Populist government

TO get citizens' votes, populist politicians often try to endear themselves to them at the expense of the taxpayer. Government official sused to disapprove of such behaviour. However, after the Housing Authority had decided to raise publichousing rent under the new rent adjustmentmechanism (under which rent may go up or comedown), the government suggested on its own initiativeto its subsidised housing committee that a month's rentbe waived in the next two years to offset the rise. The political atmosphere being as it is, can the committee not dance to the government's baton? In our view, themove would virtually make the mechanism exist inname only. The government will fuel populism if it uses public resources to curry favour with public housingtenants. What social policy will Chief Executive (CE)Donald Tsang pursue in the two-year remainder of his term? Where he intends to lead Hong Kong? These are indeed matters of concern.

A Census and Statistics Department survey showsthe average income of public housing tenants hasincreased. Even if it wants to be kind, the governmentonly needs to help those who need help. It need not doanything that would benefit also those who can affordreasonable rent. In fact, the Housing Authorityoperates a rent assistance scheme designed to helptenants having difficulty paying their rent. Eligibleapplicants may get their rent cut. Such cuts mayamount to 50%. Tenants who cannot possibly pay anyrent may apply for CSSA. CSSA recipients' rent is paidwith money from the public purse.

The government should provide people who needits help to get shelter with subsidised public housing. Ithas a duty to do so. However, in providing them withthis benefit, a line must be drawn. The cardinalprinciple the government must uphold in pursuing itshousing policy is to help those who need help. It hasnow offered public housing tenants "sweets" though nopolitical party has demanded that it do so. It does nothesitate to render the new rent adjustment mechanismvirtually non-existent. It is worth observing what theTsang administration is up to.

To achieve their political objectives, politicalparties seek to advance public housing tenants'interests. Populism has gained ground. It is a commonoccurrence that they do so by hook or by crook. Thegovernment should go to great lengths to resist thepressure political parties put on it so that society'sscarce resources are properly employed. If thegovernment resorts to populism, political parties will beleft too far behind to catch up with it, for it has thepower to allocate resources. None can rival thegovernment in using public resources to pleasecitizens and buy their support. The problem is thatpopulist government is certainly not in Hong Kong'sbest interests.

The SAR government is quite unpopular. In asurvey the Public Opinion Programme at the Universityof Hong Kong has carried out after the passage of the2012 constitutional reform package, Donald Tsang'sapproval rating is 49.9. He has "failed" for five times ina row. The percentage of people who do not want himto be CE has reached 52% , an all-time high. Thisbeing the case, little wonder the Tsang administrationwould try every possible way to boost its popularity.

Unlike him, Donald Tsang commented on therich-poor gap the other day during Legislative Councilquestion time. He said the government would focus onimproving citizens' wellbeing in the time to come. Hespecifically mentioned it would seek to alleviateworking poverty. The Tsang administration mustindeed make serious efforts to help the needy andeliminate deep-rooted contradictions. Should it wincitizens' support by pursuing good policies or usepublic resources to buy their votes? We do not thinkwe need to elaborate on this point. We hope thegovernment will retract its suggestion that publichousing tenants be offered a rent waiver. We hopegovernment will again be sensible instead of slidingdown the populist slippery slope.

明報英語網「雙語社評」english.mingpao.com/critic.htm

政府加入民粹行列，以公共資源討好公屋居民？

明報社評2010.07.16

過去，政府官員對民粹當道、政客政黨為了攏絡選民，爭取選票而慷納稅人之慨的所作所為，不以為然，但是公屋按可加可減機制加租後，政府卻主動向房委會資助房屋小組建議，兩年內豁免公屋住戶一個月租金，以抵消加租的影響。以目前的政治氛圍，小組委員能不聽從政府的指揮棒行事？我們認為，這個做法，使公屋租金調整機制名存實亡，而政府加入以公共資源討好公屋居民的行列，會給民粹政治火上加油；行政長官曾蔭權在餘下約兩年任期，他要施行怎樣的社會政策？他要帶領香港走往一個怎樣的方向？值得密切關注。

據統計處所做的公屋住戶入息調查，確實顯示公屋居民的收入普遍有所增加，即使政府發善心，只需協助有需要的居民就可以了，毋須一刀切讓有能力負擔的居民也受惠。其實，據現行安排，房委會有租金援助機制，協助無能力負擔租金的居民，符合資格準則的住戶，最多可獲減租50%；如果住戶根本無能力交租，則可以申請綜援，由公帑全部負擔。

對於有需要政府協助安居的市民，政府有必要給予公屋照顧，也是政府的責任所在。公屋居民享受的資助，應該有一條界線，而「協助有需要的人」是公屋政策的最重要原則。政客政黨並無任何訴求下，政府主動給公屋居民派糖，不惜變相毁棄可加可減機制，曾蔭權政府在思量些什麼，值得觀察。

政客政黨基於政治目的，為公屋居民爭取利益，做法近乎為達目的，不擇手段，使得民粹抬頭，近年已是司空見慣，政府千方百計頂着政客政黨的壓力，以期有限的資源得到最適當運用。若政府加入民粹操作行列，政客政黨肯定望塵莫及，因為政府擁有調配資源的權力，用公共資源討好市民、收買人心，沒有人可與政府抗衡。問題是，一個施政民粹化的政府，肯定不符合香港的最大利益。

特區政府民望低迷，據最新港大民調顯示，曾蔭權在政改方案通過後，民望最新評分為49.9 分，是連續第5次「肥佬」，反對他出任特首的比率亦見歷史新高，達52%。在這種情况下，曾蔭權政府千方百計提升民望，完全可以理解。

日前曾蔭權在立法會答問大會罕有地主動談到貧富差距，明言未來一段時間，施政重點在改善民生，並具體提出要援助在職貧窮。幫助有需要的人，紓緩深層次矛盾，確實是曾蔭權政府要認真面對和處理的，但是以良好政策爭取市民支持，抑或以公共資源變相向市民「買票」，哪一個才是曾蔭權政府所應為，相信毋須我們多言。因此，我們希望，政府撤回免公屋住戶租金一個月的建議，讓施政回歸理性，而非向民粹的歧途滑下去。

Glossarycurry /'k ?rI/ favour withIf you curry favour with a person, you try to gethim to like or support you by helping him a lotor praising him.by hook or by crookby fair means or foul; using any method youcan, even a dishonest one.governmentthe act or manner of governing.