2016年10月14日星期五

給特區的信(223)-給議員的兩篇文章





---------- 轉寄的郵件 ----------
寄件者: George Luk
日期: 2016年10月14日 下午9:20
主旨: 給特區的信(223)-給議員的兩篇文章
收件者: "Mr. Li Wei" <drc@drc.gov.cn>, "Mr. C Y Leung" <ceo@ceo.gov.hk>
副本: "Mr. Anthony Cheung" <sthoffice@thb.gov.hk>, "Mr. CHAN Mo Po" <sdev@devb.gov.hk>, "Mr. CHEUNG Wan Ching" <scsoffice@csb.gov.hk>, "Mr. LAU Kong Wah" <sha@hab.gov.hk>, "Mr. Edward Yiu" <ecyyiu@gmail.com>, George1 Luk , George Luk , George2 Luk , George4 Luk

李偉先生/梁振英先生:

1. 下面兩篇文章是給所有現屆立法會議員參考,其實在基本法下產生的議員,都是建制( The Establishment )下的議員,基本上所有議員都是建制派,所謂「泛民」是指當中部份思想没那麼保守的人士。

2. 第一篇是20141215日「給特區的信(118)-青年人何去何從」:文章轉自香港英文《南華早報》副總編輯譚衛兒20141214日的文章「香港年輕人往何處去」:近日從微信收到朋友轉發中國內地網民的一篇文章,引起群組內大家熱烈討論——一位署名「關山冷月」的內地網民這樣寫道﹕「武漢西北一千公里,西安交通大學電力電氣專業的學生,正在三峽實地實習,他們中很多人一畢業就要奔赴西藏雅魯藏布大峽谷的源頭,這裏將修建世界上最宏偉的水電設施,他們會在這裏成為巨型水電工程的專家……一月的酒泉,歡迎宴會上有一群來自北京航空學院的學生,他們將認識自己的師兄師姐,聆聽那些與運載火箭和載人航天有關的故事……這是一個風雲起飛的時代,在這個時代,香港哪去了?……香港的大學生們,在中國地區與地區之間經濟競爭如此激烈的今天,香港能置身事外嗎?你們反對自由行,你們嫌人多,上海不嫌,西安、南京、成都都在搶。如果所有的髒活、累活香港不幹,技術活又幹不了,就剩下一些律師、金融、地產等虛擬經濟,香港還能繁榮多久?」《給特區的信(110)- 內地80後青年回應香港學聯的"泱泱大國容不下幾名香港學生"的幾段》

2. 群組內有我(譚衛兒)香港和內地的不同朋友,「佔中」開始至今,大家意見紛紜,但基本上是理性討論。正如對以上這篇文章,有人甚是認同,也有人說不能完全類比,即便是內地朋友也有人說,香港和內地兩地年輕人成長過程和生活背景不同,對很多問題看法不同不足為奇。但大家一致同意的是,「佔中」令人驚覺,香港的年輕人問題很棘手!

3. 「佔中」令社會聚焦青年事務,但觀乎近期的許多討論,卻又似乎無法跳出傳統的思維框框,來來回回強調年輕人如何缺乏向上流的機會;如何無法買房子……誠然,這些都是令當今許多年輕人對現實不滿的原因,但是否一旦年輕人有了自己的房子,能找到一份好工作,年年晉升漲薪水,就必然安份守己都變成乖仔乖女了呢?

4. 十一月二十九日,特區政府宣布設立專責小組研究怎樣協助青年向上流,這是一個高層次的小組,由特區第二把手林鄭月娥親自領導,但行政長官梁振英坦承,解決向上流問題不等於就解決了佔中及政改引發的種種問題和矛盾,但目的是希望青年人少一點怨氣。這一句「少一點怨氣」是關鍵,其實人人都知問題所在,但解決方法卻是言人人殊。

5. 近日,特首在一個閉門論壇上提出一個值得留意的觀點﹕年輕人不能只靠「哄」著,應該「是其是,非其非」。這其實引出一個關鍵議題﹕一直以來,政府,還有社會,對待年輕人的方式出了問題嗎

6. 長期以來,大家普遍認同應以包容之心去理解及支持年輕人,不知不覺中,批評年輕人成了一種「政治不正確」。不少人的理據是,誰沒年輕過?激情或激進誰人未試過?對年輕人事事批評,只會阻礙他們獨立思考及發展。另一方面,許多人也感慨,客觀上今天的年輕人的確沒有當年他們的前輩機會多,所以還是對他們多些包容,多些理解吧,因此「哄」是主流。

7. 但近期因為「佔中」的發展,這種包容年輕人的觀點開始受到挑戰,其中浸會大學校長陳新滋可說是不再包容的表表者。因此,陳新滋週前一反其他許多大學負責人對學生在畢業典禮上表達政治訴求的容忍甚至欣賞,當有學生在其學校畢業典禮上展示佔領行動象徵的雨傘時,陳選擇了對這些同學說「不」,強調校園應政治中立,學生「舉傘走來走去」是不懂得尊重,「如果對大學殿堂都不尊重,我們的教育無得做」!

8. 這裏點出了一個重點﹕教育。顯然,對於年輕人,凡事包容及替他們計劃將來的種種機會,並非是對年輕人表示愛護的全部!其實,年輕人的未來不能、亦不應該只靠別人去策劃,他們有自己的追求。所謂的「哄」,更不能只局限在物質上令他們更豐富,讓他們更易擁有自己的物業,或更容易找到好的工作有更好收入,更不能以為如此便萬事大吉。

9. 如此的「哄」,年輕人不會照單全收,反倒出現表錯情的尷尬。而有時,「哄」或美其名曰的包容,與縱容亦只是一步之遙。而從年輕人的角度看﹕他們難道會輕易受「哄」嗎?這是全社會,包括北京也應該搞清楚的,否則,所謂的後「佔中」青年政策只會淪為新瓶舊酒。特區政府新成立的這個專責小組在協助年輕人的同時,如何避免以「哄」為出發點,這其中的政治技巧一點不能少。因為年輕人對社會、對政府的訴求,不只是為了一份更好的工作或一套房子。

10. 從另一更廣的層次看,一國兩制下,香港是國家的一部分,香港的年輕人所想所需,關乎國家的未來,年輕人今天對社會的種種不滿,包括政治上的訴求,不是也不能只當成是香港本身的問題,還需讓他們看到自己和國家的未來的聯繫、他們在整個國家發展中的角色。

11. 當然,香港的年輕人不是一定如以上那位網民所說,必須要去邊疆或參與航天事業才算對國家有貢獻,香港有著香港的獨特之處。但這些年來,香港年輕一代與內地的交流不少流於形式,流於觀光旅遊式的流水作業。今後怎樣才能做到互相尊重、互相聆聽的有效互動?一切都說易行難。所以,政府的青年政策在作出調整時仍需多加思量,切忌淪於一堆口水或只是派甜頭。

12. 另一篇是昨天屈穎妍的 給梁君彥主席的逐客書」

13. 黑人不會叫自己做「黑鬼」,印度人不會自稱「嚤囉差」,日本人也不會自認「架仔」……

14. 如同中國人,絕不會叫自己做「支那」,因為那是一個屈辱的名詞,那是一段淒慘的歷史。

15. 兩個候任議員,口出「支那」之言,還嬉皮笑臉狡辯這是「鴨脷洲鄉下話」,拿三千五百萬戰火寃魂來開玩笑,開罪全球十四億中國人,絕對是,人鬼不饒。

15. 看《蘋果日報》翌日只敢寫些空洞口號如:「立法會議員應有反貪腐、反官商鄉黑的目標……」;看反對派個個封口,沒有人敢為「Fxxking 支那」一語說項,就足以證明,這一把火,實在燒得太盡,因為它點燃了火藥庫。

16. 新兵始終不及老薑,你看黃毓民在議會玩了這麼多年,幾時試過玩出十四億怒火?你看長毛次次往內地闖關,幾時試過被羈留嚇到賴尿?政治是有底線的,不知分寸,正是這代新丁政客的最大死穴。

17. 昨日所見,立法會秘書長已給玩嘢者兩次機會,結果梁頌恆、游蕙禎和姚松炎仍然不依書直誓,還口出粗言,最後宣誓不獲接納,新立法會主席梁君彥說,下星期三開會會讓他們再來一次。

18. 此事的人神共憤處,不單在於宣誓者那句「Fxxking 支那」,還在於當權者的軟弱無為。

19. 一隻手掌打不響,有時候不能盡怪反對派囂張,狼的本性就是要吃逃跑的羊。如果羊群意識到自己頭上有角,明白到團結就是力量,敢動腿出角,群起反攻,狼根本就死無全屍。

20. 今日香港是一個沒硝煙的戰場,戰場向來只有你死我活,沒有手下留情。只要你稍一遲疑、稍動惻隱,對方的刀便劈下來,你連後悔也來不及。

21. 所以,梁君彥主席給他們第三次宣誓機會,根本就是一步慈悲的錯棋,戰場上的刀下留人、放虎歸山,從來都不會有好下場。兩次宣誓他們已成功奪取大眾眼球,你道他們會忘了做四年議員可得的一千七百萬酬金的現實,而在第三次宣誓中再玩?機會只得一次,而且一瞬即逝,不好好掌握,此後四年大家都要捱打。

22. 想想如果這是法庭,如此宣誓,法官會怎反應?香港是法治社會,誓詞就是一紙律法,你連這麼簡單的律法都不依從,枉為市民立法議事。直接罷免他們吧,機會已給了兩次,是他們不好好珍惜,幾萬選民選出來又如何?沒人用槍指著他們亂發誓,這議席是他們甘願放棄的

23. 世上沒有不能做的事,只有不敢做的事,禠奪玩嘢者的議員資格,是新主席第一個難關,這關考的,不是技巧也不是智慧,而是膽色。梁主席,權在你手,請下逐客令吧!

24. 這次屈穎妍可真令所有建制派不知所措。(姚松炎的電郵地址放在副本欄是應他的request)

Regards,

George Luk



---------- 轉寄的郵件 ----------
寄件者: <ceo@ceo.gov.hk>
日期: 2016915日 下午3:36
主旨: Re: Fwd: 給特區的信(221)-選擇(3):亞洲金融風暴
收件者: George Luk

George:

9
8日致行政長官的電郵,我獲授權認收,謝謝你的意見。

行政長官私人秘書
(麥佩儀 代行)



<如有興趣觀看之前的電郵,請前往連結: https://jet2468.blogspot.hk/  
<網誌內容主要是希望大家能對大陸、香港及週邊地區人士及政府多點理解/體諒,並以一般普羅大眾的觀點,加以進言。>
閣下如不願意再接收由本人發出的郵件,請回電郵並在主旨寫上“移除”或“remove”。由此引致之不便,本人深表抱歉。

2016年10月2日星期日

給特區的信(222)-選擇(4):海嘯會重臨



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: George Luk
Date: 2016-09-27 22:16 GMT+08:00
Subject: 給特區的信(222)-選擇(4):海嘯會重臨
To: "Mr. Li Wei" <drc@drc.gov.cn>, "Mr. C Y Leung" <ceo@ceo.gov.hk>
Cc: "Mr. Anthony Cheung" <sthoffice@thb.gov.hk>, "Mr. CHAN Mo Po" <sdev@devb.gov.hk>, "Mr. CHEUNG Wan Ching" <scsoffice@csb.gov.hk>, "Mr. LAU Kong Wah" <sha@hab.gov.hk>, George1 Luk , George2 Luk 


李偉先生/梁振英先生:

1. 現今資訊泛濫,選擇適當的至為重要。若選擇不適當或錯誤的訊息可以令人/社會甚至國家鑄成大錯。以下摘錄自2002年尾一篇伯南克的著名講稿,這十多年來全球各地面臨的各種問題,絶大部份都受到它的影響,原先為了解決「歐美日經濟低迷」問題,反而制造出「08金融海嘯」。之後為了解決「海嘯」帶來的問題所採取的過激手段,則隨時會引發更大全球性各類形泡沫的爆破。

2. 跟着是一套頗能解釋前因後果的紀錄片:Inside job | The Biggest Bank Heist Ever! 雖然片長138分鐘,但非常值得大家花點時間去理解情勢始末。Link :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9ub25WjEK0 
youtube上看,有很多廣告,畫質只有少部份是高清,其餘的很差。大家可購買正版光碟,順便支持立場相對公正的獨立制片人


3. Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke Before the National Economists Club, Washington, D.C. (November 21, 2002)
DeflationMaking Sure “It Doesn’t Happen Here
Since World War II, inflation--the apparently inexorable rise in the prices of goods and services--has been the bane of central bankers. Economists of various stripes have argued that inflation is the inevitable result of (pick your favorite) the abandonment of metallic monetary standards, a lack of fiscal discipline, shocks to the price of oil and other commodities, struggles over the distribution of income, excessive money creation, self-confirming inflation expectations, an "inflation bias" in the policies of central banks, and still others. Despite widespread "inflation pessimism," however, during the 1980s and 1990s most industrial-country central banks were able to cage, if not entirely tame, the inflation dragon. Although a number of factors converged to make this happy outcome possible, an essential element was the heightened understanding by central bankers and, equally as important, by political leaders and the public at large of the very high costs of allowing the economy to stray too far from price stability.
4. With inflation rates now quite low in the United States, however, some have expressed concern that we may soon face a new problem--the danger of deflation, or falling prices. That this concern is not purely hypothetical is brought home to us whenever we read newspaper reports about Japan, where what seems to be a relatively moderate deflation--a decline in consumer prices of about 1 percent per year--has been associated with years of painfully slow growth, rising joblessness, and apparently intractable financial problems in the banking and corporate sectors. While it is difficult to sort out cause from effect, the consensus view is that deflation has been an important negative factor in the Japanese slump.
Preventing Deflation
5. As I have already emphasized, deflation is generally the result of low and falling aggregate demand. The basic prescription for preventing deflation is therefore straightforward, at least in principle: Use monetary and fiscal policy as needed to support aggregate spending, in a manner as nearly consistent as possible with full utilization of economic resources and low and stable inflation. In other words, the best way to get out of trouble is not to get into it in the first place. Beyond this commonsense injunction, however, there are several measures that the Fed (or any central bank) can take to reduce the risk of falling into deflation.
Curing Deflation
6. Let me start with some general observations about monetary policy at the zero bound, sweeping under the rug for the moment some technical and operational issues.
7. As I have mentioned, some observers have concluded that when the central bank's policy rate falls to zero--its practical minimum--monetary policy loses its ability to further stimulate aggregate demand and the economy. At a broad conceptual level, and in my view in practice as well, this conclusion is clearly mistaken. Indeed, under a fiat (that is, paper) money system, a government (in practice, the central bank in cooperation with other agencies) should always be able to generate increased nominal spending and inflation, even when the short-term nominal interest rate is at zero.
8. The conclusion that deflation is always reversible under afiat money system follows from basic economic reasoning. A little parable may prove useful: Today an ounce of gold sells for $300, more or less. Now suppose that a modern alchemist solves his subject's oldest problem by finding a way to produce unlimited amounts of new gold at essentially no cost. Moreover, his invention is widely publicized and scientifically verified, and he announces his intention to begin massive production of gold within days. What would happen to the price of gold? Presumably, the potentially unlimited supply of cheap gold would cause the market price of gold to plummet. Indeed, if the market for gold is to any degree efficient, the price of gold would collapse immediately after the announcement of the invention, before the alchemist had produced and marketed a single ounce of yellow metal.
9. What has this got to do with monetary policy? Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.(這是過去八年影響香港的最最重要因素,但我們一定要跟着美國的遊戲規則玩,不單香港,全世界都一樣。却令大陸羽翼更豐,比「02年入世」之後的基礎打得更牢固)
10. Of course, the U.S. government is not going to print money and distribute it willy-nilly (although as we will see later, there are practical policies that approximate this behavior).Normally, money is injected into the economy through asset purchases by the Federal Reserve. To stimulate aggregate spending when short-term interest rates have reached zero, the Fed must expand the scale of its asset purchases or, possibly, expand the menu of assets that it buys. Alternatively, the Fed could find other ways of injecting money into the system--for example, by making low-interest-rate loans to banks or cooperating with the fiscal authorities. Each method of adding money to the economy has advantages and drawbacks, both technical and economic. One important concern in practice is that calibrating the economic effects of nonstandard means of injecting money may be difficult, given our relative lack of experience with such policies. Thus, as I have stressed already, prevention of deflation remains preferable to having to cure it. If we do fall into deflation, however, we can take comfort that the logic of the printing press example must assert itself, and sufficient injections of money will ultimately always reverse a deflation.
11. So what then might the Fed do if its target interest rate, the overnight federal funds rate, fell to zero? One relatively straightforward extension of current procedures would be to try to stimulate spending by lowering rates further out along the Treasury term structure--that is, rates on government bonds of longer maturities. There are at least two ways of bringing down longer-term rates, which are complementary and could be employed separately or in combination. One approach, similar to an action taken in the past couple of years by the Bank of Japan, would be for the Fed to commit to holding the overnight rate at zero for some specified period. Because long-term interest rates represent averages of current and expected future short-term rates, plus a term premium, a commitment to keep short-term rates at zero for some time--if it were credible--would induce a decline in longer-term rates. A more direct method, which I personally prefer, would be for the Fed to begin announcing explicit ceilings for yields on longer-maturity Treasury debt (say, bonds maturing within the next two years). The Fed could enforce these interest-rate ceilings by committing to make unlimited purchases of securities up to two years from maturity at prices consistent with the targeted yields. If this program were successful, not only would yields on medium-term Treasury securities fall, but (because of links operating through expectations of future interest rates) yields on longer-term public and private debt (such as mortgages) would likely fall as well.
12. Lower rates over the maturity spectrum of public and private securities should strengthen aggregate demand in the usual ways and thus help to end deflation. Of course, if operating in relatively short-dated Treasury debt proved insufficient, the Fed could also attempt to cap yields of Treasury securities at still longer maturities, say three to six years. Yet another option would be for the Fed to use its existing authority to operate in the markets for agency debt (for example, mortgage-backed securities issued by Ginnie Mae, the Government National Mortgage Association).
13. The Fed can inject money into the economy in still other ways. For example,the Fed has the authority to buy foreign government debt, as well as domestic government debt. Potentially, this class of assets offers huge scope for Fed operations, as the quantity of foreign assets eligible for purchase by the Fed is several times the stock of U.S. government debt.
Fiscal Policy
14. Each of the policy options I have discussed so far involves the Fed's acting on its own. In practice, the effectiveness of anti-deflation policy could be significantly enhanced by cooperation between the monetary and fiscal authorities. A broad-based tax cut, for example, accommodated by a program of open-market purchases to alleviate any tendency for interest rates to increase, would almost certainly be an effective stimulant to consumption and hence to prices. Even if households decided not to increase consumption but instead re-balanced their portfolios by using their extra cash to acquire real and financial assets, the resulting increase in asset values would lower the cost of capital and improve the balance sheet positions of potential borrowers. A money-financed tax cut is essentially equivalent to Milton Friedman's famous "helicopter drop" of money.
15. Of course, in lieu of tax cuts or increases in transfers the government could increase spending on current goods and services or even acquire existing real or financial assets. If the Treasury issued debt to purchase private assets and the Fed then purchased an equal amount of Treasury debt with newly created money, the whole operation would be the economic equivalent of direct open-market operations in private assets.
Conclusion
16. Sustained deflation can be highly destructive to a modern economy and should be strongly resisted. Fortunately, for the foreseeable future, the chances of a serious deflation in the United States appear remote indeed, in large part because of our economy's underlying strengths but also because of the determination of the Federal Reserve and other U.S. policymakers to act preemptively against deflationary pressures. Moreover, as I have discussed today, a variety of policy responses are available should deflation appear to be taking hold. Because some of these alternative policy tools are relatively less familiar, they may raise practical problems of implementation and of calibration of their likely economic effects. For this reason, as I have emphasized, prevention of deflation is preferable to cure. Nevertheless, I hope to have persuaded you that the Federal Reserve and other economic policymakers would be far from helpless in the face of deflation, even should the federal funds rate hit its zero bound.

Regards,

George Luk




---------- 轉寄的郵件 ----------
寄件者: <ceo@ceo.gov.hk>
日期: 201692日 上午11:04
主旨: Re: 給特區的信(220)-選擇(2)
收件者: George Luk

George:

8
23日致行政長官的電郵,我獲授權認收,謝謝你的意見。

行政長官私人秘書
(
麥佩儀 代行)  



<如有興趣觀看之前的電郵,請前往連結: https://jet2468.blogspot.hk/  
<網誌內容主要是希望大家能對大陸、香港及週邊地區人士及政府多點理解/體諒,並以一般普羅大眾的觀點,加以進言。>

閣下如不願意再接收由本人發出的郵件,請回電郵並在主旨寫上“移除”或“remove”。由此引致之不便,本人深表抱歉。