Objection to amending the Legislative Council’s Rules of Procedure

學者邀請公眾參與簽名運動-反對立法會修改議事規則,以削弱其議政及監察權
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1m1uecQRRNiq8zgppomfR077SW1Nis7tQIKFAM9ZWWyc/edit?ts=5a2f492f

近日立法會建制派議員在民主派因宣誓風波失去否決權之際, 提出修改議事規則。我們反對是次修訂,因修訂一旦通過, 將嚴重削弱立法會現時僅有些微監察政府的權力,讓本來已坐擁巨大權力的行政機關, 更不受立法會監管, 令香港邁向獨裁政體機會大增。上述觀點, 理據如下:

首先,建制派聲稱修改《議事規則》的目的是要制止拉布。細看他們建議,當中有些修改與拉布完全無關。例如建制派議員建議將調查官員的提名門檻由20人提升至35人, 民主派過去三次提出呈請書調查官員,包括調查湯顯明先生任職廉政專員期間的外訪、酬酢、調查高鐵工程延誤超支和梁振英UGL事件, 整個過程約只需5分鐘,不構成亦無需拉布。 把提出呈請書的門檻增至35位議員,無疑是要得到建制派議員同意,才能成立委員會。最終是未來的專責委員會根本不大可能成立,往後立法會將更難對涉嫌失職官員提出調查, 官員或公職人員濫權的代價亦變得更小。

另外,建制派議員提議將法案全體委員會階段的法定在席人數由35人下調至20人。出席立法會會議審理議案根本是議員職責,如今建制派建議減少法定人數,而非鼓勵議員履行責任出席會議,是本末倒置,自降標準, 更違反《基本法》第75條有關「香港特別行政區立法會舉行會議的法定人數為不少於全體議員的二分之一」的規定。

此外,建制派議員提出將中止討論議案的門檻, 如全體委員會主席阻撓, 議員將不能以中止討論的方式將無理的議案和惡法撤回,主席可以下令把惡法表決, 大幅削弱議員減低行政濫權和失誤的權力。

議員無權議事,立法會無法以會議程序、議事權力形成壓力, 監察政府,日後政府推動劣政、惡法的成本便大減,政府亦根本不用回應立法機關及民意。

若是次建制派成功將《議事規則》修訂,政府要通過違反公益和人權的惡法,包括廿三條立法在內,立法會將更難透過議會審議和爭取大眾的支持, 加以遏止 。政府將更容易成為權力不受制約的獨裁政權代表, 全港市民將會受害。

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
發起團體及學者 (姓氏筆劃序)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* 學術自由學者聯盟
* 成 名 (香港科技大學副教授)
* 李展華 (香港教育大學高級講師)
* 何芝君 (明愛專上學院客座教授)
* 杜耀明 (香港浸會大學助理教授)(已退休)
* 邱祖淇 (香港浸會大學講師)
* 周保松 (中文大學副教授)
* 馬 嶽 (香港中文大學副教授)
* 敖恆宇 (香港中文大學教授)
* 梁志遠 (香港理工大學專任導師)
* 梁恩榮 (教育大學客席副教授)
* 郭儀芬 (香港大學前助理教授)
* 陳士齊 (香港浸會大學高級講師)
* 陳清僑 (嶺南大學教授)
* 陳家洛 (香港浸會大學副教授)
* 陳燕遐 (香港中文大學高級講師)
* 梁旭明 (嶺南大學副教授)
* 馮偉華 (香港城市大學專上學院高級講師)
* 陸潔玲 (香港理工大學香港專上學院講師)
* 傅景華 (香港大學副教授)
* 莊耀洸 (香港教育大學高級講師)
* 黃志偉 (香港城市大學專上學院講師)
* 黃偉國 (香港浸會大學助理教授)
* 許漢榮 (香港教育大學講師)
* 張楚勇 (香港城市大學高級特任講師)
* 潘達培 (中文大學專業應用副教授)
* 蔡寶瓊 (中文大學榮休副教授)
* 蘇耀昌 (香港科技大學講座教授)
* 龔立人 (中文大學副教授)

Objection to amending the Legislative Council’s Rules of Procedure to weaken its deliberation and oversight powers (Public Petition)

In recent days, pro-establishment legislators proposed to amend the Legislative Council’s Rules of Procedure, at a time when the democrats had lost their veto powers as a result of the oath-taking controversy. We object to the amendment proposals because once such amendments are passed, they stand to gravely weaken the Council’s power to monitor the government, already minuscule as they are, and allow the all-powerful executive authorities to escape legislative oversight even further, rendering a much increased chance of Hong Kong heading towards an authoritarian system.
Reasons for the above understanding are as follows:

First, the pro-establishment camp claims that the purpose of amending the Rules of Procedure is to deter filibuster. But detailed examination of their proposals shows that some of the suggested amendments have actually nothing to do with filibustering, for example, the proposal to raise the quorum from 20 to 35 for investigations of public officers. The democratic camp has in the past presented three petitions for investigating public officials, including the entertainment expenses and overseas visits of Mr. Tong Hin-ming Timothy when he was Commissioner of the ICAC, delays and cost overruns of the express train project, and the payment deal between Mr. Leung Chun-ying and UGL. All the petition proceedings took about five minutes and neither necessitated nor constituted filibustering. Raising the requested number of petitioners to 35 before petitions can be presented is tantamount to dictating a pro-establishment camp endorsement before petitions can be referred to select committees. This would mean the similar, investigative committees would have little chance of being set up in future. The Legislative Council will have even greater difficulty in initiating investigations into suspected dereliction of duty by officials while costs to officials and public officers for abuse will be even less.

In addition, the pro-establishment camp proposes lowering the quorum for the Committee stage of the whole Council on a bill from 35 to 20. Attending Legislative Council meetings to deliberate on bills is legislators’ duty. The pro-establishment camp’s suggestion to lower the quorum rather than encouraging legislators to fulfil their duty of attending Council meetings is putting the cart before the horse and lowering its own standards. The suggestion is also in contravention of Article 75 of the Basic Law which stipulates that “[t]he quorum for the meeting of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be not less than one half of all its members.”

Furthermore, the pro-establishment camp proposes a change on motions to adjourn debate or of proceedings of a committee of the whole Council. When the Chairman is of the opinion that the moving of the adjournment of proceedings is an abuse of procedure, he or she may decide not to propose the question or to put the question forthwith without debate. The passage of this revision will make legislature’s members unable to compel the withdrawal of unreasonable or draconian bills. The Chairman will be able to order a vote on a draconian bill and substantially weaken legislators’ capacity to reduce administrative abuse and mistakes.

When legislators lose the power to deliberate and the Legislative Council cannot rely on legislative procedures and powers to exert pressure and scrutinize the government, costs to the government for poor governance and pushing poor legislation will be much diminished and the government will not need to respond to the legislature or to public opinion.
If the pro-establishment camp succeeds in amending the Rules of Procedure, when the government decides to push through draconian legislation that breaches public interests and human rights, including legislation of Article 23, the Legislative Council will have greater difficulty in deterring such moves through legislative scrutiny and mobilizing for public support. The government will be more likely to become the representative of a dictatorial regime not subject to any checks to its powers, and all Hong Kong people will suffer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Initiating Body and Scholars (Alphabetical order)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Scholars’ Alliance for Academic Freedom
* CHAN Ka Lok, Kenneth (HKBU, Associate Professor)
* CHAN, Stephen C.K. (Lingnan U, Professor)
* CHAN Sze Chi (HKBU, Senior Lecturer)
* CHAN Yin Ha (CUHK, Senior Lecturer)
* CHEUNG, Chor Yung (CityU, Senior Teaching Fellow)
* CHOI Po King (CUHK, Adjunct Associate Professor)
* CHONG Yiu Kwong (EdUHK, Senior Lecturer)
* CHOW Po Chung (CUHK, Associate Professor)
* FU King-wa (HKU, Associate Professor)
* FUNG Wai-wah (Senior Lecturer, CityU of Hong Kong)
* HO Chi Kwan (Caritas Higher Institute of Education, Research Professor)
* HUI Hon Wing (EdUHK, Lecturer)
* KWOK, Rowena (HKU, former Assistant Professor)
* KUNG Lap Yan (CUHK, Associate Professor)
* LEUNG Chi Yuen (PolyU, Teaching Fellow)
*LEUNG Yan Wing (EdUHK) , Adjunt Associate Professor
* LEUNG, Yuk-ming Lisa (Lingnan U, Associate Professor)
* LI Chin Wa (EdUHK, Senior Lecturer)
* LUK Kit Ling (HKCC, PolyU, Lecturer)
* MA, Ngok (CUHK, Associate Professor)
* NGO Hang Yue (CUHK, Professor)
* POON Eric (CUHK, Associate Professor of Practice)
* SING Ming, Dixon (HKUST, Associate Professor)
* SO, Alvin (HKUST, Chair Professor)
* TO Yiu Ming (HKBU, Assistant Professor, retired)
* WONG Wai Kwok, Benson (HKBU, Assistant Professor)
* WONG Chi Wai, Paul (CC City U, Lecturer)
* YAU, Joe C.K. (HKBU, Lecturer)

Advertisements

《良野村》城市里山

姚松炎

https://www.hkcnews.com/article/8670/%E9%87%8C%E5%B1%B1%E5%80%A1%E8%AD%B0-%E8%96%84%E6%89%B6%E6%9E%97-%E7%BD%AE%E5%AF%8C%E8%8A%B1%E5%9C%92-8670/%E8%96%84%E6%89%B6%E6%9E%97

「里山倡議」的願景就是「實現社會與自然和諧共生的理想,按照自然過程來維持、開發社會經濟活動,重建人類與自然的正面關係,塑造社會生態生產地景 (socio-ecological production landscapes, SEPL),謀求維護生物多樣性及資源永續共享。」

…以薄扶林為例,置富花園和薄扶林花園雖然是兩處城市化的住宅區,但旁邊就是薄扶林郊野公園,內裡有山徑河溪,樹林草原隨處可見。近年居民更巧合地發現置富山谷內有珍貴生態和百年牧場古蹟,生態方面發現有世界瀕危物種短腳角蟾、易危物種小棘蛙及幾十種遷徙鳥的棲息地[5],及三十幾棵達到古樹級別的大樹和一些珍貴樹木[6]

 

 

資料來源:薄扶林南擬議公營房屋發展計劃的技術研究結果摘要(註[6]

古蹟方面,山谷內有百多年前建成的牛房、牧場、斜角石級、草蘆、牛糞池、牛奶房、養豬場,水箱和象草田等[7],形成在香港獨有的生態與牧場文化混合地景。加上,旁邊有過百年歷史的薄扶林村,令整區更加具備「里山倡議」的元素;只要城市化的生活方式能夠改為更可持續發展和生態友善模式,城市里山並非完全沒有可能。

港人港地盤無監管

代理、業主涉違規 啟德1號現百租盤 地政總署:沒發同意書 美聯:如發現嚴肅處理

2017/12/4 https://m.mingpao.com/pns/dailynews/web_tc/article/20171204/s00002/1512324456362

/…地契列明業主在分租單位前要先取到地政總署署長的同意書,…地政總署難以主動執法,因業主和租客未必會將租約交上土地註冊處,地政總署難知曉啟德1號的實際放租情况,亦反映港人港地以同意書方式規管有漏洞。/

今年五月,早已預測,不幸言中:https://ecyyiu.wordpress.com/2017/05/10/eyq-%E6%B8%AF%E4%BA%BA%E6%B8%AF%E5%9C%B0%E7%9A%84%E9%96%93%E6%8E%A5%E7%B4%84%E6%9D%9F/

《眾城》分開處理投資需求與居住需要

2017年12月4日

https://www.hkcnews.com/article/8643/%E6%A8%93%E5%83%B9-%E7%82%92%E6%A8%93-8643/%E5%88%86%E9%96%8B%E8%99%95%E7%90%86%E6%8A%95%E8%B3%87%E9%9C%80%E6%B1%82%E8%88%87%E5%B1%85%E4%BD%8F%E9%9C%80%E8%A6%81

/…以香港有限的土地供應來滿足全球無窮熱錢的投資需求,再多四個香港都未夠。事實上,最近紐西蘭亦出現樓價難以負擔,而外國資金正是主因之一,紐西蘭政府在上月決定立法禁止外國人買樓,但其實外來資金已經向買地埋手,據報導去年外國投資者購買的紐西蘭土地多達4659平方公里,足足有4個香港的土地面積,按年增加近5倍[5],客觀事實說明再多的土地供應也不能滿足外來投資需求。/

Government must act on Coroner’s report on killer tree

Our recent article at Tri-angles about tree management in Hong Kong has been translated into English:

https://www.hkcnews.com/article/8598/tree_management-tree_and_forestry_office-8598/government-must-act-on-coroners-report-on-killer-tree

… Tree management does not only involve tree risk assessment; it also concerns caring for the health of trees, designing urban forestry environments for the co-existence of trees and humans. Trees can serve the world meaningfully if we provide it with care from its birth to its death.

 

為《好城市》作序

No automatic alt text available.《好城市》序

作為[前]立法會議員,在香港想推動更多更好的環保政策,是非常困難的事情,一方面既因為很多環保政策影響既得利益集團的利益,加上一般公務員怕變怕錯的心態,如果沒有其他城市的成功實踐案例,很難說服他們嘗試。可惜學術界很少提供環保方案的實踐過程和遇到的困難,國際期刊一般只重視理論推演和科學驗證,輕視實踐的過程和解難方法。

過去幾年有幸與桂賢在同一大學任教同一課程,而且在未來城市研究所合作進行多項研究、社區調查和安排學生活動等等。我亦不時邀請她為香港的在職專業人士講學,找機會向她學習和請教。早在認識她之前就已經在課程主任的推薦下閱讀她的著作《好城市》。最近欣聞書籍再版,桂賢邀請我為書籍提序,正好把這幾年的合作個案作一簡單總結。

去年底桂賢應我的邀請,為香港的建築界專業人士在《河溪活化》的研討會上發表她的研究成果。香港與大多數城市一樣,曾經以為工程可以克服一切,城市不會水淹,所以在過去70年大量河道被石屎化(混凝土化),把河道變成地下污水渠,由渠務處負責管理。從前的濕地因為河道被石屎化而變成乾田,對候鳥和生態帶來嚴重的影響。然而,正如桂賢在《好城市》的『與水和平共存不是夢想』一章中所言,國際上已有不少河溪活化的成果,為香港政府提供大量資料和實踐經驗,尤其是關於河溪對生物多樣性和生態平衡的作用,和海綿城市的概念都令人眼前一亮,影響著政府官員和學術界對未來城市的想像。去年香港政府終於開展有關藍綠基建的可行性研究,包括了河溪活化在內的研究。

就此題目,我和桂賢和一班城市規劃的學生應文化葫蘆的邀請,為屯門河的河溪活化進行研究,並在今年四月在屯門公開展覽,進一步推動河溪活化的公眾推廣,希望更多市民支持我在立法會推動香港回復海綿城市的特質。

另外,香港與國際大城市最相似的地方莫過於以車為本的城市設計,到處都是高架天橋,每天的繁忙時間都是大塞車。可能因為公共交通也很方便,單車(自行車)在香港曾經是幾乎絕跡的交通工具,馬路的設計把單車排拒,沒有任何單車設施,而且大多數駕駛者都對單車不友善,令到愈來愈少人敢踩單車。現時絕大部份市民只把單車看作假日消閒活動,幾乎沒有人以單車代步通勤。

讀過書中的『交通,非靠汽車不可`?』,知道歐美已經有愈來愈多的城市推動單車友善,成為抗暖化的綠色交通工具。西雅圖的經驗對我非常重要,『推出聰明騎單車』系列活動,包括新手上路訓練,自行車檢修保養課程,女騎士聚會、通勤路徑規畫服務…希望藉由實用、免費的活動,刺激市民騎自行車通勤的意願。』

因此,我決定在去年選舉期間,把提倡單車友善城市寫入我的政綱,更在選舉期間跑到荷蘭考察單車友善設計,並在當選後實踐我的政綱,推動以單車通勤的大型活動:『天光Ride』,在清晨時段當路面尚未繁忙時約同幾十部單車,一起踩單車上班上學,晚上一起踩單車回家。這活動已經實行超過四個月,效果非常理想,當單車數量增加,十多部單車在一起,反而變得有質感有重量,路面的其他汽車駕駛者因而會尊重這部「車輛」,讓它佔用路面,和平共處。我們還舉辦各式各樣的單車活動和提供租車服務,現在正在設計一份香港首份民間單車通勤路徑規劃圖,為香港的單車友善城市未來踏出一步。

最後,必須感謝桂賢為置富山谷的生態保育公園方案所作出的一切協助和努力。香港政府為了增加土地儲備,最近五年開始向綠化帶土地埋手,其中一幅位於郊野公園邊陲的土地,已經荒廢了三十多年,現時綠樹林蔭。政府突然宣佈要把它發展為公營屋邨。一班附近的居民因此走入山谷,竟有驚人發現。包括發現百多年前的牛奶牧場遺址,四十多株百年古榭,還有世界瀕危級別的短腳角蟾和易危級別的小棘蛙。但是大家都不知道應該怎樣向政府提出保護要求。

我記得《好城市》中的城市修復行動,裡頭提到很多案例,『創造生態綠地,都市也會有生機』,『受傷的土地變公園』,…所以我邀請桂賢到山谷一行,她還邀得台灣的生態專家與我們一起走進山谷,給我們很多寶貴的專業建議,並推介很多世界各地的專家學者為我們的保育方案提供意見,實在衷心感激。我們已經向城市規劃委員會提交了這份詳盡的建議書,建議把置富山谷改劃為香港首個古蹟生態保育公園,很快便會有結果,希望可以成為下一版《好城市》中的成功案例。

姚松炎

2017年11月

Digital Map and Info for STT

An Achievement!

LandsD finally uploads the digital map and info for all those temporary vacant government sites for people to apply for Short Term Tenancy STT.

The map is now available at http://www.map.gov.hk/gih3/index.jsp?tab=320&lg=tc

The webpage

Government Sites incl. Vacant School Premises (Short Term Use)

is at http://www.landsd.gov.hk/tc/vgl/vgl.htm

The link for the news report (in Chinese) is available below

But it does not show the leased STT, but only the vacant non-leased ones.

#成功爭取

地政總署終於提供網上地圖版的閒置用地資訊,可供短租:

公眾可在政府的「地理資訊地圖」網頁查閱可作社區、團體或非牟利用途的空置政府用地(包括空置校舍)的現有清單。網頁連結為 http://www.map.gov.hk/gih3/index.jsp?tab=320&lg=tc

HIBOR goes up fast

Federal Reserve announced no change of interest rate in Nov though, the trend of increasing US interest rate is almost a consensus of the market. Due to the currency board arrangement in Hong Kong, the 1-month HK interbank offer rate (HIBOR 1m) has been going up rapidly in recent months, as shown in the chart below.

source: HKMA (Nov., 2, 2017) http://www.hkma.gov.hk/eng/market-data-and-statistics/monthly-statistical-bulletin/table.shtml#section6

The most recent HIBOR 1m is 0.815% (2 Nov 2017), which breaks the 9-year record since 2008. Most mortgages are repaid based on HIBOR, the upsurge of HIBOR would immediately affect the monthly payment of mortgages.

For a $6m housing unit, if 70% mortgage loan is made, i.e. $4.2m, assuming 30 years repayment period and interest rate at HIBOR + 1.28%, then if HIBOR is increased from 0.3% to 0.7%, the monthly payment will be increased from $14,857 to  $15,419. Its about 3.8% increase.

 

Refinancing of Mortgage is Upsurging

We have discussed refinancing for 4 years, including

20131126 Wealth Effect by Refinancing https://ecyyiu.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/wealth-effect-of-housing-price-rise-refinancing-by-mortgages/

20170319 Refinancing by Mortgages https://ecyyiu.wordpress.com/2017/03/19/refinancing-by-mortgages-2017/

20171123 Refinancing is Upsurging as follows

Chart from HKMA (Oct 2017) above shows the new loans approved each month from Sep 2014 to Sep 2017. Blue bars represent mortgage loans for 1st hand housing market, Brown bars represent mortgage loans for 2nd hand housing market, Biege bars represent refinancing mortgage loans. Left chart refers to the mortgage amounts, right chart refers to the numbers of mortgage.

Since the 1st Quarter of 2016, mortgage loans have been increasing. Mortgage loans for 1st hand and 2nd hand housing markets are more or less the same magnitude as in 2015 ($20b — $25b). However, the refinancing mortgage loans have been substantially increased from about 15% to more than 30%.

For example, figures from the latest survey (Oct 31, 2017 http://www.hkma.gov.hk/media/eng/doc/key-information/press-release/2017/20171031e7a1.pdf), mortgage loans for 1st hand, 2nd hand and refinancing amount to $6,311m, $13,921m, and $9,305m. In other words, refinancing accounts for 31.5% of total mortgage loans. In Aug 2017, the percentage was even up to 36.0%, the recent peak of refinancing. In Jun 2017, the total value of mortgage loans is also the recent peak and amounted to about $44b.

Year Month Outstanding Mortgage Loans (HK$M) Refinancing (HK$M) Primary Secondary Tot Refin/tot
2017 9 1186856 9305 6311 13921 29537 32%
8 1178118 10824 5922 13315 30061 36%
7 1172032 11774 7490 14419 33683 35%
6 1160892 14355 10163 19517 44035 33%
5 1150605 11382 8526 21783 41691 27%

In the past, the average proportion of refinancing to total mortgage loans was only about 15%, the sudden upsurge may be due to two reasons:

  1. when the sale of 1st and 2nd hand markets is weak, if refinancing does not change, then the proportion of refinancing would be higher. This can explain the situation in the end of 2015.
  2. when refinancing is incentivised, or due to market changes that make refinancing attractive, then refinancing proportion can become high. This is more likely the case in mid 2017. When banks are flooded with hot money under the current ultra-low interest rate situation, and housing price has been increasing for 200% since 2003, there are many housing owners who are eligible to apply for refinancing (for a large sum). There are therefore incentives for both bankers and owners to engage in refinancing. Furthermore, with housing price has been increasing for more than 13 years, many young people have to rely on their parents’ financial support in order to pay the downpayments. Their parents usually have to withdraw cash by refinancing their housing units.
2012 11 856884 3164 5614 15369 24147 13%
10 848123 2980 3943 17785 24708 12%
9 842014 2984 2767 16651 22402 13%
8 833933 2987 4073 18145 25205 12%
6 823531 2947 4199 14101 21247 14%
5 815855 2801 4168 19709 26678 10%

This phenomenon, if the hypothesis is correct, can be risky as the downpayments for new purchases of housing units are indeed based on the collateral of existing housing units. The risk is highly concentrated within the housing market. Once the housing market is shocked, not only the new purchases of housing units that are at stake, the old purchases of housing units would also be liable to become negative equity.

Unfortunately, the government has not taken any actions or risk management strategies on this upsurge of refinancing situation.

 

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑