毋忘五大訴求 公民抗命有理
—10‧20九龍遊行陳情書
(案件編號:DCCC 535/2020)
——————————————————
「毋忘初衷,活在愛和真實之中」
撐阿銘,即訂閱Patreon:
patreon.com/raphaelwong
—————————————————
胡法官雅文閣下:
2012年,我第一次站在法庭上承認違反「公安惡法」,述說對普選的盼望,批評公安惡法不義,並因公民抗命的緣故,甘心樂意接受刑罰。當年我說,如果小圈子選舉沒有被廢除,惡法沒有消失,我依然會一如故我,公民抗命,並且我相信將會有更多學生和市民加入這個行列。想不到時至今日,普選仍然遙遙無期,我亦再次被帶到法庭接受審判,但只是短短7年,已經有數十萬計的群眾公民抗命,反對暴政。今日,我承認違反「未經批准的政府」所訂立「未經批准的惡法」之下的「未經批准集結」罪,我不打算尋求法庭的憐憫,但請容許我佔用法庭些微時間陳情,讓法庭在判刑前有全面考慮。
暴力之濫觴
在整個反修例運動如火如荼之際,我正承擔另一宗公民抗命案件的刑責。雖然身在獄中,但仍然心繫手足。我在獄中電視機前見證6月9日、6月16日及8月18日三次百萬港人大遊行,幾多熱愛和平的港人冒天雨冒彈雨走上街頭,抗議不義惡法,今日關於10月20日的案件,亦是如此。可能有人會問,政府已在6月暫緩修例,更在9月正式撤回修例,我等仍然繼續示威,豈非無理取鬧?我相信法官閣下肯定聽過「遲來的正義並非正義」(Justice delayed is justice denied)這句格言。當過百萬群眾走上街頭,和平表達不滿的時候,林鄭政府沒有理睬,反而獨行獨斷,粗暴踐踏港人的意願,結果製造出後來連綿不絕的爭拗,甚至你死我活的對抗。經歷眾多衝突痛苦之後,所謂暫緩撤回,已經微不足道,我們只是更加清楚:沒有民主,就連基本人權都不會擁有!
在本案之中,雖然我們都沒有鼓動或作出暴力行為,但根據早前8‧18及10‧1兩宗案件,相信在控方及法庭眼中,案發當日的暴力事件仍然可以算在我們頭上,如此,我有必要問:如果香港有一個公平正義的普及選舉,人民可以在立法會直接否決他們不認可的法律,試問2019年的暴力衝突可以從何而來呢?如果我們眼見的暴力是如此十惡不赦,那麼我們又如何看待百萬人遊行後仍然堅持推行惡法的制度暴力呢?如果我們不能接受人民暴力反抗,那麼我們是否更加不能對更巨大更壓逼的制度暴力沈默不言?真正且經常發生的暴力,是漠視人民訴求的暴力,是踐踏人民意見的暴力,是剝奪人民表達權利的暴力。真正憎恨暴力,痛恨暴力的人,不可能一方面指摘暴力反抗,又容忍制度暴力。如果我需要承擔和平遊行引發出來的暴力事件的刑責,那麼誰應該承擔施政失敗所引發出來的社會騷亂的罪責呢?
社會之病根
對於法庭而言,可能2019年所發生的事情只是一場社會騷亂,務必追究違法者個人責任。然而,治亂治其本源,醫病醫其病根,我雖然公民抗命,刻意違法,控方把我帶上法庭,但我卻不應被理解為一個「犯罪個體」。2019年所發生的事情,並不是我一個人或我們這幾位被告可以促成,社會問題的癥結不是「犯罪份子」本身,而是「犯罪原因」。我明白「治亂世用重典」的道理,但如果「殺雞儆猴」是解決方法,就不會在2016年發生旺角騷亂及2017年上訴庭對示威者施以重刑後,2019年仍然會爆發出更大規模的暴力反抗。
如果不希望社會動亂,就必須正本清源,逐步落實「五大訴求」,從根本上改革,挽回民心。2019年反修例運動,其實只是2014年雨傘運動的延續而已,縱使法庭可能認為兩個運動皆是「一股歪風」所引起,但我必須澄清,兩個運動的核心就是追求民主普選,人民當家作主。在2019年11月24日區議會選舉這個最類近全民普選的選舉中,接近300萬人投票,民主派大勝,奪得17個區議會主導權,這就是整個反修例運動的民意,民意就是反對政府決策,反對制度暴力,反對推行惡法,不容爭辯,不辯自明。我們作為礦場裡的金絲雀,多次提醒政府撤回修法,並從根本上改革制度,而在10月20日的九龍遊行當然是反映民意的平台契機。如今,法庭對我們施加重刑,其實只不過是懲罰民意,將金絲雀困在鳥籠之內,甚至扼殺於鼓掌之中,窒礙表達自由。
堅持之重要
大運動過後的大鎮壓,使我們失去《蘋果日報》,失去教協,失去民陣,不少民主派領袖以及曾為運動付出的手足戰友都囚於獄中,不少曾經熱情投入運動的朋友亦因《國安法》的威脅轉為低調,新聞自由示威自由日漸萎縮,公民社會受到沈重打擊,我亦失去不少摯友,有感傷孤獨的時候,但我仍然相信,2019年香港人的信念,以及所展現人類的光輝持久未變。我不會忘記百萬人民冒雨捱熱抗拒暴政,抵制惡法,展現我們眾志成城;我不會忘記人潮紅海,讓道救護車,展現我們文明精神;我不會忘記年青志士直接行動反對苛政,捨身成仁,展現我們膽色勇氣;我不會忘記銀髮一族走上街頭保護年青人,展現我們彼此關懷;我不會忘記「五大訴求」,不會忘記2019年區議會選舉,展現我們有理有節。
法官閣下,我對於當日的所作所為,不感羞恥,毫無悔意。我能夠在出獄後與群眾同行一路,與戰友同繫一獄,實是莫大榮幸。若法治失去民主基石,將使法庭無奈地接受專制政權所訂立解釋的法律限制,隨時變成政治工具掃除異見,因此爭取民主普選,建設真正法治,追求公平正義,仍然是我的理想。在這條路上,如有必要,我仍然會公民抗命,正如終審法院海外非常任法官賀輔明(Lord Hoffmann)所言,發自良知的公民抗命有悠久及光榮的傳統,歷史將證明我們是正確的。我期望,曾與我一起遊行抗命的手足戰友要堅持信念,在艱難歲月裡毋忘初衷,活在愛和真實之中。
最後,如9年前一樣,我想借用美國民權領袖馬丁路德金牧師的一番話對我們的反對者說:「我們將以自己忍受苦難的能力,來較量你們製造苦難的能力。我們將用我們靈魂的力量,來抵禦你們物質的暴力。對我們做你們想做的事吧,我們仍然愛你們。我們不能憑良心服從你們不公正的法律,因為拒惡與為善一樣是道德責任。將我們送入監獄吧,我們仍然愛你們。」(We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you.)
願慈愛的主耶穌賜我們平安,與我和我一家同在,與法官閣下同在,與香港人同在。沒有暴徒,只有暴政;五大訴求,缺一不可!願榮耀歸上帝,榮光歸人民!
第五被告
黃浩銘
二零二一年八月十九日
Lest we forget the five demands: civil disobedience is morally justified
- Statement on 10‧20 Kowloon Rally
(Case No.: DCCC 535/2020)
Your Honour Judge Woodcock
In 2012, I stood before the court and admitted to violating the "Public Security Evil Law". I expressed my hope for universal suffrage, criticized the evil law as unjust, and willingly accepted the penalty for civil disobedience. Back then, I said that if the small-circle election had not been abolished and the draconian law had not disappeared, I would still be as determined as I was, and I believe that more students and citizens would join this movement. Today, universal suffrage is still a long way off, and I have been brought before the court again for trial. But in just seven years, hundreds of thousands of people have already risen up in civil disobedience against tyranny. Today, I plead guilty to "unauthorised assembly" under an unapproved evil law enacted by an unauthorised government. I do not intend to seek the court's mercy, but please allow me to take up a little time in court to present my case so that the court can consider all aspects before sentencing me.
The roots of violence
At the time when the whole anti-extradition law movement was in full-swing, I was taking responsibility for another civil disobedience case. Although I was in prison, my heart was still with the people. I witnessed the three million-person rallies on 9 June, 16 June and 18 August on television in prison, when many peace-loving people took to the streets despite the rain and bullets, to protest against unjust laws. Some people may ask, "The Government has already suspended the legislative amendments in June and formally withdrew the bill in September, but we are still demonstrating, are we not being unreasonable?" I am sure your Honour has heard of the adage "Justice delayed is justice denied". When more than a million people took to the streets to express their discontent peacefully, the Lam administration ignored them and instead acted arbitrarily, brutally trampling on the wishes of the people of Hong Kong, resulting in endless arguments and even confrontations. After so many conflicts and painful experiences, the so-called moratorium is no longer meaningful. We only know better: without democracy, we cannot even have basic human rights!
In this case, although we did not instigate or commit acts of violence, I believe that in the eyes of the prosecution and the court, the violence on the day of the incident can still be counted against us, based on the August 18 and October 1 case. And now I must ask - If Hong Kong had a fair and just universal election, and the public could directly veto laws they did not approve of at the Legislative Council, then how could the violent clashes of 2019 have come about? If the violence we see is so heinous, how do we feel about the institutional violence that insists on the imposition of draconian laws even after millions of people have taken to the streets? If we cannot accept violent rebellion, how can we remain silent in the face of even greater and more oppressive institutional violence? The true and frequent violence is the kind of violence that ignores people's demands, that tramples on their opinions, that deprives them of their right to express themselves. People who truly hate violence and abhor it cannot accuse violent resistance on the one hand and tolerate institutional violence on the other. If I have to bear the criminal responsibility for the violence caused by the peaceful demonstration, then who should bear the criminal responsibility for the social unrest caused by failed administration?
The roots of society's problems
From a court's point of view, it may be that what happened in 2019 was just a series of social unrest, and that those who broke the law must be held personally accountable. What happened in 2019 was not something that I alone or the defendants could have made possible, and the crux of the social problem was not the 'criminals' but the 'causes of crime'. I understand the concept of " applying severe punishment to a troubled world", but if "decimation" was really the solution, there would not have been more violent rebellions in 2019 after the Mongkok "riot" in 2016 and the heavy sentences handed down to protesters by the Court of Appeal in 2017.
If we do not want social unrest, we must get to the root of the problem and implement the "five demands" step by step, so as to achieve fundamental reforms and win back the hearts of the people. 2019's anti-revision movement is indeed a continuation of 2014's Umbrella Movement, and even though the court may think that both movements are caused by a "perverse wind", I must clarify that the core of both movements is the pursuit of democracy and universal suffrage, and the people being the masters of their own house. In the District Council election on 24 November 2019, which is the closest thing to universal suffrage, nearly 3 million people voted, and the democratic camp won a huge victory, winning majority in 17 District Councils. As canaries in the monetary coal mine, we have repeatedly reminded the government to withdraw the extradition bill and fundamentally reform the system, and the march in Kowloon on 20 October was certainly an opportunity to reflect public opinion. Now, by imposing heavy penalties on us, the court is only punishing public opinion, trapping the canaries in a birdcage, or even stifling them in the palm of their hands, suffocating the freedom of expression.
The importance of persistence
As a result of the crackdown after the mass movement, we lost Apple Daily, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union, and the Civil Human Rights Front. Many of our democratic leaders and comrades who had contributed to the movement were imprisoned, and many of our friends who had been passionately involved in the movement had been forced to lay low under the threat of the National Security Law. I still believe that the faith of Hong Kong people and the glory of humanity seen in 2019 will remain unchanged. I will never forget the millions of people who braved the rain and the heat to resist tyranny and evil laws, demonstrating our unity of purpose; I will never forget the crowds of people who gave way to ambulances, demonstrating our civility; I will never forget the young people who sacrificed their lives, demonstrating our courage and bravery; I will never forget the silver-haired who took to the streets to protect the youth, demonstrating our care for each other; I will never forget the "five demands" and the 2019 District Council election, demonstrating our rationality and decency.
Your Honour, I have nothing to be ashamed of and no remorse for what I did on that day. It is my great honour to be in prison with my comrades and to be able to walk with the public after my release. If the rule of law were to lose its democratic foundation, the courts would have no choice but to accept the legal restrictions set by the autocratic regime and become a political tool to eliminate dissent at any time. As Lord Hoffmann, a non-permanent overseas judge of the Court of Final Appeal, said, civil disobedience from the conscience has a long and honourable tradition, and history will prove us right. I hope that my comrades in arms who walked with me in protests will keep their faith and live in love and truth in the midst of this difficult time.
Finally, as I did nine years ago, I would like to say something to those who oppose us, borrowing the words of American civil rights leader Reverend Martin Luther King: "We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you."
Peace be with me and my family, with Your Honour, and with the people of Hong Kong. There are no thugs, only tyranny; five demands, not one less! To god be the glory and to people be the glory!
The Fifth Defendant
Wong Ho Ming
19 August 2021
同時也有1部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過3,470的網紅Tango,也在其Youtube影片中提到,轉貼自FB 製作人:Frances Hui 我身為香港人,一個影片製作者. 平時影片都係輕輕鬆鬆拍Vlog,旅遊,航拍同Gameplay片. 但係今日呢條影片係講緊一個非常嚴肅既問題. 關乎香港人未來同下一代既人權,民主同言論自由. 今日呢條片雖然係轉發,但係同時影片內容都代表左我既心聲. 眼見香港...
hong kong bill of rights 在 Goodbye HK, Hello UK Facebook 的最讚貼文
今日新聞簡陋轉述
澳洲制裁法案進展
澳洲在野工黨尋日以私人草案方式提交International Human Rights and Corruption (Magnitsky Sanctions) Bill 2021,針對竊國者、違反人權嘅加害者或者貪污罪犯("human rights abusers, kleptocrats and corrupt actors")。另一個在野黨綠黨黎緊亦都會動議,要求政府交代立法時間表,亦考慮自己提交草案。
伊朗總統就職
親伊朗最高領袖,保守派前法官Ebrahim Raisi尋日正式就職成為伊朗總統。呢幾日响阿拉伯海域就發生幾件值得關心下嘅新聞,之前有無人機攻擊日本油輪,一個以羅馬利亞船員同另一位前英軍負責船上保安死亡。响口同鼻拗之際,尋日就有油輪响附近嘅海域被疑似伊朗革命衛隊上船企圖劫船,最後因為船員同保安機警,閂個個引擎拖延時間,美國海軍到場嘅時候,「海盜」就走咗。
兩件事其實都係對美國同西方政府一個考驗。
加拿大政府對香港嘅旅遊警示
尋日加拿大政府更新咗香港嘅旅遊警示,包括以下嘅內容,
//Movement Restrictions
On August 1, 2021, the Immigration (Amendment) Ordinance 2021 came into force. Hong Kong authorities may prevent specific individuals from leaving the territory. In the absence of clarifying legislation, these new powers may relate to investigations into an individual, their family or an employer, and criminal and civil matters.
You may not be aware that you are the subject of movement restrictions until you try to leave Hong Kong. It may be difficult to obtain information on movement restrictions from local authorities.//
英國選手唔願要銀牌
尋日奧運男子輕重量級拳擊決賽,英國選手Ben Whittaker輸咗比古巴,只係得到銀牌。不過佢响頒獎嘅時候拒絕掛個獎牌,將個銀牌塞入Ben Whittaker個袋度。
大家唔好以為佢係不滿對手或者賽會,其實佢係唔滿意自己輸咗,第二就係輸,銀牌對佢係無意義。
"I lost a gold, so to me it’s a failure so I am not going to celebrate silver at the moment. I am sure over the years I will look back and see what an achievement it is. You don’t win silver…you lose gold."
Patreon完整原文:
今日有留意嘅新聞
https://bit.ly/3jq5anz
***************************************
📢乞食廣告:文字、時間與心血有價
🥣每日更新乞兒兜:
https://www.patreon.com/goodbyehkhellouk
***************************************
hong kong bill of rights 在 本土研究社 Liber Research Community Facebook 的最佳解答
【還原「物業帶動鐵路」的歷史時空】 #永續港鐵霸權 #7月專研
港鐵霸權一大核心就是長期壟斷「鐵路上蓋物業發展權」,今時今日香港土地問題走到如斯局面,與經常被吹噓為「國際成功模式」的「鐵路加物業」(Rail + Property) 不無關係,但服務大眾的鐵路公司搖身一變成為追求利潤的發展商,絕對不是一夕間發生的合理事情。「鐵路上蓋物業」的原意又與今日有沒有變化? 是次研究專題將會透過回顧過上千頁有關香港地下鐵發展的英國解密檔案,還原70年代「物業帶動鐵路」發展模式的源起及原意,將有助進一步理解現時逐漸扭曲的港鐵發展形態。
▌構思初現:初期鐵路物業的背景與概念
「以地養鐵」更早可以在日本找到相類似發展模式 (Murakami, J., & Gregory, K. I.,2012),然而最早「引進」香港的來源暫不可考。但從現有官方內部檔案中,可找到早於1970年交通諮詢委員會 (Transport Advisory Committee)提交的一份《集體運輸計劃總報告書》,報告中建議除了計劃興建已設計的4條鐵路路線,並分9期(nine distinct stages) 完成「理想」鐵路系統(preferred system)外,已有提及「發展上蓋物業」的構思。在報告提及鐵路系統的長期發展影響:
”Wherever subway systems have been built experience shows that property and land increase in value. This opens up the strong possibility that a part of the cost of providing station concourses could be met through arrangements which permit the private development of station superstructures and surrounds.”
當年報告所述,由於預視到鐵路系統的帶動下,當地物業及地價將會升值。因而報告提到有很大可能可以容許私人發展 (private development) 上蓋物業去補貼鐵路站的建設成本。值得注意的是,報告除了提出上蓋 (station superstructures)發展外,首次提到發展上蓋周邊 (surrounds) 的發展概念。可見,現時港鐵圈地/上蓋物業發展一早出現在早期鐵路系統構思之中。
70年代還有差點讓鐵路系統觸礁的財政艱難,更清晰定位鐵路中的「物業收益」有何功能。參考早期關於興建鐵路系統的英國解密檔案顯示,早於1972年,香港政府成立集體運輸臨時管理局(Mass Transit Railway Provisional Authority),打算先行興建較全面、工程單一批予日資財團(Japanese consortium)的早期系統(initial system),但後來石油危機爆發,日本經濟陷入危機,財團先是提出可否修訂興建成本價格上限由50億為60億,遭到管理局拒絕後則宣佈退出鐵路興建,檔案中可看到港英政府曾一度為此而與日資財團就賠償爭執,甚至有香港主要大班 (怡和除外) 都因財政理由反對繼續推展興建鐵路計劃。
當年港英內部評估1980年代交通系統會超負荷,即使鐵路系統已被日資延遲一年(have effectively delayed the MTR project for 12 months),連帶物料通賬的財政問題,但卻認為必須「頂硬上」,調整鐵路系統的財政預算、規模以及未來發展方向,於是臨急推出後來實現的修正早期系統 (Modified Initial System)。在1975年一份關於修正早期系統行政局內部文件,港英將會排除必要鐵路系統以外的多餘支出 (eliminate all expenditures not strictly necessary for resultant simpler system),不僅使整個鐵路規模「大縮水」,同時更建議以溢價債卷(Premium bond)作為融資措施,以及發展沿線上蓋物業(property development on lines)抵消(offset)財赤,皆為確保(safeguard)鐵路在任何情況下的財政可負擔性(the financial viability in any event),讓減少後規模的總興建成本能夠保持於49億的水平。可見,當初「鐵路加物業」發展的概念是在財政大緊縮的特定歷史脈絡生成,目的為防止鐵路興建所帶來財政不穩定情況的其中一法。
▌立業辟地:港鐵上蓋四小龍
直到1975年,為了確保鐵路系統的財政可負擔性以及應急儲備,集體運輸臨時管理局向政府申請批出四個鐵路上蓋物業的綜合發展權(comprehensive development)。而當時行政局內部討論中,一份十分詳細記錄有關批予集體運輸臨時管理局四個上蓋發展權的行政局文件顯示,最早期物業上蓋發展的具體情況:
—九龍灣車廠上蓋物業(現時德福花園):
當時除了作為首個利用鐵路車廠上蓋作物業發展的項目,而且亦成為物業上蓋住宅發展的先例,佔地165,800平方呎,打算興建大型屋苑,滿足18,000個人口的住宅需求。
—亞皆老站(即現今旺角站)上蓋物業(現時旺角中心第一期):
首個非鐵路站上蓋作物業發展,只是相鄰於(adjacent to) 鐵路站,為首個利用鐵路通風樓(ventilation shaft)的物業發展。
—金鐘站上蓋物業(現時海富中心):
佔地60,000平方呎的海富中心,當時金鐘站上蓋物業批地條例原來有列明非工業用途,包括興建酒店(non-industrial purposes which may include a hotel)。
—畢打/遮打站(即現今中環站)上蓋物業(Pedder/Chater)(現時環球中心):
當時批中環商業靚地予鐵路公司的理據明顯為商業利益最大化(maximum exploitation of the commercial possibilities),一來可以善用土地資源(物業建於鐵路站上蓋),二來物業及鐵路站同時興建,可以減少工程興建時發展阻礙(development disturbance)。
其後地鐵公司分別與恆隆、合和、長實多間發展商共合發展上述四個上蓋物業,作為「鐵路加物業」發展模式的雛型,當時內部估計以上物業收入將會佔地鐵公司總收益的20%。當年批出九龍灣車廠上蓋物業上公頃的市區發展土地,整體政府部門都相當歡迎,認為可以平衡當區公屋主導的房屋格局,與及能夠為該區提供額外設施的機會,甚至具體要求屋苑內有至少10戶1車位的發展條件 (XCC(75)52)。此四幅最早批出的上蓋物業發展,從通風樓到車廠、由單一大廈到綜合發展,已是奠定了日後鐵路物業發展的主要選址方式與發展類型。
▌誰主上蓋物業?
這份行政局文件亦載有早期鐵路用地發展權的重要批地原則(principles to be adopted in respect to land grant to Mass Transmit Railway Corporation),是還原物業上蓋發展歷史一份重要參照。文件清楚列出,上蓋物業不一定是地鐵公司「囊中物」,鐵路物業發展權是否批出,或批給誰,完全是政府「話事」 (the grant of comprehensive development rights on land affected by railway installations will be discretionary)。
文件亦同時指出,程序上地鐵公司需要先向政府申請(formally apply)批地,政府可以基於實際考慮 (practical consideration) 決定如何運用這些鐵路上蓋用地的發展潛力 (for government to decide on how to dispose of any development potential remaining in the land over and above its Mass Transit usage) 。換言之,港鐵的上蓋發展絕對可以由政府主導及決定,包括根據現時的實際考慮(公營房屋供應長期落後及不足)用作興建公屋,不一定用於與發展商合作興建私樓供港鐵公司利潤最大化。
▌物業收益應急而起
70年代尾,鐵路系統打算擴建至荃灣區。翻查1978年有關鐵路擴建荃灣(Mass Transit Railway extension to Tsuen Wan)的行政局文件顯示,當時除了提及車廠上蓋物業發展的選址爭議外,亦有提及港英對發展上蓋物業的財政原則。物業發展的收入原本並不用作補貼鐵路成本 (revenue from property development was not originally envisaged as being used as a means of financing the capital cost of the railway itself),而是作為應急儲備及改善現金流(contingency reserve and to improve its cash flow)。而且更補充荃灣車廠上蓋物業發展的剩餘收入,可以用作應對以下4個應急情況:
—抵消「超支」建築成本(offset any excess construction costs)
—抵消收入財赤(offset any revenue deficiencies)
—加速還債(accelerate loan repayments)
—提早鐵路公司對港英政府的投資分股息的日子(bring forward the date when the Corporation begins to pay the Government as share holder on behalf of the public dividends on its investment)
可見,港英多次強調,鐵路上蓋物業收入為確保財政可負擔性(viability)及應急(contingency),而非像現時政府愈來愈恆常化送地予港鐵興建私樓賺錢。
引述法國城市學者Aveline-Dubach整理地鐵公司至其後港鐵自1980至2016年收入可見,明顯看見90年代末東涌綫及其後的將軍澳線所帶動的物業發展收入比例愈來愈重,已經超越鐵路票務收入,現時每年物業收益足足佔港鐵總收入四成。可見,透過重現當初的批地原意,更能突顯漸走向扭曲的港鐵發展形態,形成尾大不掉之勢。
▌賣樓補車費:明言物業發展利潤補貼車費
港鐵不應用上蓋物業賺盡的討論,亦見於地下鐵路公司條例的立法階段的重要討論。一份1975年討論地下鐵路公司草案(Mass Transit Railway Corporation Bill)的行政局文件,提及鐵路公司需要按照審慎商業原則 (prudent commercial principles)。鐵路作為公共交通工具,不應最大化其投資回報 (maximize its return on investment),只應賺取足夠(enough)收入作營運開支。
文件亦可見當年政府就發展上蓋物業項目的收益,會清晰公開回應指物業發展可為鐵路帶來的額外利潤,以維持一個「保守的車費政策」 (assist the railway by providing extra revenue to maintain a conservative fares policy)。比起今天已經與物業收益「脫勾」的「可加可減」車費制度,當日港英政府明顯認為物業收益有助更平宜的車費定價。
在40多年前的歷史時空,當初「鐵路加物業」發展模式跟現時已經不可同日而語,發展上蓋物業不論就其發展型態、財政狀況、規劃模式、補貼原意,明顯有其特定的歷史脈絡及原意。是次研究專題透過還原早期興建地鐵的歷史討論,帶出現時不斷被政府吹奏作為「國際級典範」—港鐵發展模式,並不是一套千秋萬世的發展方程式。
參考資料
1971 FCO 40 358 Construction of an underground railway system in Hong Kong
1975 FCO 40 658 Construction of an underground railway system in Hong Kong
1975 FCO 40 659 Construction of an underground railway system in Hong Kong
1975 FCO 40 660 Construction of an underground railway system in Hong Kong
1978 FCO 40 974 Construction of an underground railway system in Hong Kong
Aveline-Dubach, N., & Blandeau, G. (2019). The political economy of transit value capture: The changing business model of the MTRC in Hong Kong. Urban Studies, 56(16), 3415-3431.
Murakami, J., & Gregory, K. I. (2012). Transit value capture: New town codevelopment models and land market updates in Tokyo and Hong Kong. Value capture and land policies, 285-320.
研究自主 月捐撐起最新專研系列:https://liber-research.com/support-us/
FPS ID:5390547
HSBC PayMe 捐款支持:https://bit.ly/32aoOMn
戶口號碼:匯豐銀行 640-198305-001 (LIBER RESEARCH COMMUNITY (HK) COMPANY LIMITED)
義工招募:https://bit.ly/2SbbyT3
hong kong bill of rights 在 Tango Youtube 的最佳解答
轉貼自FB 製作人:Frances Hui
我身為香港人,一個影片製作者.
平時影片都係輕輕鬆鬆拍Vlog,旅遊,航拍同Gameplay片.
但係今日呢條影片係講緊一個非常嚴肅既問題.
關乎香港人未來同下一代既人權,民主同言論自由.
今日呢條片雖然係轉發,但係同時影片內容都代表左我既心聲.
眼見香港司法,基本法日漸崩毀.
我覺得唔可以再沉默,所以上傳呢條片,俾香港人認識逃犯條例係咩一回事.
身為香港人既你,請你為香港既未來同下一代做番一D正確既事,出一分力.
以下係Frances Hui想對大家講既說話:
In February, the Hong Kong government submitted a proposal to amend the extradition law with China, which allows legal handovers of fugitives to the rest of China under criminal charges.
If this bill is passed, human rights in Hong Kong would be endangered and I would not be able to go back to Hong Kong without risking my life.
今年二月,香港政府向立法會提交修訂與中央討論引渡條例,容許中國把被入罪的人帶引渡到中國大陸。如果這條修訂條訂通過,香港的人權問題會更趨惡劣,而我亦不會有勇氣回去香港。
———————————————
As a journalist, I am not supposed to talk about my opinion publicly on political issues. However, I can’t stay silent when it comes to violations of freedom and human rights at my home. This comes from our love to the city, our sense of democracy, and our pursuance of freedom that we used to be educated with. If you are against this amendment, SPEAK UP and ACTION on June 9.
從今日開始訂閱Tango▶https://www.youtube.com/c/TangoChannel
加入會員贊助Tango▶https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHbJsFaFBS8GmnS7Y0-IyZw/join
Like & Share 係更多新影片既原動力
希望大家可以為影片加上字幕, 俾更多人睇到, 萬分感謝!!▶http://www.youtube.com/timedtext_cs_panel?tab=2&c=UCHbJsFaFBS8GmnS7Y0-IyZw
關於Tango:
Facebook▶https://www.facebook.com/Tango1028
Youtube▶https://www.youtube.com/c/tangoChannel
instagram▶https://www.instagram.com/tango8710/
直播頻道▶https://www.twitch.tv/tangotang
工商合作▶tangyiuming2002@gmail.com
=====================================================
江門行2019系列:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66lBAhdIgd4&list=PL9_DLCsyni2VAeNcYr4pIcr8IP_YaGNgT
The Division 2 全境封鎖2系列:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbQY_my6Kf0&list=PL9_DLCsyni2X3A55UaNy9FEpOPmH3vuZa
生化危機2重製版 BioHazard RE:2 / Resident Evil 2 Remake系列:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sSVd0dyQ6c&list=PL9_DLCsyni2Xtw6428Vb7shZYcgkEx0F-
2018泰國遊記5日4夜系列: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Nsgd2NgOo&list=PL9_DLCsyni2Xo2__0QSPcdxfCZgrcpyX_
2018韓國遊記7天6夜系列: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_DGXI6VXT8&list=PL9_DLCsyni2Xj8IoLluBBws1rj4ESBORJ
2017台灣台北遊記5日4夜系列: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYI5m3Z1LIw&list=PL9_DLCsyni2Uyc5MlHB6xuhxWak-cfT53
2016日本東京遊記5日4夜系列: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uuefhf3Oh4&list=PL9_DLCsyni2VULloxY5LCaK5o8db6QvHf
Vlog & 開箱Unboxing系列: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubXvDnzBtrU&list=PL9_DLCsyni2VIgkNLxNqWXtkJUQfrjfNB
Tango行山郊遊航拍系列: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEHt5PPfUdo&list=PL9_DLCsyni2XMC0ZJHuRh8R32N1rohwEi
Tango飲飲食食系列: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgehwboTRJA&list=PL9_DLCsyni2WrIK7R7csR6vJJoTagpBt2
Gameplay Live直播系列: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbF3kU9i8vM&list=PL9_DLCsyni2X2vuJKWGcCwoo_rRoyU701
The Evil Within 2 邪靈入侵2系列: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoO7X7iFJdY&list=PL9_DLCsyni2VshMQMjHQuLs-Cd6j_6rzr
The Division 全境封鎖系列: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlboR4W5gx8&list=PL9_DLCsyni2UFTMs0Rs0TmXzNQoKb-j-o
王者榮耀Moba手遊系列: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELJ_-mxil4M&list=PL9_DLCsyni2UNStWEkY-UTZdMOQ9PcxOr
#antiELAB #NoExtraditionToChina #反送中 #反惡法
hong kong bill of rights 在 Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance - Wikipedia 的相關結果
The Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (HKBORO), often referred to as the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, is Chapter 383 of the Laws of Hong Kong, ... ... <看更多>
hong kong bill of rights 在 《香港人權法案條例》 Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance 的相關結果
Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. (Cap. 383). 版本日期. Version date. 15.2.2017. 經核證文本. Verified Copy. (《法例發布條例》( 第614 章) 第5 條). ... <看更多>
hong kong bill of rights 在 Cap. 383 Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance 的相關結果
Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived ... ... <看更多>