公眾利益放首位 政府須言行一致

<轉載自2018年5月4日 明報 社評>

行政長官林鄭月娥出席立法會答問會，多名議員都關注土地房屋問題，特別是政府有否魄力決心，向既得利益權貴說不。林鄭再三強調會以「公眾利益」為依歸，可是觀乎政府處理私人會所用地的表現，乃至過去一些「官商勾結」爭議，市民對政府有所懷疑，亦非無因。土地問題牽涉太多利益，政府要打破困局，不僅需要政治決心，也需要政治能量。當局缺乏土地儲備和廣泛政治支持，很難跟既得利益權貴討價還價。政府需要善用民意力量，增加談判籌碼，克服政治阻力，維護公眾利益。

不敢挑戰權貴利益 高球場爭議添狐疑

本港土地供應短缺，各界對如何覓地意見不一，尋求社會最大公約數並不容易，部分既得利益者更肯定會動員一切力量，例如尋找各式「代言人」左右民意，抵制不利於己的主張，又或趁機開天索價，向政府索要最多好處。這些既得利益大致可分為兩類﹕一類是地區本位的，例如有些人可能擔心填海建屋，會影響現有家園景觀和樓價；另一類則多少帶有階級色彩，也就是一般人講的「權貴」，他們對政府施政擁有巨大影響力，部分人更擁有不少土地。

土地問題暴露社會不同階層之間的矛盾，有人認為土地大辯論「煽動」仇富情緒，然而有一點必須釐清﹕手握政經影響力的社會精英和巨賈，只要他們願意顧全公眾利益，公眾不會將他們視為與民為敵的「權貴」。土地房屋問題危及香港長遠福祉，各方為了整體社會利益，難免要有犧牲付出，擁有愈多權力和財富的人，自然應該承擔更多。現在普羅大眾不滿的，並非所有政商精英，而是某些為了一己之私犧牲整體利益的權貴。昨天的行政長官答問會，多位立法會議員針對既得利益者和權貴的提問，應當從這個角度去理解，並非為了「仇富」。

議員質疑政府處理土地問題沒有足夠決心魄力，林鄭表示在她施政中沒有「既得利益」這四個字，她的責任是維護公眾利益。談到昔日多名地產商支持她當特首，林鄭強調選舉過程中沒有虧欠任何人。林鄭說得斬釘截鐵，然而市民希望見到的是實際行動，並非空泛承諾。本世紀初，由西九項目單一招標，到政府採用勾地表制度，讓發展商控制推地主導權，一連串「官商勾結」爭議，令市民對政府缺乏信任。也許現屆政府可以辯稱，這些都是前朝爭議，可是最近發表的私人遊樂場地契約檢討報告，卻令公眾再度覺得，政府高官不敢挑戰權貴利益。

隨着收回粉嶺高球場爭議不斷發酵，近期愈來愈多聲音為高球場護航，當中哪些人是出於關注高球運動，哪些人是為了既得利益站台，市民心中有數。部分力保粉嶺高球場的權貴，手握相當大的權力，多名立法會議員和行會成員，也因為擁有高球會會籍，被質疑能否做到公正持平。公眾關注政府如何處理粉嶺高球場，不是要針對高球運動，而是想知道當局會否繼續包庇特權。如果政府拿不出勇氣處理粉嶺高球場，市民也不會相信政府能夠公正處理土地供應問題。

大辯論助政府打民意牌 土地儲備影響談判籌碼

當然，政府出於社會整體需要向權貴利益開刀，也不能光靠一股蠻勇。舉例說，發展商在新界囤積上千公頃荒廢農地，理論上政府可援引《收回土地條例》，以「公共用途」之名強行收回，終審法院案例也提到，當局只需賠償農地價格，而非私營房屋落成後的市價，然而香港是法治社會，強調保障私有產權，政府貿然出手，發展商肯定提出司法覆核，隨時纏訟10多年，反而令到有關土地遲遲無法拿來建屋，令政府、發展商和公眾三輸。林鄭提到灣仔舊警署搬遷多年，有關土地仍未可以發展，就是由於警署所屬的分區計劃大綱圖，在改劃過程被指侵犯私有產權。相比之下，多從棕地入手，收回被霸佔的官地，也許較為實際。

政府要跟既得利益權貴周旋，除了要有政治決心，更要有政治能量。土地大辯論一個重要作用，就是凝聚主流共識，讓當局可以運用民意牌，壓下只顧一己之私的聲音，市民應該積極表達意見，政黨也應該以全港利益為重，不能只看政治私利甚或袒護既得利益。

解決本港短中期土地短缺，眼前選擇不多，釋放發展商在新界囤積的農地儲備，是無奈選擇，如何避免「公私營合作」出現官商勾結，建立公開透明機制固然重要，然而政府也必須有足夠籌碼，才能跟發展商討價還價，爭取對社會最有利的合作條件。如果政府可以透過填海造地等方法，在10多年後擁有上千公頃土地儲備，毋須打新界私人農地主意，發展商自然會擔心，現時手上囤積的荒廢農地，長遠可能要繼續「曬月光」，談判公私營合作，也不易獅子開大口。問題是現在政府根本沒有土地儲備，缺乏談判籌碼，《收回土地條例》這把尚方寶劍又難以動用，發展商在談判桌佔盡上風，就算政府有心企硬，洽談出來的方案，也難免容易向發展商傾斜。土地困局是人禍，就在這種被動狀態反映出來。

Concrete action needed to dispel doubts over vested interests

DURING a Legislative Council question and answer session attended by Chief Executive Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, lawmakers raised concerns about the land and housing problems, especially whether the government is bold and resolute enough to defy the rich and powerful with a vested interest. Lam stressed repeatedly that what she did would be based solely on "the public interest". However, given the government's performance in dealing with the issue of granting land leases to private sports clubs as well as past controversies over "collusion between the government and the rich and powerful", citizens' doubt about the government is not unfounded. The land issue involves so many interests that the government needs not only political determination but also political energy to shake things up. As the government lacks both land reserves and wide political support, it has difficulty bargaining with the rich and powerful with a vested interest. To build up its bargaining chips, the government must make good use of the power of public opinion. Only by doing so can it overcome political resistance and safeguard the public interest.

In tackling land shortage in Hong Kong, different parties have different views about the way of finding more land. It is not easy to achieve a consensus most representative of the views in society. It is even certain that some vested interests will resist unfavorable proposals with all their might or to ask for maximum benefits from the government. These vested interests can be generally classified into two groups: The first group is community-based, made up of people who are, for example, worried that reclamation projects for housing may affect the open views from their residences and thus their market values. The second group is more or less characteristic of a hierarchical society, and is described by some people as "the rich and powerful". They wield huge influence over the government's policies. Some of them even possess large areas of land.

The land issue has exposed conflicts among different classes of society. Some say the big debate about land is "provoking" an anti-rich sentiment, but one point must be clarified regarding this: If those politically and economically influential members of the social elite and tycoons are willing to give careful consideration to the public interest, the public will not see them as "the rich and powerful" who antagonise ordinary people. The land and housing problems can jeopardise the long term well-being of the city. For the sake of the general interests of society, it is inevitable that all parties have to make sacrifices and contribution. And it is natural that those who have more power and fortune should commit more in the process. The general public is dissatisfied not with all members of the political or business elite, but with certain rich and powerful people who pursue personal gains at the expense of the public interest.

When the legislators questioned whether the government was bold and resolute enough in dealing with the land problem, Lam replied that the term "vested interests" did not exist in her administration, and that it was her duty to safeguard the public interest. Commenting on concerns that many property developers had lent their support to her election campaign, Lam emphasised she did not owe anyone any favours during the election process. Resolute and decisive she might seem in her answers, what people want to see is concrete action, not vague and empty promises. The beginning of this century had seen a series of controversies over "collusion between the government and the rich and powerful", such as the single tendering arrangement of the West Kowloon Cultural District, and the government's adoption of the application mechanism in land sale that gave property developers the dominating power in initiating land sale. Those controversies undermined people's confidence in the government. Perhaps the incumbent government may argue these are all only disputes back in the years of former governments. But the latest report on the review of Private Recreational Leases has once again given the public the impression that top government officials dare not challenge the interests of the rich and powerful.

Amid the intensifying disputes over taking back the Fanling golf course, more and more people have added their voices to the conservation of the golf course recently. Some of the important people seeking hard to keep the golf course are those who wield huge power. If the government cannot pluck up the courage to deal with the Fanling golf course, the general public will not believe it can deal with land supply problem in a fair and just manner either.

公眾利益放首位 政府須言行一致

行政長官林鄭月娥出席立法會答問會，多名議員都關注土地房屋問題，特別是政府有否魄力決心，向既得利益權貴說不。林鄭再三強調會以「公眾利益」為依歸，可是觀乎政府處理私人會所用地的表現，乃至過去一些「官商勾結」爭議，市民對政府有所懷疑，亦非無因。土地問題牽涉太多利益，政府要打破困局，不僅需要政治決心，也需要政治能量。當局缺乏土地儲備和廣泛政治支持，很難跟既得利益權貴討價還價。政府需要善用民意力量，增加談判籌碼，克服政治阻力，維護公眾利益。

本港土地供應短缺，各界對如何覓地意見不一，尋求社會最大公約數並不容易，部分既得利益者更肯定會動員一切力量，抵制不利於己的主張，又或向政府索要最多好處。這些既得利益大致可分為兩類﹕一類是地區本位的，例如有些人可能擔心填海建屋，會影響現有家園景觀和樓價；另一類則多少帶有階級色彩，也就是一般人講的「權貴」，他們對政府施政擁有巨大影響力，部分人更擁有不少土地。

土地問題暴露社會不同階層之間的矛盾，有人認為土地大辯論「煽動」仇富情緒，然而有一點必須釐清﹕手握政經影響力的社會精英和巨賈，只要他們願意顧全公眾利益，公眾不會將他們視為與民為敵的「權貴」。土地房屋問題危及香港長遠福祉，各方為了整體社會利益，難免要有犧牲付出，擁有愈多權力和財富的人，自然應該承擔更多。現在普羅大眾不滿的，並非所有政商精英，而是某些為了一己之私犧牲整體利益的權貴。

議員質疑政府處理土地問題沒有足夠決心魄力，林鄭表示在她施政中沒有「既得利益」這四個字，她的責任是維護公眾利益。談到昔日多名地產商支持她當特首，林鄭強調選舉過程中沒有虧欠任何人。林鄭說得斬釘截鐵，然而市民希望見到的是實際行動，並非空泛承諾。本世紀初，由西九項目單一招標，到政府採用勾地表制度，讓發展商控制推地主導權，一連串「官商勾結」爭議，令市民對政府缺乏信任。也許現屆政府可以辯稱，這些都是前朝爭議，可是最近發表的私人遊樂場地契約檢討報告，卻令公眾再度覺得，政府高官不敢挑戰權貴利益。

隨着收回粉嶺高球場爭議不斷發酵，近期愈來愈多聲音為高球場護航。部分力保粉嶺高球場的權貴，手握相當大的權力。如果政府拿不出勇氣處理粉嶺高球場，市民也不會相信政府能夠公正處理土地供應問題。