Thursday, April 17, 2014

The time for the ITB is now

Charles Mok defends the government’s decision to create an Innovation and Technology Bureau as a move long overdue.
The government has presented a proposal of establishing the Innovation and Technology Bureau (ITB). Do we really need an ITB?
First of all, let’s ask ourselves, are we satisfied with the state of our economy and its outlook in the long run? 
In LegCo debates, most of the members speak in support of promoting innovation and technology industries as a means to make Hong Kong’s economy more balanced and less reliant on the so-called ‘4 pillar industries’. Over the years, the government has introduced numerous funding schemes and technology infrastructure projects to boost the technology sector. Yet today our economic structure has hardly changed and the innovation and technology industry still remains nascent (generating only 0.7% of GDP in 2012, with no increase in the past 4 years at all). 
Our neighbouring economies have grasped the opportunity of the technology-driven economy to generate growth and transform, thanks to having top-level organisation that focuses on strategy and policy-making, as well as ensuring the follow-through is done properly. 
Our neighbouring economies have grasped the opportunity of the technology-driven economy to generate growth and transform, thanks to having top-level organisation
Singapore has a National Research Foundation directly reporting to the Prime Minister’s Office and a research board, A*STAR, that executes policies. Taiwan has established a board to oversee technology and scientific development since 1960s and has recently upgraded it to ministry level. South Korea’s Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning devises national strategy for technology development and is mandated to review and upgrade its strategy every 5 years.
In Hong Kong, technology is only one of the policy areas under one of the branches of a policy bureau. The CEDB simply has too much on its plate to give technology the attention that matches its importance.
Even since the replacement of the Information Technology and Broadcasting Bureau in 1998, and subsequently the Commerce, Industry and Technology Bureau by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (CEDB) in 2007, the information technology (IT) sector has been calling for the establishment of a technology bureau responsible for policy issues on IT, innovation and technology, and broadcasting.
The existing Communications and Technology Branch of the CEDB handles a whole range of heavy-weight policies such as telecommunications, broadcasting and creative industry, not to mention the SCED already needs to take care of commerce, industry and tourism. What we need is someone to be accountable, to look at the big picture, to work with different departments together and to be the champion of technology at the top level. Under the current structure, this initiative has to compete with loads of other equally important policies, and I would argue that insufficient attention results in slow implementation and lack of priority.
Part of the underlying reasons why we lag behind has to do with our manpower and education policy, our society’s culture and other systemic factors. I am not saying that having a Secretary and a bureau will change everything, but taking a first step is what we need right now to make progress. 
What we need is someone to be accountable
The government’s current proposal is relatively modest compared to the 2012 re-organisation proposal, which included the Technology and Communications Bureau. The government now suggests adding 8 new posts and reshuffling 26 existing posts from CEDB, Innovation and Technology Commission and Office of the Government Chief Information Officer. The ITB will cost over $32 million in its first year. I have previously proposed including the OFCA as part of ITB after the amendment of the Telecommunications Ordinance and Broadcasting Ordinance, and I still think it is best to put these policy areas under the same roof.
Investment in innovation and technology must be long term and persistent
One might think is this new bureau just going to do more of the same from the past. Many doubt what the new ITB can actually achieve. But the crucial thing is, do we want to let the current CEDB continue to waste our time and effort or take advantage of the government’s initiative to turn technology into a boost for our economy, a medium to improve standard of living for citizens, and most importantly, and better jobs for our young people. I choose the latter.
Colleagues in the LegCo often talk about the lack of upward mobility or types of jobs for young people. We debate this over and over again. Hong Kong cannot only rely on the graces of the Mainland government to survive and must look to the next wave of ‘innovative economy’.

From a pragmatic point of view, investment in innovation and technology must be long term and persistent. What society gets with the new ITB is a confirmation that our government is willing to take technology seriously, a Secretary to be charged with making progress, and a chance to get something done properly. Let us focus on making sure how this bureau will meet the needs of the industry as well as public expectation, instead of treating it with suspicion.

Published in Harbour Times (April 17, 2014) 

Standing Firm in Shanghai

Thirteen pan-democratic legislative councilors set off to Shanghai for the meeting with central government officials to discuss HKSAR’s constitutional reform on the evening of April 11. One (Hon Leung Kwok-hung) was sent back immediately after landing in Shanghai for bringing in “illegal materials” (June 4-related leaflets and T-shirts, and some books), causing two Labour Party members to also leave the group in protest the next morning. The last member of the original group of fourteen, Hon Alan Leong, decided on the 12th not to join the group, staying in Hong Kong in protest. 
So only ten out of fourteen of the original group staying for the meeting with Wang Guangya and other officials. Even among the ten of us, we seemed to be taking different approaches to the various programs of the mission – three went with the rest of the pro-establishment legislators to visit various facilities in Shanghai, five stayed in the hotel to work, and two others went to a university to meet with legal experts and then handed out leaflets in a local Hong Kong-styled café. Some criticized us as being split into pieces. 
That's far from the truth. Indeed, the pan-democratic spectrum has always been quite wide, and while we may differ in tactics, our common stance toward fighting for universal suffrage without screening for political reasons, and the reversal of the verdict on the June 4 massacre, remains solidly in place. Our supporters also have different views on the different tactics. Only the pro-establishment camp would always act in unison, whenever Beijing blows its whistle. 
More importantly, we stayed to meet with Mr Wang and other officials, and adamantly relayed Hong Kong people’s views, including their support for civic nomination and a 2017 CE election with no screening. We debated about what might constitute “love China, love Hong Kong,” and whether that could constitute a legal requirement for the nominations of CE candidates, as well as whether Hong Kong would be “ungovernable,” should we not achieve “true democracy” in 2017.
But in the end, did we come back empty handed? (other than the copy of the Basic Law Mr Wang gave us as “gifts.”) It’s true that we have not yet pushed Beijing to change its mind on civic nomination, but the pan-democrats did not give away an inch on our position either. For a first direct face-to-face meeting between the two sides, I would use the analogy of a nil-nil draw. Considering that this was an “away” game for us the pan-democrats, and some of our “players” did not even get on the field, I think we did pretty well coming out with a draw. We did not lose a point, even though we also did not get an “away goal.” 
Next, Hong Kong people need to continue to stand firm on our home turf, as Beijing has indicated that they will move the negotiations here, by holding “individual meetings” with legislators and hopefully other stakeholders in Hong Kong, especially those they “have not yet met.” If this is a PR campaign to sway us with a softer tactic, will it be successful? Such will be the ultimate test of Hong Kong people’s mettle.

Published in Harbour Times (April 17, 2014)

Sunday, April 13, 2014





在早上的專題講座,教授提到「規則制定權」,這個在國際事務上對國家來說,可能是一個意義,但我聽到卻令我想到,如果放在香港事務,就變成中央單方面制定基本法的解讀,在香港人的眼中,令基本法變成中央統治的工具。所以,我們在爭取普選這事情上,我們更必須強調國際標準 。











Wednesday, April 09, 2014



我之所以講咁多,其實是想講避險意識的重要性。) 主席,香港作為開放型經濟體,在過去十至二十年間跟隨國際金融環境而經歷過多次『大地震』(,97-98年同08-09年發生嘅事大家都記憶猶新)。最近唔少傳媒都開始討論大陸經濟面臨熱錢撤離、壞賬飆升、樓市結冰的嚴峻境況,擔心會波及香港,甚至造成另一次金融海嘯。香港的經濟、民生在回歸以來越來越依賴大陸,現在的形勢顯示內地經濟有機會出現危機,香港必定要未雨綢繆,小心防範,政策亦不可只顧內交。







投資創新科技產業是必須長遠持續,不可以只期望短期回報。昨天互聯網名人堂(Internet Hall of Fame)頒發典禮在香港舉行,多謝財爺出席,你都見到不少得獎者都是以三四十年的研發工作而獲得認同,被列入名人堂。所以,科技發展是要長時候持續的。




預算案亦未有具體提及如何引入海外科網企業來港投資,這對創造本地優質創科相關職位十分重要,在土地規劃、與企業協商、提供優惠等方面,都需要政府出手帶動,不能再重蹈Google 放棄來港開設數據中心的覆轍。













另外,(一條我提出的問題是幫一些很有心推動開放數據的IT人問的,就係因為政府話會open by default,所以想)問政府打算將乜嘢資料用數碼格式發布。點知返黎答案就話其實已經上晒,但我想知道其餘仲未放係上面嘅係乜,幾時會有!很多部門都對什麼是open data認識不深,也不太重視格式,好似上載了PDF就得,看來OGCIO還有很多"教育"要做!當局還需要繼續提升公共數據的質素,不止是提供PDF和HTML檔,而是機器可運算的資料。




Wednesday, April 02, 2014



創新及科技局( 「創科局」)的政府文件即將提交立法會,梁振英一直隻字未提創科局的願景和策略,卻每每對外聲稱希望建議能夠在立法會「順風順水」。若以航海冒險來比喻特區政府發展創新和科技的過程,香港的「創新及科技號」十幾年前已經決定尋找寶藏,但下海之後幾年海面風高浪急,其後為求安穩,少有冒險勇進。到了今天,我們的創新和科技產業尚在海上漂浮打轉。




一直以來,創新多指把發明本身商品化,或把研究成果或創意轉為產品或服務。環視全球,各地政府均有為創新定義和制訂可量度的指標,進行系統化的「創新審核」(Innovation Audit),把創新表現化成可衡量和追蹤的指標,監察政府投入創新方面所創造的效益。

歐盟委員會自2000 年起量度有關27 個歐盟國家的研究和創新表現,以及各國制度的相對優劣。最近公布的2014 年《歐盟創新計分牌》報告(Innovation Union Scoreboard indicators 25 項指標評價各成員國的表現。指標分為三大類:驅動因素、企業活動和產出。指標共涵蓋八個範圍:人力資源、開放和吸引的研究體系、財務資源和資源、企業投資、串連與創業活動、知識產權、創新、經濟效果。



各國經濟體系的創新活動已經不再只集中於科技和技術,逐漸注重社會創新和以更開放的方式進行、注重創新方向多於速度的「需求方創新」。1994 年起經濟合作與發展組織進行國家創新系統實證研究,聚焦於知識擴散力和創新指標。根據《奧斯陸手冊》,技術性創新包括產品與服務的創新、流程與製作過程的創新,而非技術性創新則包括組織創新和營銷創新。

2011 年出版的《需求方創新政策》,則把需求方創新政策分為六類:政府採購、法規、標準、消費者政策、用戶導向型創新計劃和領先市場的行動計劃。歐盟各國對創新的官方定義各有不同,而對創新的理解直接影響政府的政策和措施。例如歐盟在的創新方面的領先地區如丹麥、芬蘭、德國和瑞典,政策近年從注重科技改變為重視政府、公共領域和社會創新活動。





在香港,政府多年投入不少資源於科技基建、資助大學和研發中心、各種研發項目等,但較少探討如何增加科技教育和將知識滲透至其他產業。最近的《財政預算案》提出向IT 表現出色的中學提供「精英班」和鼓勵大學團隊創業,政策長遠能否達到培育人才和產業發展,除了一般的項目數據以外,應該作較全面的社會和經濟效益評估,以追蹤政策成效。

新創企業推出產品前會不斷進行測試,透過收集數據和偵測錯誤來開發產品。矽谷創業界有一套精實創業(Lean Startup)的理念,精神就值得特首和政府借鑑。精實創業提出公司應該盡快推出產品的最小可行版本,通過收集數據和消費者反應,快速更新,來做出市場真正需要的產品。




Thursday, March 27, 2014






不論當權者點樣『視民意如浮雲』,對民意調查都是輸打贏要,低的時候就質疑你,近期回升一些又乘機大做文章,話自己做得幾好。 到今年,又是政治年,對學術自由的政治干預不斷升級,今年港大民調再次被針對,指控更嚴重,更政治化,不再是政府幕後干預,而是利用左派人士、傳媒力量文攻和直接上北京『告御狀』。




廖長江議員的修正案鼓勵大學學者『專心從事學術研究』、『以正面及負責任的態度參與公共事務』。專心、正面、負責任這些措辭,俾我感覺到他在找理由質疑學者參與公共事務喎 。而葛珮帆議員的修訂鼓勵各界討論學術研究,但又說現在沒有問題,這其實是否又在找藉口干預? 而黃碧雲議員的修訂強調反對政治施壓,這點我是十分贊成的。




Wednesday, March 26, 2014













Speech on the Second Reading of the Loans (Amendment) Bill 2014

Mr President, I speak in place of the Hon Kenneth Leung, chairperson of the Bills Committee on Loans (Amendment) Bill 2014, who is on sick leave today.

The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Loans Ordinance to accommodate the issuance of Islamic bonds, i.e. sukuk, under the Government Bond Programme. The Bills Committee, of which I am also a member, has held one meeting with the Administration to discuss the Bill. It has also invited written views from the public but received no submissions.

The Bills Committee notes that allowing sukuk issuance s under the Government Bond Programme will help diversify the financial products and services for the Hong Kong financial markets, further promote Islamic finance in Hong Kong through encouraging issuers to raise funds by issuing sukuk, and reinforce Hong Kong’s status as a major international financial center and an asset management center. The Bills Committee supports the Bill in principle. I shall now turn to the major issues deliberated by the Bills Committee.

The Bills Committee has examined the need to amend the Loans Ordinance and studied how the proposed amendments operate in achieving the purpose of the Bill.

The Administration explains that as asset transactions involved in sukuk may not be regarded as “borrowing” in the prevailing context of the Loans Ordinance, it is necessary to amend the Ordinance to encompass the situation in which the Government shall be regarded as “borrowing” moneys from the Special Purpose Vehicle set up to effect sukuk issuance. This will enable the funds so raised to be credited to the Bond Fund. It is also necessary to amend the Bond Fund Resolution to allow payments to be made out of the Bond Fund Resolution to allow payments to be made out of the Bond Fund for meeting the coupon and redemption payments to holders of sukuk issued under he Government Bond Programme, as well as the expenses incurred in relation to the issuance of sukuk. Furthermore, the Bill also amends the Inland Revenue Ordinance to exempt coupon payments and disposal gains derived from the sukuk issued in connection with the Government Bond Programme to enjoy the same profits tax exemption as that currently applicable to those in relation to conventional bonds.

As issuance of sukuk under the Government Bond Programme may have implications on other types of bonds issued under the programme and the local bond market, the Bills Committee has sought information on the Administration’s considerations in launching sukuk under the Programme, the target investors and offering mechanism involved, as well as management of sukuk proceeds.

Members of the Bills Committee note that the Administration will determine the timing and actual issuance size of sukuk under the Government Bond Programme with regard to the prevailing market conditions and needs. The preliminary thinking for the inaugural sukuk issuance may be in the size equivalent to around US$500 million or more. The Administration envisages that the investors as they are major players in the global sukuk market. The Bills Committee further notes that depending on market interest and developments, the Administration may consider extending sukuk issuance under the Government Bond Programme to retail investors in future.

As far as the offering mechanism is concerned, the Administration may engage financial institutions and legal advisers in arranging the deal through a Special Purpose Vehicle.

On the management of sukuk proceeds, the Administration advises that investment return for the Bond Fund is calculated based on the average annual rate of return of the Exchange Fund’s investment portfolio oer the past six years or the average annual yield of three-year Exchange Fund Notes for the previous year, whichever is the higher.

The Bills Committee has expressed concern about the competitiveness of Hong Kong’s sukuk platform vis-à-vis those of other jurisdictions in attracting international sukuk issuers and investors given that major Islamic financial centers, such as Malaysia, have well-developed sukuk markets, and that Hong Kong lacks ties with Islamic communities.

In response, the Administration advises that the Inland Revenue and Stamp Duty Legislation (Alternative Bond Schemes) (Amendment) Ordinance 2013 passed by the Council in July last year has enhanced Hong Kong’s competitiveness in the development of a sukuk market by providing a comparable taxation framework for some common types of sukuk vis-à-vis conventional bonds. Coupled with the core strengths of Hong Kong financial market, Hong Kong is now on a better footing to promote Islamic finance through encouraging issuers to raise funds by issuing sukuk. The Administration considers that sukuk issuance under the Government Bond Programme will signal to the markets that Hong Kong’s legal, regulatory and taxation frameworks are well established to accommodate sukuk issuances. This will give further impetus to other potential sukuk issuers to raise funds in Hong Kong. An inaugural sukuk issuance originated by the Hong Kong Government, with an excellent credit rating of AAA, will draw attention and interest in the global market and attract a new group of investors from the Middle East and other parts of the world to Hong Kong’s financial platform.

In view of increasing competition from other financial centers in developing the sukuk market and Islamic finance, the Bills Committee has stressed the need for the Administration to make concerted efforts with relevant parties to promote Hong Kong’s sukuk platform, including increasing exchanges with other financial centers to foster cooperation and to keep abreast of latest developments in the global sukuk market. Moreover, members of the Bills Committee have urged the Administration to ensure a sufficient supply of professionals and market practitioners with expertise in sukuk issuance and Islamic finance which is vital to the development of sukuk market and Islamic finance in Hong Kong.

The Administration has stressed that the strengths of Hong Kong’s bond market, including sukuk market and the listing platform, are among the key features in the promotional work targeting international investors in recent years. The Administration has been collaborating with relevant parties, such as Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices and the market, in promoting Hong Kong’s sukuk platform overseas, and keeping a close contact with the industry to encourage them to issue sukuk in Hong Kong. The Administration assures the Bills Committee that it will continue to seize every possible opportunity to promote Hong Kong’s bond market and its sukuk platform when meeting with institutional investors, issues and asset managers.

On the promotion of market awareness of Islamic finance, the Administration has pointed out that the Hong Kong Monetary Authority has been in close collaboration with overseas central banks, international organizations and local industry bodies to offer training for market practitioners. Over the past few years, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority has organized a series of Islamic finance seminars and workshops covering a wide range of topics. The Bills Committee notes that these activities have received enthusiastic market response and provided opportunities for Hong Kong market practitioners to interact with their overseas counterparts and exchange views on issues relating to Islamic finance and sukuk issuance.

Regarding cooperation with major Islamic financial markets, the Administration advises that the Hong Kong Monetary Authority has been maintaining a close partnership with key Islamic financial markets, such as Malaysia and Dubai. Moreover, the Securities and Futures Commission has been working closely with its counterparts from major Islamic markets, including signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Dubai Financial Services Authority in 2008 for mutual cooperation on capacity building and human capital development in Islamic finance, as well as the promotion and development of the Islamic capital market.

Given that sukuk have more complex structures than conventional bonds, the Bills Committee considers it important for the Administration to ensure a robust regulatory regime over sukuk issuers ith a view to providing adequate protection for sukuk investors.

The Administration has assured the Bills Committee that, similar to other financial products, sukuk are subject to the prevailing regulatory regime in respect of product offering, marketing, disclosure, and intermediaries requirements in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Securities and Futures Ordinances and the Companies Ordinance. These include the requirement on sukuk issuers to seek authorization from the Securities and Futures Commission on the issuance of any advertisement, invitation or document, which is or contains an invitation to the public to enter into or offer to enter into an agreement to acquire the relevant sukuk products, unless an exemption applies. The Bills Committee notes that as institutional investors will be the target investors of sukuk issued under the Government Bond Programme, certain exemptions under the Securities and Futures Ordinance will apply.

Neither the Bills Committee nor the Administration will propose Committee Stage amendments to the Bills. The Bills Committee supports redemption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill.

Mr President, the following is the view on the matter related to the Loans (Amendment) Bill 2014 of the Hon Kenneth Leung and that I share, on the opportunities and the pressing need for promoting the Hong Kong Dollar Bond Market.

Hong Kong is a leading international financial centre with a stock exchange which ranked the top globally for funds raised from initial public offering from 2009 through 2011.

However, in order to stay competitive, Hong Kong needs to capitalize on other key successful factors and take a holistic approach in promoting our financial platform.  Developing the local bond market not only enriches the diversity of the financial products but is also a key component which meets the intrinsic needs of institutional and retail investors.

The majority of local investors have very limited choices if they are looking for a long-term investment instrument with stable return.  It is therefore not surprising to see the soaring property prices in recent years under a low-interest rate environment.

For those who cannot afford to buy properties, they probably have to invest in more risky and turbulent markets such as the equity market, foreign exchange and commodity  – or others, such as the victims of the Lehman Brothers incident,  they would have tempted to invest in complicated structured products to earn a slightly higher yield than normal time deposits.

I also believe that a mature and liquid Hong Kong dollar bond market is crucial for stabilizing and sustaining investment returns for Hong Kong’s retirement population.

A sizable Hong Kong dollar-denominated debt securities market can offer more options for MPF funds.  Bonds issued by local reputable institutions, in particular, help provide employers and employees with relatively low-fee alternatives, and  earn reasonably stable returns while enjoying the compound interest benefits. Of course, those with more aggressive risk appetite may always choose MPF funds with higher risks, higher returns and higher management fees, like stocks fund. The Government should encourage and facilitate the provision of a more risk-balanced choice of funds, and the rest will be market-driven.    

Indeed, Mr. President, Hong Kong does not lack competitive advantages required for deepening and broadening the local fixed income market.

We have a sophisticated business infrastructure and transparent regulatory environment. A triple A credit rating status (S&P long-term credit rating) which can minimize the cost of the Government, statutory bodies and government-owned corporations for fund raising through issuance of securities papers.

Unfortunately, the Government fails to perform its role in promoting Hong Kong dollar debt issuance.  Based on FSTB’s statistics, the Government, Statutory bodies and Government-owned corporations made in total 654 issuance, with a total amount of around HK$264.2 billion Hong Kong dollar debt securities* between 2003 and 2012 or 13.2% of the total HKD debt securities issued in the same period, excluding Exchange Fund Bills and Notes (“EFBNs”) issued by the HKMA.

Compared with other international financial centres, Hong Kong is lagging behind in terms of scale of issuance.

Perhaps one may say that our huge reserves justify the conservative position of the Government. But I am afraid this is somewhat myopic.

As Hong Kong Government is going to invest as much as HK$340 billion in mega projects including a new airport runway, new development areas and reclamations in the coming years (Budget 2014-15), it is high time for the Government to leverage this golden opportunity to speed up the development of Hong Kong dollar bond market as an alternative financing channel rather than to be over reliant on public revenues alone.

This is particularly true when the Government is subject to a financial commitment to address the needs of the poor and our aging population.

To achieve this, we need a number of positive actions:

1. The active participation of the Government, statutory bodies and government-owned corporations in using the Hong Kong dollar bond instrument to raise funds for these mega projects where possible;

2. Expedite necessary enhancements on regulatory and infrastructural supports to improve market liquidity (e.g. enforcement of underwriters’ market making responsibilities, setting up of an electronic platform for online retail trading, provision of a central depository system for HKD bonds); and

3. Promote investor awareness and demand through education programs.

Development of the sukuk market or RMB bond market should not be hindering the growth of the Hong Kong dollar bond market. Instead, we should head for diversity which will make the bond market as a whole fly in Hong Kong.

Together, the different types of bonds will attract a critical mass of fixed income traders, buyers and issuers which will support the healthy growth of the instrument.

I would urge the Government to take up its pivotal role in accelerating the development of HKD debt market with a view to achieving a more diversified and  resilient financial sector in Hong Kong.  Thank you.

*Note:  HKD debt securities include bonds, shorter-term papers such as bills, and other types of fixed income instruments. 

Friday, March 21, 2014


1.         主席,回歸初期特區政府已經開始講經濟轉型,遇上金融風暴,結果經濟多元化停留於口號,香港人繼續沉迷炒股炒樓。珠三角城市競爭力提高,南中國發展現代服務業之後,如果香港經濟轉型繼續原地踏步,十年後真係唔知仲有幾多老本。所以我支持鍾國斌議員提出這項議案,因為其實不只講香港工業面對的問題,亦係香港其他產業發展的困境。

(2.         現狀係點呢?2008至2012年傳統四大支柱行業,除了旅遊佔GDP增加近百分之二,其餘的貿易物流和專業服務都維持原狀,金融業甚至輕微下降。二月底發佈的統計處數字可以睇到,六個優勢行業2012年對經濟直接貢獻都少於GDP的百分之五。過去五年,除左文化及創意產業有增加1個百分點之外,其餘的附加值幾乎『零增長』。創新及科技過去四年的附加值只係維持在百分之0.7。說明什麼?)

3.         唔知大家仲記唔記得CEPA原本做乜?本來話,是為製造業創造機會,為數以百計的產品如果在香港製造就可以免關稅入內地,結果製造業那部分就無人理,無人做,只有服務業方面,啲老闆就投資哂入去內地,連啲工都搬入去,專業人士又入去,製造業始終食白果。

4.         CEPA對工業已經失敗了,如果政府再浪費時間和資源將制訂政策外判俾啲委員會同諮詢組織,唔肯切切實實做嘢,香港就會被周圍城市拋離得更快。我哋需要創造更多服務業、零售業以外的工作,俾人人有工做。比起政府派糖,產業多元化對中產和基層市民生活更有幫助。

4.         同香港唔同,新加坡繼續保持投資製造業,同服務業一樣都係經濟支柱之一。2013年新加坡的金融和商業服務業貢獻國內生產總值約28%,製造業就有大約五分一,近十年來所佔的比例大致平穩。這歸功於新加坡政府用政策和銀彈攻勢吸引企業設廠,加上大力投資研發和高等教育。香港點解唔得?

5.         香港的土地在高地價政策同地產商囤積之下被炒到天價,唔好話用地做工業,連寫字樓嘅租金到差不多全球最高。加上人工等等其他經營成本,係香港搞工業冇可能同內地競爭。要產業多元化,香港應該集中發展下一個世代需要的科技,尤其是像梁繼昌議員修訂所講『高技術、高增值、低污染』而唔需要咁多土地的工業。這些產業都需要科技研發支持。

6.         原議案提出“扶助新產業發展”,我認為政府應積極地用政策和有效地投放資源,振興創新及科技產業,帶動本地工業回流和升級。以美國為例,「製造業回流」是奧巴馬重要的施政方向之一。美國政府2010年起鼓勵商界本地生產和採購,振興Made in USA,我這上星期在美國買的英國品牌領呔,竟然都是 Made in USA 。

7.         美國政府亦大量投資於提升幫助生產的技術,例如3D打印技術、人工智能、機械人結合數碼製造技術,籍此改造製造業降低成本,將科技和傳統製造業融合,升級和提高附加值。

8.         今年財政預算案的措施反映出特區政府有再次推動創新及科技的意願,在成立創新及科技局前提出種種措施。但靠那些小修小補的措施並不足夠,我認為政府有幾方面必須進一步加強:土地、投資、人才。最重要是制訂有系統的創新和科技發展策略,並要加快政策改良的週期。

9.         土地:

(10.      投資:

11.      人才:

12.      總結而言,要振興工業包括製造業,同科技發展一定分唔開。政府應該清楚勾劃出未來五年、十年發展科技產業的方向,睇下未來最有潛力的係乜嘢,照香港的定位吸引邊類型的產業進駐。我一直提出制訂中長期科技產業政策應該是未來創新及科技局的主要工作之一。各國都以科技政策為經濟發展的核心,並設中長期規劃機制,規定政府要定期評估未來需求和制訂政策,並撥出資源執行和量度。

13.      政府即將提交有關創新及科技局的建議,我希望政府不只是將相關部門放於同一政策局,而會認真研究香港如何用科技推動不同產業多元化發展,制定產業政策,尤其是能夠創造就業機會的本地工業包括製造業。

14.      主席,我謹此陳辭 。