。

近日不少人提出，當局應考慮引用《收回土地條例》，收回發展商在新界的私人農地。這種做法可以幫市民「消消氣」，惟是否可行和代價高低，必須先想清楚。《條例》容許政府徵用私人土地，只需提供合理補償即可，惟大前提是收地必須為了「公共用途」。回歸以來，特區政府偶有動用這把「尚方寶劍」收地，目的主要是興建公共設施和防洪，另有一部分是配合市區重建項目，單單為了興建公營房屋而收地的個案甚少。如果政府只是收回個別地皮，用來興建學校等設施，難度當然不大，可是大舉收回發展商新界土地，卻是另一回事。

政府可用興建公屋為由，引用《條例》收地，惟現實是當局不可能將所有收回的新界土地，全都用來興建公屋。可是如果當局收回的土地，並非全數用於興建公屋或公共設施，發展商勢必提出法律挑戰，隨時纏訟10多年。理論上，政府可以選擇一邊收回發展商大片土地，另一邊則尋求公私營合作，然而這猶如一邊向發展商開戰，一邊又想共謀大事。發展商會否吃這一套，是一大疑問。

市民不滿地產霸權，也不想土地發展主導權落在發展商手上，當局首務就是要確保這是真正「雙贏」合作，不會是發展商佔盡便宜，普羅大眾只能分得一丁點好處。

冰封三尺非一日之寒。官商勾結的說法深入民間，公私營合作要行得通，政府必須借助體制外的力量，建立公正透明的審批決策機制，制訂清晰法規指引，妥善處理利益分配問題，例如補地價以及提供基建等安排，令外界不會質疑「公私營合作就是利益輸送」。由政府成立一個具有法定權力的公私營合作管理局，由體制外具有公信力的社會人士主持大局，廣納官方和民間有識之士作為成員，以公平公開原則處理公私營合作安排，是爭取市民信任的方法，值得政府認真考慮。