排查隱患變驅逐窮人 治理現代化體恤為先

<轉載自2017年11月29日 明報 社評>

北京大興區一場奪命大火，事後市政府展開安全隱患排查，理應是為民設想，可是當局處理違章建築手法粗暴，實際效果形同驅逐清貧外來人，惹來「清洗低端人口」質疑，反映施政未有以人為本。官僚平日未有切實處理違規問題，出了亂子後擔心問責追究，急忙應對，不理後果，層層下壓，執行過火，激起民怨才知亡羊補牢，這經驗教訓必須好好汲取。民生事務必須以體恤為先，不能粗枝大葉。國家主席習近平提出「國家治理體制和治理能力現代化」，看來還有一段相當長的路要走。

未理清貧外鄉人苦况 不要這種「中國速度」

中國改革開放接近40年，發展之快舉世驚訝，「中國速度」之說不脛而走，不少西方官員專家也大感興趣。「中國速度」有些值得欣賞，有些不敢恭維。今次北京「排查隱患」風波，就不禁令人質疑當局是否只講效率，不理清貧外來人口苦况。放眼世界城市發展歷史，貧民窟往往伴隨現代化而來，不少外來人口持續湧向大城市尋找工作機會，為求省吃儉用，只好聚居貧民窟。雖然內地政府「不容許」貧民窟存在，惟不代表沒有類似問題。

隨着北京等一線大城市地鐵網絡日趨完善，很多清貧外來人口紛紛寄居市郊周邊地區。北京大興區、朝陽區等屬於這類城鄉結合的社區，居於當地的清貧外來人，大多是在北京幹外賣、速遞、清潔和地盤工等粗活。他們平日往返北京上班，月入可能只得數千元人民幣，無法應付市區租金，市郊劏房式單位，月租則只需千多元，只要辛勤打拼，仍可有點儲蓄；對於北京市政府來說，清貧外來人口是重要廉價勞動力，負責本地人不太願意從事的工作。

近年北京銳意「疏散」首都以外的功能，強化作為全國政治、文化、國際交往和科技創新中心，城區批發市場、傳統製造業等低端產業，都在「疏散」之列，這次北京當局被質疑假借「排查違規建築」之名，清退所謂「外來低端人口」，原因亦在於此。

外來廉價勞動人口與北京市發展，早已形成一種共生關係，北京市政府理應知之甚詳，沒理由搬石頭砸自己的腳，可是當局今次排查行動太過粗暴拙劣，執行人員半夜突襲，斷水斷電，亂砸亂踹，大批民眾流離失所。雖然當局矢口否認「藉機清理低端人口」，可是民眾耳聞目睹，都是清貧外來工人的慘况，豈有不把矛頭指向當局之理？

妥善處理外來清貧人口，從來不是易事。曾幾何時，在紐約貧民窟生活的小童，會被扣上「未來罪犯」標籤；在倫敦，大批工人蝸居市郊貧民窟「劏房」，也被視為「準罪犯」（semi-criminal ）。倫敦當局曾以開路、改善衛生等名義，將大量貧民窟夷平，驅趕貧民數以萬計。直至後來倫敦和紐約當局興建公共房屋，安置貧民窟窮人，逐步取締貧民窟，問題才得以解決。當前北京的問題，就是配套跟不上，未能提供足夠租金廉宜公共房屋，加上戶籍問題，令到清貧外鄉人變相遭到排斥。

回應民情意識漸抬頭 「關注民情威權」有局限

城市管理工作需要細緻化和人性化，任何影響民生的重大措施，必須多考慮緩衝期和善後安排。眼見近日民情憤慨，北京市政府亡羊補牢，強調行動要有「人文關懷」，又組織招聘活動，安置受影響民眾，總算是一件好事，反映回應民情意識抬頭。

若以政府是否一人一票產生，將所有政體二分為「民主」或「威權/專制」政體，內地當然屬於後者，然而不少學者亦意識到，過度簡化的「民主」「威權」二元觀念，除了起到意識形態標籤作用外，對於了解每個國家狀况和變化，並沒有多少幫助，就算同屬威權政體，差異也可以極大。為了掌握中國政治制度和管治模式變化，近年西方學者搬出不少政治概念，諸如官僚威權主義、務實威權主義、軟威權主義等等，美國學者Christopher Heurlin就提出了「關注民情威權主義」（Responsive Authoritarianism）。他指出，內地遷拆問題引發過不少示威，惟政府並非一味鐵腕鎮壓，事後其實作出了很多政策調整，處理示威者的怨憤。

習近平上台後，提出「國家治理體系和治理能力現代化」，強調以人為本。加強回應民眾訴求，顯然是改革方向重點。觀乎今次「排查隱患」風波，北京當局事後的「補鑊」處理，某程度反映管治者不敢漠視民情反彈，惟亦突出了「關注民情威權管治」的局限﹕內地官僚對於民情的回應和關注，往往流於被動，決策思慮不周，執行粗枝大葉，出了大事才亡羊補牢。內地治理體系要以人為本，體察民情必須更加主動，對弱勢群體要有更多體恤，否則類似今次的民生治理風波，還將陸續上演。

Beijing evicting poor migrants

IN the wake of a deadly fire in the Daxing district of Beijing, the municipal government has launched a campaign supposedly for the sake of people to identify and remove hidden safety hazards. But city authorities have carried out the measures against illegal structures in such a forceful manner that it was essentially no different from evicting poor migrants, which has resulted in allegations of a "clean-up campaign against the low-end population". All this has pointed to a lack of a people-oriented mindset in the implementation of policies. City bureaucrats failed to address the issue of illegal housing on normal days. Only after the mishap did they hastily take some corresponding measures out of worries that they would be held accountable for wrongdoing. But the action was taken in a rash, top-down, over-the-top and short-sighted manner, triggering a public outcry so loud that authorities finally realised they had to find remedies. This is indeed a big lesson to learn.

Aiming to strengthen Beijing's role as the centre of China's politics, culture, international communication and technological innovation, in recent years its authorities have determined to phase out its non-capital functions including low-end industrial sectors like urban wholesale markets and conventional manufacturing. This is the underlying reason of the alleged driving out of the so-called "low-end immigrants" in the name of "identifying and eliminating illegal structures". However, the way of pushing the campaign forward has been too rude and callous, with reports of midnight raids by enforcement officials, cutting off of water and electricity supplies, dwellers' possessions smashed and trampled on, droves of people losing home overnight. Even though city authorities have denied they were "seizing the opportunity to toss out the low-end population", what the general public has seen and heard was all plight of the poor migrants. Under such circumstances, how can one not take aim at the government?

Noticing the surging outcry, the municipal government has tried to remedy the situation by playing up the "humanistic care" aspect of the campaign and organising job fairs to accommodate people affected. At long last, this should be seen as a positive posture reflecting the heightening awareness of authorities to respond to public opinion.

If we take the "one person one vote" standard as the yardstick by which to divide all forms of governments into democracies and autocracies, mainland China naturally falls into the latter category. However, many scholars have noted that such a dichotomous view of governments only carries an effect of ideology labelling but helps little in terms of understanding the circumstances and changes in each country. In fact, even countries belonging to the same category of authoritarianism can exhibit wide variability. In order to grasp the changes in the political system and governance model of China, American scholar Christopher Heurlin has put forth the concept of "Responsive Authoritarianism". Talking about the frequent occurrence of protests sparked by housing demolition in China, he points out that the government has not been invariably showing an iron fist approach. In fact, in many cases authorities have implemented policy adjustments afterwards in response to the rage of protesters.

The remedial action taken by authorities following the current storm over the "hazard elimination campaign" has reflected to a certain degree that the administration side dares not ignore the public uproar. But the case has also highlighted the limit of "Responsive Authoritarianism" in mainland China — the responses made by bureaucrats to address public sentiment often tend to be passive. They lack thoughtfulness when deciding policies and pay no attention to detail in implementation, only to scramble for remedies after something serious has gone wrong. The governance system of the mainland should be founded on people and more proaction is needed in gauging public sentiment. More compassion should be shown towards the underprivileged communities. Otherwise, similar controversies about government policies concerning people's livelihood will continue to come up.

排查隱患變驅逐窮人 治理現代化體恤為先

北京大興區一場奪命大火，事後市政府展開安全隱患排查，理應是為民設想，可是當局處理違章建築手法粗暴，實際效果形同驅逐清貧外來人，惹來「清洗低端人口」質疑，反映施政未有以人為本。官僚平日未有切實處理違規問題，出了亂子後擔心問責追究，急忙應對，不理後果，層層下壓，執行過火，激起民怨才知亡羊補牢，這經驗教訓必須好好汲取。

近年北京銳意「疏散」首都以外的功能，強化作為全國政治、文化、國際交往和科技創新中心，城區批發市場、傳統製造業等低端產業，都在「疏散」之列，這次北京當局被質疑假借「排查違規建築」之名，清退所謂「外來低端人口」，原因亦在於此。可是當局今次排查行動太過粗暴拙劣，執行人員半夜突襲，斷水斷電，亂砸亂踹，大批民眾流離失所。雖然當局矢口否認「藉機清理低端人口」，可是民眾耳聞目睹，都是清貧外來工人的慘况，豈有不把矛頭指向當局之理？

眼見近日民情憤慨，北京市政府亡羊補牢，強調行動要有「人文關懷」，又組織招聘活動，安置受影響民眾，總算是一件好事，反映回應民情意識抬頭。

若以政府是否一人一票產生，將所有政體二分為「民主」或「威權/專制」政體，內地當然屬於後者，然而不少學者亦意識到，過度簡化的「民主」「威權」二元觀念，除了起到意識形態標籤作用外，對於了解每個國家狀况和變化，並沒有多少幫助，就算同屬威權政體，差異也可以極大。為了掌握中國政治制度和管治模式變化，美國學者Christopher Heurlin就提出「關注民情威權主義」的概念。他指出，內地遷拆問題引發過不少示威，惟政府並非一味鐵腕鎮壓，事後其實作出了很多政策調整，處理示威者的怨憤。

觀乎今次「排查隱患」風波，北京當局事後的「補鑊」處理，某程度反映管治者不敢漠視民情反彈，惟亦突出了「關注民情威權管治」的局限：內地官僚對於民情的回應和關注，往往流於被動，決策思慮不周，執行粗枝大葉，出了大事才亡羊補牢。內地治理體系要以人為本，體察民情必須更加主動，對弱勢群體要有更多體恤，否則類似今次的民生治理風波，還將陸續上演。