[轉載] 8/1 《南早》反高鐵社評．評論兩篇

A vote that is about far more than just a rail line

SCMP Editorial
Jan 08, 2010


Passions are at fever pitch over today's vote by legislators on the high-speed rail line connecting Hong Kong to the national network at Guangzhou. The railway may well be necessary for our city's future - an argument that has its merits - but issues of its cost and route, and a lack of transparency over the HK$66.9 billion project, tap into growing frustration with the manner in which we are being governed. Lawmakers should be satisfied that authorities have properly answered outstanding questions before they vote.
Expensive infrastructure projects are bound to raise questions, as they should: after all, taxpayers' money is being spent. At a basic level, people worry whether this project will be cost-effective and generate the projected benefits. In pushing the rail line, the government has promoted a number of reasons, backing each with anticipated financial payoffs. Economic modelling is an imprecise science, but the government's track record on such promises is less than stellar. Little wonder, then, that there has been scepticism about those projections.

There is an argument that the benefits of linking to the mainland network cannot be modelled; that there are new, and as yet unforeseeable benefits, to building the rail line. That may be true. After all, it can sometimes be hard to predict how a new technology or route will change behaviour. But if authorities truly believe that, they should simply say so, and stake their reputation on it, rather than citing figures that do not seem to stand up to scrutiny.

Protests are also being driven by insufficient transparency. Authorities have not been forthcoming with essential details, have given misinformation and explained their actions poorly.

The government originally promoted the link as substantially cutting the travel time to Guangzhou. This was clearly not the case: the station for high-speed trains is in the suburb of Panyu, some distance from the city's central business and shopping district. There will only be a small difference in the time presently taken.

A village in the New Territories will be torn down to make way for the line, prompting protests from villagers demanding a route change or more compensation. All of this fuels anger and a perception that the government is not serving the people's interests. The gap between the rich and poor is widening. Poor handling of the rail project has helped drive such thinking towards a tipping point.

Discontent spilled over during a rally for universal suffrage on New Year's Day. Three people were injured when a police cordon around the central government's liaison office was charged. Officials fear more unrest today during demonstrations over the rail line at the Legislative Council Building, and hundreds of police are being deployed. Beijing's top official in Hong Kong, Peng Qinghua, has called for calm.

The issue is emotive, but violence is no way to deal with concerns; the law must be abided by and cool heads kept. There may be frustration over how the government has dealt with the issue, but ratcheting up confrontational tactics also fails to promote needed dialogue and reasoned debate over an important issue.

Legislators will be voting on a railway line, but their decision is about much more - whether we can have robust, inclusive and informed debate on critical policies. Lawmakers have previously deferred approval; the time spent should have been used to raise and discuss the details. Any vote should be an informed one. This is, after all, taxpayers' money and should only be spent after careful debate.

A bumpy ride

Will spending HK$66.9b on the controversial cross-border railway be a wise long-term investment, or could the money be better used? Indeed, have we thought it through?

Jake van der Kamp
Jan 08, 2010


Let's shed a tear, but one tear only, for the inhabitants of Tsoi Yuen village, who do not want to abandon their homes to make way for a new cross-border railway. They are not the first people in the New Territories to be pushed aside for infrastructure projects and they are unlikely to be the last. Set the price high enough for them and no tears need be shed at all. Let us also dispense with the argument that we must build this railway because Beijing says we must. It is not always stated so baldly, but fists are fists even when gloved and, if we nod our heads to this fist, then we can say goodbye to all talk of "one country, two systems" and a high degree of autonomy. It matters little, then, whether arguments for a railway are well or ill founded. Hong Kong's own foundations will be gone.

The question that really faces us on this railway is a simple one. Does it make sense to spend HK$66.9 billion, about HK$30,000 per household, to reduce the time it takes to travel by train from Kowloon to the border and connect with the mainland's high-speed rail system?

Have faith, say the railway's proponents. There were many naysayers when the Mass Transit Railway was first proposed, but who now doubts the wisdom of that investment decision? We must be ready for all eventualities and perhaps this means building more than we immediately need to build. We are building to be ready for the future.

Yes, but what future? The problem with this thinking is the assumption that the future is a straight-line projection of the past. The path that Hong Kong's economy took over the last 40 years required a heavy investment in transport infrastructure. It is a phase of investment that many economies encounter at a certain stage of growth. It does not continue forever.

The United States, for instance, went through a highway building phase in the 1960s but just imagine how slathered in roads the countryside of New Jersey would now be if this pace of road building had continued to the present day. In the last 40 years, the US has torn up far more railway track than it has laid.

It may be true that the mainland is now in the high-growth phase of transport investment but this does not say Hong Kong need be. The two systems are truly different. We have already made that investment and, given the relative emptiness of our latest roads, bridges and rail extensions, perhaps we have already made too much of it.

Whether we have or have not, however, it is on this sort of question that the debate about the railway should focus, not on the complaints of villagers or the supposed will of heaven.

In debating the question, we can ignore the favoured contention of our bureaucrats that the railway will create jobs and bring Hong Kong an economic benefit greater than the cost of the railway.

The simple fact of the matter, easily gleaned from any Introduction to Economics textbook, is that we create employment any time that we spend money. If we were to spend HK$67 billion to create a bubblegum manufacturing industry in Hong Kong, we would create thousands of bubblegum jobs. Would we create more jobs this way than if we spent the money on something else?

Good question. It can be applied to this railway as well. Could we generate more jobs if we spend the money on something else? The answer in general is that the most jobs are created, and the most economic benefit generated, when our money is spent to provide the goods and services that most people want at the lowest possible cost to them.

This admittedly does not tell us whether a high-speed railway would be such a service. It does tell us, however, that we need to consider this question of jobs and economic benefit much more closely than we have done. The railway may not be the best use of our money. Whether or not it is, however, we should certainly not make our decision on the basis of whether some Tsoi Yuen villagers are sad to leave their homes.

Equally, we can ignore the assertion that businessmen will find a high-speed journey across the border useful and, therefore, the railway will be good for the Hong Kong economy. It certainly would be if it cost us only HK$1 million. It is to cost us 67,000 times as much, however. Perhaps we should ask these businessmen if they would invest that much unless they can generate even more from it in profits. If they say "yes", let them build it from their own resources. If they say "no", let us hear no more about it being good for business.

The simple fact is that we are rushing to approve this railway project before we have even begun to study it properly. That's a mistake.

Jake van der Kamp is a former Post columnist

Discussions are welcomed.

唔好意思樓主，忍唔住想講兩句...

雖然呢度係鐵路板，但我覺得呢度大部份站友
唔係唔講道理，唔會因為你反高鐵
（包括反對政府諮詢手段、方案總站、走線、定價等）
而特登對你點樣。

如果你係反高鐵（再講一次：包括反對政府諮詢手段、
方案總站、走線、定價等）你直接承認就得。我都相信
你都有你原因反對，即使我哋未必同意你，討論大門始終打開。

但你過去幾個鐘突然不停轉貼反高鐵文章但又唔加解釋
（譬如你點搵到篇文）或者個人意見，我覺得有少少奇怪，
甚至有站友可能會覺得不安。

如果部份文章內容相近而又有網上版，我認為比連結就可以，
即使無網上版，盡量保持喺一個主題亦可能比較好。

[ 本帖最後由 238X 於 2010-1-12 23:26 編輯 ]

原帖由 238X 於 2010-1-12 07:23 發表
唔好意思樓主，忍唔住想講兩句...

雖然呢度係鐵路板，但我覺得呢度大部份站友
唔係唔講道理，唔會因為你反高鐵
（包括反對政府諮詢手段、方案總站、走線、定價等）
而特登對你點樣。

如果你係反高鐵（再講一次：包括反對政府諮詢 ...

如果我咁做對各位板友造成滋擾，我先喺度致歉。其實我轉載呢d文章，只係想引起討論，睇下
各位支持同反對者仲有咩野point我係忽略左。呢兩日來為左辯論客運專線嘅種種問題，已經搞
到我浪費左好多寶貴嘅時間，而且又唔能夠表達清晰。如果唔係一d獨特嘅論點要自己解釋，我
寧願轉載一d社評或者網上文章。

另重申我嘅立場：當客運專線仲係300億果陣，我係支持的，當客運專線升價至700億果陣，我
先至反對，但唔係全盤反對客運專線，而係希望透過共用通道減少不必要嘅建設，將成本減至
最低。我認為耗資如此龐大嘅建設，一面倒不顧後果同風險去支持同遏止反對聲音，以及反建
議，係非常不負責任同唔健康嘅做法。

原帖由 小早川優 於 2010-1-13 10:21 發表


如果我咁做對各位板友造成滋擾，我先喺度致歉。其實我轉載呢d文章，只係想引起討論，睇下
各位支持同反對者仲有咩野point我係忽略左。呢兩日來為左辯論客運專線嘅種種問題，已經搞
到我浪費左好多寶貴嘅時間，而且又唔能夠表 ...

少少題外話....其實無人迫你黎討論, 試問點可以講成"已經搞到[你]浪費左好多寶貴嘅時間"呢?

立法會就有人拉布加長時間jei, 呢度其實你如果覺得表達左自己立場, 其實閣下有自由決定
繼續講定唔講....

直言, 係度討論, 你覺得係浪費時間o既, 為何仲要黎討論?

[ 本帖最後由 3ASV196 於 2010-1-13 10:32 編輯 ]

原帖由 3ASV196 於 2010-1-13 10:28 發表


少少題外話....其實無人迫你黎討論, 試問點可以講成"已經搞到[你]浪費左好多寶貴嘅時間"呢?

立法會就有人拉布加長時間jei, 呢度其實你如果覺得表達左自己立場, 其實閣下有自由決定
繼續講定唔講....

直言, 係度 ...

陰謀論：可能有人受托(雇??)去攻陷敵軍據點，但進程依家behind schedule，
星期五又迫近，所以要加快進入下一round任務

邊有真係有心討論既人會因為討論耐左而加快貼文引文，
我唔想陰謀論都唔得喇

[ 本帖最後由 Kaix 於 2010-1-13 10:49 編輯 ]

原帖由 小早川優 於 2010-1-13 10:21 發表


如果我咁做對各位板友造成滋擾，我先喺度致歉。其實我轉載呢d文章，只係想引起討論，睇下
各位支持同反對者仲有咩野point我係忽略左。呢兩日來為左辯論客運專線嘅種種問題，已經搞
到我浪費左好多寶貴嘅時間，而且又唔能夠表 ...

咁係唔係反對聲音就要十分重視
甚至果程度要不理支持既人士?

老實說，他轉載文章，我個人覺得沒有問題，而且令我大開眼界。

本人並不認為<<南早>>社評反對興建高鐵,它只希望政府以後計劃任何重大工程時,能夠早點公開向公眾咨詢及盡量把所有資料公開而已. 樓主可能誤解這篇社評了.

[ 本帖最後由 hkth 於 2010-1-13 18:54 編輯 ]

藉呢篇文講少少...
個人覺得...有關高鐵的討論的已經有o的「洗版」的感覺　（不論支持 / 反對的板友）
建議板主開設專文討論高鐵（正 / 反各一篇?），以免影響其他討論「本港境內鐵路」的文章慘被推走...