[轉貼]香港居住質素惡劣，民間有責

http://ourhkfoundation.org.hk/zh-hant/insi...%B2%AC%EF%BC%9F

香港居住質素惡劣，民間有責？
2017-03-15
[justify]撰文: 廖美香 資深傳媒人[/justify]

[justify]南韓於亞洲金融風暴期間面臨破產，國人團結自救，如今成為手機強國，文化產業世界領先。新加坡政府主導政經發展，人心團結，一呼百應，無私邁向國家目標。反觀香港政治撕裂，黨派紛爭，商界自肥，地區自私自利，NGO 力爭不竭 ……，卻在抱望要有明天，真可實現嗎？[/justify]

南韓於亞洲金融風暴期間面臨破產，國人團結自救，如今成為手機強國，文化產業世界領先。

怒氣難解決房屋問題
香港房屋擠逼，昂貴得驚人，居住空間狹小，港人除了批評各方不力，民間聲音是否絕對正確而毋須反省？展望未來，如果港人能團結一心，民生質素或有轉機。
[justify] [/justify]

[justify]二○一七年香港已連續第七年成為最難負擔的城市，市民不吃不喝十八年，才能買到房子。總之，談到房屋擠逼，便想到有三十萬人輪候公屋，要排長龍到四點五年之後；要買私樓又無法負擔，即使住在新界郊區動輒要每方呎超過一萬元，私樓劏房也不易負擔……住屋困難，讓港人透不過氣。[/justify]

[justify]新媒體資訊混亂[/justify]

[justify]在怒氣之下，理性討論似乎無形無蹤。傳統媒體講求查證、多角度、公正客觀。新媒體每多要求搶先、爭眼球，容易陷於粗製濫造，變成資訊失實、數據參差。以土地供應為例，有新媒體報道指控官商勾結，政府儲地充足，可供應四千公頃土地，但據團結香港基金指出，這是陳舊資料，近幾年政府三番四次重申只剩下三百九十二點五公頃，如今恐怕只餘下一百多公頃而已，反映香港土地奇缺；由此可見，這是天淵之別，不同數據引申不同結論。有的新媒體立場激烈，令社會資訊混亂，讀者一不小心便接收虛假訊息，作出錯誤判斷，從而發出錯誤帖文、轉載或回應，導致公眾憤怒，政治再添矛盾。[/justify]

[justify]思考宜全面、多角度[/justify]

[justify]一位老友問我，孩子加入某某研究組織好不好？友好認為「研究組織」必然是有利學術思考，但某些激進組織有可能以此為名，未必嚴謹論述。入世未深的年輕人容易義憤填胸，有可能自以為是，走上激途。現在不少青年滿有理想是一好事，一旦欠缺理性思考，總認為社會虧欠各方，自己也是受害者。我們實在應為無殼蝸牛而擔憂，但實情是一味焦急像熱鍋上的螞蟻，仍無補於事；我們應該冷靜思考問題的根源，不宜盲目跟風。[/justify]

[justify]絕大部分非政府組織（NGO）的理念崇高，尤其環保組織，堅毅一懈追求理想，不難理解。但是，作為市民去判斷施政，應注意至少三方面：一、從多角度；二、循長遠眼光；三、符合香港整體利益。無論新加坡、澳門、深圳都缺乏土地，以填海大量造地。以新加坡為例，兩成國土由填海取得，澳門更有六成土地由填海而來，香港則只有百分之六。再看，香港於過去九年（○五至一三年）只填海九十二公頃，比較再之前九五至○四年填海一千一百二十七公頃及八五至九四年填海一千一百六十四公頃，顯得停滯不前，原因是政府顧慮重重，民間團體施以壓力，有指填海影響到海洋生態。港大地理系（城市生態，城市綠化及土地科學） 詹志勇講座教授指出，「我們需要在發展與保育作出平衡的判斷，不應只考慮一個焦點，我覺得是填海是解決土地不足的一個方法。」[/justify]

[justify]暴露自私自利[/justify]

[justify]循民主途徑產生的區議會議員，就建屋問題也提出令人不解的意見。香港有三十萬人輪候公屋，但區議會內竟然每每有議員反對興建公屋。據資料顯示，元朗區議會一致通過強烈反對重建為高密度公屋，要求發展為酒店及寫字樓。東涌地區私樓居民反對公屋項目，有議員表示較宜發展私人屋苑。另一個更為驚人的例子是，就九龍城/何文田南興建第二期居屋單位，有區議員表示，從港島區望紅磡一帶，先入眼廉的是幾個私人屋苑，公屋會令感覺不協調……可見，地區反對建公營單位，寧可「各家自掃門前雪」，「建公屋還是到別區好」，不少市民對公屋存有歧視的目光，暴露出港人自私自利的心態。[/justify]

[justify]民主與自覺[/justify]

[justify]民主應是為民請命，提升人們的生活質素。然而，近年世界不少大事反映了民主的發展令人憂心，例如歐債危機、特朗普當選美國總統。民主並非一個最好的政治機制，而是較好的手段去否決一個失敗的政府。因而，我們在講求民意的社會，應注意個人的理性思考，從而作出較佳政策選擇及施政監督，如果市民盲目跟風，反而是幫兇。當政治紛亂，社會正確譽論一旦失效，政府怯於施政，民間議政最終反而變成作繭自縛，民生不利，成為自作自受了。[/justify]

[justify]總之，房屋供應不足，根源在土地不夠，我們應正視問題癥結，從多角度審視香港長遠及整體利益，共同協力發展，始乃港人之福。[/justify]


[justify]===================================[/justify]

[justify]香港很多民眾面對房屋短缺問題, 不去想解決辦法, 只是尋找替罪羊出氣袋諉過於人, 還要阻礙解決問題的人, 識者固然氣憤難平, 無知愚昧保守反動的人也是自作自受.[/justify]

First let me say that the writing style and translations of this article is a bit awkward.  Maybe I’m nitpicking a bit here lol:
1-      The term “最難負擔” was directly translated from the phrase “the most unaffordable” but it did not appear to imply financial affordability at all.  I guess “香港是全球樓價最難負擔的城市”would probably make more sense.
2-      “市民不吃不喝十八年，才能買到房子” seems like a strange description, isn’t it simply the ratio of average house price to median household income? I get that the author was trying to emphasize issues with housing affordability, but she didn’t even make a comparison of the ratio to that of other cities to strengthen her point.  What if the ratio of the runner up is 17.5:1? It would severely undermine her argument.  Additionally, I guess the description is more of playing with words. Do most people really pay the full asking price when buying a house? Unless one has a ton of money to burn, that seems like an idiotic way to tie up a big chunk of capital and forget about investment diversification.

Anyway, that’s probably beside the point that she was trying to make.   I don’t understand the situation well enough to have my two cents on the topic from a political standpoint.

Having living in a very high cost of living city, I understand the struggle of housing affordability.  We haven’t bought a house yet but according to the author’s calculation, we could essentially buy an average home in our city by living ‘without water and food’ (plus income taxes) for a year or so, but I’m not naïve enough to think that people who make median income should just ‘work harder & together’. Land scarcity is an issue and doesn’t matter how it is spun, there is only a finite number of solutions fix or improve the condition.  Price is driven by supply and demand, but it could also be controlled or regulated – and it ultimately lies in the hands of regulators to take actions and implement controls.

The denominator, the median household income, is an interesting one.  The truth is that when you have a city where more than half of the households are struggling to afford housing, telling people ‘to think long term’ or that ‘we need more collaboration” simply angers them and exudes a sense of ignorance and out of touch with reality. I would think this is where the divergence of opinions starts, and it could happen well before people start drifting apart on political views.  I believe the author had some good points, but she focused only on problems in the numerator and attributed to a bunch of factors including political ones. Had the denominator been higher, would the ratio go down? I think the answer is pretty clear.  There are problems in the median household income, but the author failed to acknowledge them (whether intentionally or not). 

I’ve been reading a book on economic and wealth distributions lately and a few things mentioned in the book came to my mind when I was reading OP’s article.  The exacerbation in housing affordability could very well be attributed to the points discussed there: wealth redistribution through exploitation of labors and rent seeking behaviors.  Without getting into the details, these activities do not create economic profit (wealth creation) as the benefits are not reciprocated to the society.  The book focused mainly on the government and proposed ideas that could make a major, sustainable difference (although I didn’t agree with every single idea) and I think they could apply to the issue here as well.
 
In a nutshell, to improve the denominator I’m all for working harder and smarter as individuals, but I think improving the overall well-being of the society requires a much more comprehensive effort – having effective and sustainable regulations would be just as crucial as having unity and collective support from individuals. 

本篇文章已被 Pearltea 於 Jun 15 2017, 13:32 編輯過

at risk of man-splaining

The base message is in the lines of "united we stand, divided we fall", by appealing to Korea and Singapore as examples of unity.

Housing price in HK is extremely unaffordable. Fingers have been pointed everywhere, at the government, the land tycoons and real estate businesses. Rarely has a moment been spent to ask whether the problem lies within the people themselves. 

It is not difficult, to imagine that if one did social research through using questionnaires, everybody agrees there needs to be more public housing, just as everybody agrees that housing prices should be made more affordable. What is not said, but true is the underlying "not in my backyard" People still implicitly discriminate against those in public housing. Then there is that fear of drops in property prices. Again: "Anywhere and everywhere else. Just not in my backyard"

Democracy depends on the its voting populace. It is a system aimed at maximising the participation of the various groups in a society. It is about finding a compromise and balance of conflicting interests. When a society is not interested in looking out for itself as a group, but as uncoordinated individual factions with constant in-fighting, sooner or later, that society will be over-taken and left behind. When the resources in a given society are concentrated in the hands of a few, it is the majority that will suffer.

Of course, whether people are aware, and accept that they are just the majority, as opposed to the privileged few, is a completely different matter. 

The fat man is fat, not necessarily because he is rich. But because he punched his own face till swollen.

本篇文章已被 willyho 於 Jun 15 2017, 11:30 編輯過

雖然引文很多地方流於片面, 但作者其中的核心訊息我是認同的 - 香港樓價高企 / 房屋問題嚴重, 但香港人卻因為互相敵對互扯後腿, 結果只是放著令問題越來越嚴重.

對於樓價高企, 其核心原因是很明顯的(正如 pearltea 所說) - 就是供求關係 - 因為土地供應不足, 房屋落成希缺.

但每當香港政府或其他團體提出各種增加土地供應的方法時, 例如填海, 或開發新界土地時, 人們總是囿於黨派之爭而強烈反對. 在那些政策建議的專頁上, 每天 - 真的是「每天」, 也看到在這些建議的文章之下, 有一大堆怒氣難抑的網民, 用著各種各樣的理由(甚至只是情緒化的留言), 憤怒地反對. 其反對理由諸如認為要先制止移民 (縱使實際上停不停移民, 增加土地都是一個獨立的因素去降低樓價), 或者說填海的土地不也是「賣給地產商來賺錢?」(如果不讓發展上投地建樓賣樓, 何來房屋供應增加?), 或者直接斥責專頁是為「狗官」「為虎作脹」之類.

每天看到只是阻礙香港解決問題的討論, 實在是很灰心.

另外, "不吃不喝XXX年，才買到 yyyy" 這種說法當然是不現實, 但在中文媒體是很常見的寫法, 強調該價錢是與總收入之比, 即使不扣除任何支出也等於 XXX 年的總收入, 更何況實際要儲錢的年份?

話雖如此, 其實對於網上那些怒氣難抑的留言, 我也是有點理解的.

雖然從邏輯理性上, 如果想樓價下降, 當然是應該同意增加土地供應

但在他們的政治理性上, 是考慮到「公平」和「讓步」的問題

在他們眼中, 假如同意政府以基建手段, 或者開發「郊野公園」來達到土地供應的目標
那就是他們對政府「讓步了」(在香港奇怪的政治生態中, 反對派是慣性反對基建)
如果為了短期的目標而讓步, 那他們用甚麼來制衡政府去同意他們方的要求呢? 
那就是只能不惜放棄增加土地供應的代價, 也要堅決反對政府的建議, 寧可沒有進展, 也要雙方的要求都共同進行才去同意.
(即開發土地的同時, 也要同意他們的停止移民等另一方面與房屋有關的訴求)

而且, 反對派的有些要求, 也可以看到假如是站在他們的立場上, 是會覺得「不公平」的
例如有些開發方案是, 在同一個區域, 是一些村民的農地和住屋, 再加上一個高爾夫球場.
而政府是第一階段先開發這些村民的農地和住屋, 下一步在將來才夷平高爾夫球場去建屋.
雖然, 這種安排或許是有從工序上或效益角度上的考慮, 
但給人們的感覺, 是政府竟然只要求小民去犧牲去成全社會的公眾需要, 富人卻連高球場也不去犧牲
那普通市民當然會覺得「不公平」.
因此, 我也認為為了彰顯公平, 即使實際上不符效益, 
政府還是應該同時收回農地和高球場, 來表現出為了解決香港的土地問題, 
不論社會那一個階層, 都需要共同分擔和有所犧牲

至於所謂「停止移民」的訴求上,
也很明顯是從道理上, 那是說不通的 - 怎麼較早的移民到了香港, 就要排擠後來的移民呢?
而且, 移民也不是對香港沒有貢獻的, 他們也是有工作, 有勞動, 而不是如某些傳媒所渲染那樣 - 來香港光拿福利不幹活的.
但對於一個正在輪侯公屋的人來說, 他們眼見新建的公屋總有很多是分配給新移民家庭 (縱使他們同樣也輪侯了很多年)
那心急如焚的輪侯人當然會覺得「假如沒有移民」, 他輪侯到公屋的時間當然遠快於等更多新土地供應再建樓了.
他有哪裡會想甚麼怎樣才對社會更有效益, 道理上公不公平呢?

因此, 見到香港就是如此死結難解, 又如何不失望呢?

其實公屋居民被住私家樓的歧視也不算新鮮事吧？住公屋的，有些即使有能力也不搬出。住私家樓的為了保持自己【高人一等】和自我感覺（過份）良好，當然不想自己附近有公屋。（特別是當自己的那層樓起得比公屋差）

There are always going to be a few bad apples. They give those in the same group a bad name. 
 
I understand your frustration, 阿暪. I have to say that I'm quite disappointed when reading opinions on any news in HK these days. Politics or not, somehow people were able to flood the comment sections with political related arguments and personal attacks.  At some point you wonder, "How does this pertain to politics at all?   

In the case you described, I don't know if there is any way to achieve equity in terms of sacrifices. Even if the proposal requires both sides to equally give up the land in favor of real estate development, there'll be debates on "needs vs wants", don't you think?
 
I'd like to think that most differences in opinions/political views are not driven by being emotional vs logical, or self-centered vs selfless, but rather short vs long term views, and detail oriented vs big picture thinking.  Some people tend to analyze things in totality, considering the overall impact of each option with high level cost-benefit analysis; while some like to focus on the minuscule details, identifying how each action can impact individual cases and those in the vicinity.  A good leader should be able to understand the big picture without neglecting the details, find a balance between the two, and communicate, communicate, communicate! (On a side note, I actually wonder if repeating the word three times for emphasis in English led to#因為好重要所以要講三次)
 
Obviously you have greater proximity and understanding of the issues/differences and had first-hand experience with them, so I’d be interested to know what your take is on this.

 

Pearltea 所言甚是. 有些人關注的是社會總體效益, 有些人更關注自己所關注的議題.
即使關注特定範疇的團體, 也並不是代表他們只是偏執, 不代表他們的意見沒有用處
他們的運作就是作為壓力團體, 雖然提出要求時開天殺價, 如果實際執行確實對社會不妥
但也需要以這種運作模式, 才能讓政策制定者關注他們的訴求, 在制定總體政策時回應這些訴求落地還錢.