Chapter 61 "Public housing mother-in-law playing with the disabled government"?

At the end of 2004, when I had just been stationed at the Hong Kong reporter station of China Central Television, I heard the community discussing the "Link Exchange Incident" everywhere. At first, I didn't think there was anything worth paying attention to. Not big news.However, in January 2005, the latest issue of "Asia Weekly" came out. I opened it and saw an article with a very eye-catching title - "Judicial Sniping and Political Wrestling". The article published a photo of an old woman, and the photo explained: "Granny in public housing is playing with the disabled government." The old woman picked her teeth casually with a toothpick, while carrying a face full of conceit, as if she had just won a victory.My attention was immediately focused, and I immediately turned around and asked the other reporters around me: Hey, who of you knows about the "Link incident"? What is the background of the "public housing mother-in-law"?How can we "play disabled" the government?

No one answered, because the other colleagues around me at that time also just came to Hong Kong from the mainland, and no one could understand the "Link Exchange incident". essence. What is the "essence" of this matter?A government and a citizen have become opposing sides one by one. This kind of battle lineup is rare in the interior—the government, what a huge force it is?How dare an ordinary citizen openly challenge the government?Is this a dream or some wrong medicine? After reading the article carefully, I immediately found the property manager of our building. He is a local. He may know the background of the "Link Remittance Incident". A lawsuit between socially disadvantaged groups aided by the government: In 2004, in order to solve the long-term financial difficulties, the Hong Kong Housing Authority decided to publicize 100 shopping malls and parking lots in public housing under its jurisdiction. Fund” (The Link), if successful, the Hong Kong Housing Authority expects to gain HK$21 billion in revenue from it, which is an easy way out to ease the government’s financial strain.However, this "government action" has been well prepared. Who knows that an old woman who rents low-cost public housing from the government for many years will receive more than 3,000 yuan from the government every month for "comprehensive social security" She opposed the government's approach and was unwilling to let the "Link Fund" be listed. In order to protect her own interests, she resolutely applied to the Hong Kong court for a "judicial review" on this matter.As a result, her soaring feat was not only not ridiculed by the people around her, but she also succeeded in the initial battle. In the end, it really made the first round of listing of "The Link Fund" difficult, which led to the Hong Kong Housing Authority's 130 million listing expenses and The more than 300 million Hong Kong dollars that had been paid to the underwriter were all in vain——

The "Link Event" made me truly feel the power of the grassroots in Hong Kong. At that time, I was about to draw the conclusion of "who is in charge of Hong Kong", but the arguments for this "conclusion" were too single, and the same "arguments" Will there be in the future?Yes, not long after, there was a "sales tax" disturbance in Hong Kong. This disturbance has lasted for several months. The initial "movement" was that citizens "protested" to the government, protesting the government's imposition of "goods and services tax". , making the government "undecided", and then the government had to "surrender", and finally simply declared that it would temporarily abandon the consultation on this plan——

On July 18, 2006, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government cautiously announced to the public a consultation document on "Proposals to Reform Hong Kong's Existing Tax System". Financial Secretary Tang Yingnian explained: "Hong Kong's existing tax base is very narrow. Historically, Hong Kong has relied on limited tax and non-tax revenues to meet public expenditures. These revenues can fluctuate widely due to economic changes beyond our control. At the same time, this has also greatly limited the Government's ability to formulate long-term plans and make investment decisions. Therefore, In order to ensure the long-term prosperity of Hong Kong's social economy, it is a feasible way to consider introducing a 'Goods and Services Tax'..."

But who knows, before Tang Yingnian's words fell, the Hong Kong society exploded immediately.The voices of citizens firmly opposing the taxation were overwhelming.No one among them has calmly considered the reason why the Hong Kong government proposes taxation, where is its rationality, and whether they have a forward-looking sense of responsibility for the long-term economic prosperity of Hong Kong society. It is just that when "taxation" is mentioned, everyone can't stand it and becomes angry Wanzhang: Good guy, you are the Financial Secretary, the God of Wealth, you are too courageous!Hong Kong has maintained a preferential system of "low tax system" for many years, and ordinary people have "benefited from it" and "enjoyed it" for decades; at the same time, Hong Kong's "shopping paradise", this signboard attracts a lot of people every year Visitors from other places come to Hong Kong for consumption. If foreign buyers hear that we will start to collect "consumption tax" here, who will come here in the future?Didn't that smash Hong Kong's brand and the jobs of all Hong Kong people? !

Although Tang Ying-year, on behalf of the government, has repeatedly stated the interests and interests of the citizens, saying that "the government has no intention of changing Hong Kong's admirable low tax system", however, it has not moved the hearts of Hong Kong people at all.Over the next four months, all walks of life took various "actions": discussions, polls, demonstrations, members of the Legislative Council raised objections, etc., strongly protesting the government's approach (actually it was just an "idea") ), as a result, the consultation on “initiating sales tax” was put on hold—on December 5, 2006, Financial Secretary Tang Ying-year had to announce suddenly: “The government will no longer promote sales tax during the remaining public consultation period on tax reform. Tax."

The citizens of Hong Kong opposed the levy of "sales tax" in unison, which finally stopped the consultation. Is such an orientation of "public opinion" a collective unconscious "short-sighted" mistake, or has it saved Hong Kong's "zero The crisis in which the advantages of the "tax system" are beginning to lose?I definitely have no right to speak, but after 4 months of tossing up and down, especially the final result, I was very surprised: the life of ordinary people in Hong Kong society is different from mine, they have something more in their hearts than me, what? thing?Emboldened.Regardless of which government or which chief executive is the chief executive, the opinions of the citizens must first be consulted in order to carry out major tasks. What channels are used to reflect the "opinions of the citizens"?When did their "consciousness" begin to be born?During the more than 100 years when the British ruled Hong Kong, did ordinary people dare to "offend" like they do now?Do you dare to demand democracy and participate in state affairs?Did they dare to say "no" to the British Hong Kong government?

A question begs many questions, and the answer to each question comes at a risk. Objectively evaluate: Hong Kong people, in the past, during the more than 100 years of British rule, it is not impossible to say "no", but the number of times people say "no" is very small.During those years, it was not a simple question of "dare" and "dare not", but that many people didn't have this idea in their hearts at all, and there was no such procedure in their mouths; but now why are people suddenly "bold"?Now it is the "SAR Government", and at that time it was the "Hong Kong British Government" - "It's useless to say, who will care about your Chinese people at that time?" The last sentence is not from my research, but from A government official, Hong Kong people themselves explain, the credibility will definitely not drag water, right?