長津討論 哪個民主派政黨為中產者說話？

<轉載自2012年10月29日 明報 社評>

 

在這次長者生活津貼（長津）討論中，不少熱愛民主同時擁抱中產價值的市民，感到無奈。他們認同社會應鼓勵自力更生，也應扶助弱勢，願意交稅盡公民責任，但痛恨胡亂派錢浪費公帑。在整個討論中，民主派政黨的表現令不少中產者失望，反而部分功能組別建制派議員打正旗號，反對免資產申報，說出了中產者的心聲。熱愛民主的中產者不會輕易轉投建制陣營，但若這股「誰能代表我」的無力感延續下去，泛民政黨（尤其是公民黨和民主黨）最終會在選票上付出代價。

香港勞動人口約380萬，納稅人則不足160萬，佔勞動人口少於一半，當中不少是中產者，他們普遍擁抱如下的價值觀：

1. 信奉民主自由法治，堅持社會公義；

2. 認同社會制度應鼓勵人民發憤向上、自力更生；

3. 相信但不迷信市場，認同社會制度有缺陷，痛恨壟斷霸權，弱勢社群不代表失敗者，社會應伸出援手扶助弱勢；

4. 稅款應用得其所，例如幫助真正有需要的弱勢社群，但反對大鑊飯，反對不分貧富胡亂派錢浪費公帑。

在這次長津爭議中，資助貧困長者是社會共識；但應否申報則意見分歧。毋須申報等同不論貧富都派錢，有違善用公帑的原則，它不單慷納稅人之慨，還為下一代埋下禍根，因為人口老化將令這一免申報福利，能否長期延續下去成疑，加稅壓力也勢將增加。儘管如此，向來被視為較能代表熱愛民主的中產人士利益的公民黨與民主黨，在長津討論的取態令人失望——民主黨要求70歲以上免資產申報，公民黨則以要求政府提出全民退保時間表作為條件。

香港的政黨，有「親建制、親基層」，也有「親建制、親中產」（例如新民黨）；但泛民政黨卻以「親基層」為主，「熱愛民主」同時「抱持中產價值」的政黨在哪？在這次長津爭議中，遍尋不獲。

熱愛民主的中產人士，在長津討論中，竟然沒有一個心儀的政黨能說出他們的心聲。諷刺的是，他們一向嗤之以鼻的建制派功能組別，卻能道出他們的憂慮。難道民主的必然後果就是西方政治所謂的tax and spend（只懂加稅然後亂派錢）？

不少熱愛民主的中產者對長津討論感到無奈和不滿，最終會如何影響香港政治生態，會否有新力量冒起填補這片空白，目前言之尚早；但民主派政黨若繼續「民粹」下去，輕視中產者的訴求，可能會連基本盤都流失。
Editorial

Is the Middle Class Represented by the Pro-democracy Parties?

 

IN THE DEBATE over the old age living allowance scheme, many in the middle class cannot but feel disappointed with the pro-democracy parties. Indeed, with their clear stand against the waiving of the proposed means test, lawmakers from functional constituencies and the establishmentarian camp are this time representing the views of the middle class. Middle-class people believe in democracy and will not easily go over to the establishmentarian camp. However, if they continue to feel that the pan-democrats in the Legislative Council do not represent them, the pro-democracy parties - and especially the Civic Party and the Democratic Party - will eventually suffer losses at the ballot box.

 

Hong Kong has a working population of about 3.8 million, under half of whom - or fewer than 1.6 million - are taxpayers. The middle class, which constitutes a large proportion of the taxpayers, generally shares the following characteristics:

(1) They believe in democracy, freedom, the rule of law, and social justice;

(2) They support a social system that encourages people to be self-reliant and work for a better future for themselves;

(3) They believe in but do not worship blindly the market, which means that while they fully realise the inadequacies of the social system and detest the monopoly of the rich and powerful, they agree that help should be extended to the underprivileged, who should not be regarded as social failures;

(4) They believe that money raised in taxation should be spent on good causes, such as helping the really underprivileged, and are opposed to the indiscriminate doling out of public money regardless of need.

With regard to the old age living allowance scheme, the public is agreed that financial assistance should be extended to truly needy seniors. Differences, however, arise as to whether there should be a means test. Waiving the means test is no less than an indiscriminate doling out of public money, which violates the principle of prudent public spending, is a waste of taxpayers' money, and can cause harm to future generations. After all, because of the aging population, it is unlikely that an old age living allowance scheme that does not operate a means test can be sustained for long without leading to upward pressure on taxes. The Civic Party and the Democratic Party have always been regarded as political parties representative of the interests of the middle class, yet their stands on the old age living allowance issue are disappointing: the Democratic Party says there should be no means test for those aged 70 or above, while the Civic Party refuses to support the government unless it comes up with a timetable for introducing a universal retirement protection scheme.

There are establishmentarian political parties in Hong Kong that are pro-grassroots or pro-middle class (such as the New People's Party), while the pro-democracy political parties are essentially pro-grassroots. In the present debate over the old age living allowance scheme, we do not see a single political party that is dedicated to both democracy and middle-class values.

It is ironic that, in this ongoing debate, middle class people dedicated to democracy find that their views are represented not by the political parties they have always supported, but by lawmakers from functional constituencies and the establishmentarian camp. Does the development of democracy always go hand in hand with what the West calls "tax and spend"?

Many in the middle class who crave democracy feel unhappy and frustrated because their views on the old age living allowance are not represented by the pro-democracy parties. It is too early to say what effect this will have on Hong Kong's political arena. But if the pro-democracy parties continue along the road of populism and ignore the opinions of the middle class, they may even lose the support they have always enjoyed.

明報社評2012.10.29﹕長津討論 哪個民主派政黨為中產者說話？

在這次長者生活津貼（長津）討論中，民主派政黨的表現令不少中產者失望，反而部分功能組別建制派議員打正旗號，反對免資產申報，說出了中產者的心聲。熱愛民主的中產者不會輕易轉投建制陣營，但若這股「誰能代表我」的無力感延續下去，泛民政黨（尤其是公民黨和民主黨）最終會在選票上付出代價。

香港勞動人口約380萬，納稅人則不足160萬，佔勞動人口少於一半，當中不少是中產者，他們普遍擁抱如下的價值觀：

1. 信奉民主自由法治，堅持社會公義；

2. 認同社會制度應鼓勵人民發憤向上、自力更生；

3. 相信但不迷信市場，認同社會制度有缺陷，痛恨壟斷霸權，弱勢社群不代表失敗者，社會應伸出援手扶助弱勢；

4. 稅款應用得其所，例如幫助真正有需要的弱勢社群，但反對不分貧富胡亂派錢浪費公帑。

在這次長津爭議中，資助貧困長者是社會共識；但應否申報則意見分歧。毋須申報等同不論貧富都派錢，有違善用公帑的原則，它不單慷納稅人之慨，還為下一代埋下禍根，因為人口老化將令這一免申報福利，能否長期延續下去成疑，加稅壓力也勢將增加。儘管如此，向來被視為較能代表熱愛民主的中產人士利益的公民黨與民主黨，在長津討論的取態令人失望——民主黨要求70歲以上免資產申報，公民黨則以要求政府提出全民退保時間表作為條件。

香港的政黨，有「親建制、親基層」，也有「親建制、親中產」（例如新民黨）；但泛民政黨卻以「親基層」為主，「熱愛民主」同時「抱持中產價值」的政黨在哪？在這次長津爭議中，遍尋不獲。

熱愛民主的中產人士，在長津討論中，竟然沒有一個心儀的政黨能說出他們的心聲。諷刺的是，他們一向嗤之以鼻的建制派功能組別，卻能道出他們的憂慮。難道民主的必然後果就是西方政治所謂的tax and spend（只懂加稅然後亂派錢）？

不少熱愛民主的中產者對長津討論感到無奈和不滿，最終會如何影響香港政治生態，目前言之尚早；但民主派政黨若繼續「民粹」下去，輕視中產者的訴求，可能會連基本盤都流失。