選擇，是一種有智慧的放棄

有位中年人覺得自己的日子過是非常沉重，生活壓力太大，想要尋求解脫的方法，因此去向一位禪師求教。
禪師給了他一個簍子，要他背在肩上，指著前方一條坎坷的道路說：「每當你向前走一步，就彎下腰來撿一顆石子放到簍子裡，然後看看會有什麼感受。」
中年人照著禪師的指示去做了，等他背上簍子裝滿石頭後，禪師問：「你一路走來有什麼感受？」
中年人回答說：「感到越走越沉重。」
禪師於是說：「每一個人來到這個世上時，都背負著一個空簍子。我們每往前走一步，就會從這個世界上撿一樣東西放進去，因此才會有越來越累的感慨。」
中年人又問：“那麼有什麼方法可以減輕負重呢？”
禪師反問他：“你是否願意將名聲、財富、虛榮、權力等拿出來捨棄呢？”那人答不出來。
禪師又說：「每個人的簍子裡所裝的，都是自己從這個世上尋來的東西，但是你拾得太多，如果不能放棄一些，你的生命將承受不起，現在知道應丟下什麼和留下什麼了嗎？」
中年人反問禪師：「這一路上，您又丟下了什麼？留下了什麼呢？」
禪師大笑道：「丟下身外之物，留下心靈之物。」
人在世上，無時無刻不受到來自外界的誘惑，一旦有了功名，就會對功名放不下；有了金錢，就會對金錢放不下；有了愛情，就會對愛情放不下；有了事業，就會對事業放不下……當得到的東西太多了，超過生命的承載力，這個時候，你該怎麼辦呢？留下什麼？捨棄什麼？這時候選擇將變得尤為重要。稍有不慎，幸福就會從身邊溜走。
功名利祿就好像是背簍裡的石子，得到的越多步履越沉，反倒是心靈之物裝得越多，越有智慧，看待事物也簡單而幸福。就像故事裡的禪師一樣，身無一物，卻智慧滿懷。
可見，在繽紛的社會中，學會選擇是一件多麼重要的事情：正確的選擇，可以使心靈獲得解脫，讓自己活得灑脫；正確的選擇，可以讓生命清凈而從容，幸福如細水長流；正確的選擇，能讓生活簡單而愉悅，承載起滿滿的幸福。

Urgent shake- up needed at BBC

A media organisation has to produce accurate, reliable and balanced journalism if it is to be trusted by its audience. The BBC’s credibility has been damaged by its failure to check the correctness of one report and unexplained dropping of another. Rightly, its director general, George Entwistle, as well as its news director and deputy director have resigned. Chris Patten, the head of its governing body, has called for a radical overhaul. The pledge has to be followed to the letter to try to ensure that the highest standards are adhered to at every level of the news gathering and presentation process.

Gaining back lost trust will be an uphill battle amid so much suspicion and condemnation. What has taken years to earn has been eroded in weeks, first after a television programme investigating allegations of child sex abuse by the BBC’s late entertainer Jimmy Savile was scrapped. Independent inquiries are under way. The resignations came after an apology by the corporation’s flagship TV news programme on Friday for falsely implicating a former politician in the Conservative Party in another child abuse case.

Extraordinarily, Entwistle, who quit just 54 days into his job and was effectively the editor- in- chief, claims the first he knew of the latest scandal was when the apology was aired. His only choice may have been to resign, but his cause was not helped by being kept out of the loop by those under him. Questions abound: to what degree have standards been compromised, how deep do the problems run through the organisation, how are they to be stopped and is the task too big? A cloud now hangs over the BBC and only by following Patten’s call for a shake- up is any hope of all that is wrong being righted.

The BBC is, after all, a venerable organisation against which many media companies around the world measure themselves. Although largely funded by the British government, its television, radio and on- line services operate independently, setting standards that others aim to equal or beat. There is every reason for it to promptly get its house back in order.

Time to think of our next step

Hong Kong has a reputation for reinventing itself to its advantage, based on its evolution, between the 1960s and 1980s, from an industrial to financial centre. Since its return to China in 1997, another chameleon- like change has kept the economy humming, by being a middle man between the mainland and the rest of the world. But the mainland’s opening up and a changing global economic structure are threatening that position, putting our city at another crossroads in its development. It is time for another discussion on which way we should move.

The dilemma is laid out in a report by several central government agencies. They have determined that Hong Kong’s position as a go- between is in decline, being eroded as mainland cities become more internationalised. Increasingly, the mainland is also looking to regional trade agreements, while there is stiffer competition from other cities. The report adds a warning: that while greater integration with the mainland is inevitable and is a way forward, there will be challenges.

Those have already been experienced with backlashes against pregnant mainland women giving birth in our hospitals, the rising stream of tourists from across the border and mainlanders snapping up property. Chief Executive Leung Chun- ying has responded to the outcry with tough action, but it has not dampened anti- mainland sentiment. Integration is necessary, although it is clear that to avoid further problems, it cannot be rushed. Hong Kong and mainland authorities have to carefully assess measures before implementing them.

Exactly what direction to take needs to be actively discussed. The 2003 pact that put in place the “Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement”, or Cepa, has brought a host of benefits, among them trade, tourists and the listing of mainland companies on our stock exchange. Our role as China’s main financial, trade and logistics centre has been made plain by Beijing. But these key industries are facing greater competition, particularly from Shanghai and Singapore.

Uncertainties abound, but there is no question the future lies to the north. Although our city is becoming less important as a bridge between the world and the mainland, such shifts happen gradually. What we have no doubt about, though, is our core competitive strengths – free trade and expression, rule of law, a law- abiding society and an international outlook. These equip us well for our next economic evolution.

ESF debate boils down to what’s fair for all HK children

Mike Rowse says city must ensure equal access to education for its own

Education Minister Eddie Ng Hak- kim is coming close to a decision on the English Schools Foundation subvention. It is always a good thing when a minister is prepared to make a decision. Unfortunately, it seems that, in this case, Ng is on the verge of making the wrong one.

How can we help him turn back from the precipice? It should be said that he may not have been helped by some of the arguments advanced in favour of the subvention. And I think we can assume that his colleagues in the bureau have been urging him to scrap it without presenting all sides of the argument. They, like their predecessors, hate all international schools in general and the ESF in particular.

Those in favour of the subvention continuing tend to put forward arguments along the lines of, “Hong Kong needs expats, there should be subsidised education for their children, the ESF has a long history of providing quality education, anyway many of the children are local.”

All these points have some validity but they can be overstated. Moreover, they miss the main point.

Those who want to scrap the subvention take the line that, “the ESF schools are like international ones, we do not subsidise these, so we should not help the ESF with recurrent costs either”.

Now, there was a time when the ESF enjoyed an unfair advantage in funding vis- à- vis local schools. In those days – several decades ago – the government covered the full costs of ESF schools but the classes were smaller and the facilities of a higher standard. That meant the subsidy per pupil was considerably greater.

This injustice was later corrected and the subsidy per place for ESF schools was fixed at the same as the cost of educating a local child in a local school. This was simple and fair, and meant parents had to pay the extra costs for smaller classes and better facilities.

But, about a decade ago, this formula was abandoned on the grounds of alleged mismanagement of ESF finances, and the subvention was frozen. The fact that the cost of this mismanagement, if any, was borne entirely by the parents through higher fees did not seem to have entered the argument.

That is where we are now. Proponents are saying the ESF finances have been sorted out, so the subvention should be increased accordingly, while opponents will not budge from their “international schools” argument.

This really comes down to fairness. The question that the community should be asking, the question Ng needs to ask himself, is: what is fair in all the circumstances?

All matters concerning education should start with what is best for the children. And matters concerning school fees should heave closely to what is fair for the parents.

Most children would do better to study in a local school predominantly in Cantonese but with some in an Englishmedium stream. The parents of most of those children are permanent residents, whether of Chinese or minority ( including Caucasian) origin, and it is reasonable for all or most of the costs to be borne by the public purse, though a majority of the parents will probably not be taxpayers simply because most Hong Kong employees fall outside the tax net.

A significant number of children would do better to study in an international or ESF school in English and/ or their mother tongue. Many of their parents are also permanent residents, and of both Chinese and minority origin, and a majority will be taxpayers.

So here is my question for Ng: what is the justification for not subsidising the cost of these children’s education, at least to a level equivalent to the cost of educating a local child in a local school?

In matters of public policy, we are, or should be, concerned with what is fair. What is fair for the permanent resident parents of children studying in international and ESF schools?

HK’s secret role in Team GB’s success

First, fill in the right forms – then be willing to give up your present nationality when necessary

There is a lot of confusion in our community about who is and who is not eligible for a Hong Kong passport, and how to get one if you are not eligible.

Unfortunately, readers of an item in last Wednesday’s Public Eye column are not going to be any wiser and may, indeed, be more muddled than before.

The Hong Kong passport states that the nationality of the holder is Chinese. Most people born in our city are Chinese nationals ab initio.

Those who hold another nationality, whether born here or elsewhere, can apply for Chinese nationality under the Nationality Law of the People’s Republic of China.

Section 7 provides three possible routes for non- Chinese to acquire Chinese nationality. They are: close relative ( not defined) of a Chinese national; long- term ( not defined) resident of China ( not defined, but clearly including Hong Kong); other relevant circumstances.

In theory, only one strand needs to be established, but in practice the Immigration Department looks for as much evidence as possible under all three.

As it happens, when I applied in 2001I qualified under all three routes, but I am aware of people with no Chinese relatives – including people of Indian origin – whose applications have been successful.

The procedure is simple. There is an explanatory booklet and an application form readily available from the Immigration Department. Both are fully bilingual and the form can be completed in either of Hong Kong’s official languages.

If the case is reasonably strong, a letter will be issued stating that the application will be approved ( note the lack of equivocation) but that the applicant must now produce evidence that he or she has renounced their existing nationality.

Upon submission of the required evidence, the applicant will receive a Certificate of Naturalisation. Even though it is issued under a mainland law, the certificate is bilingual if issued in Hong Kong.

One country, two systems – remember!

Armed with this certificate, the holder must apply for an amended identity card ( it will have the magic three stars, irrespective of the holder’s ethnicity) and may apply for a local passport.

I have never heard of a passport application being rejected in such cases.

Incidentally, holders of the three- star identity card can then get their Home Return permit from the China Travel Services office.

Why then do we get incidents like the one recently highlighted? Simple. Invariably the people concerned jumped straight to the final stage of the process and applied for a Hong Kong passport.

When they don’t get one, they complain of unfairness.

The grounds they quote in support of their grievance ( born in Hong Kong, long- term resident, speak the language better than Rowse and so on) are relevant for the purposes of application for Chinese nationality but not relevant to the application for a passport itself.

My advice for those concerned? Stop whining, get the correct information booklet and application form. Fill in the latter properly and be willing to give up your present nationality when the time comes.

While we are on the subject, we sometimes hear complaints from athletes, or their parents, who wish to represent Hong Kong at the Olympics or other events of high status.

Then you will get remarks like “why should I be forced to sacrifice my nationality and passport” to represent the place I live in?

My answer to them? If you think giving up your passport is a sacrifice, and you are not proud to become Chinese, then we don’t want you.

Smartphones disconnect people

Apple and Google of the United States are reported to be separately developing a wearable head-up display which allows the wearer to call up a map for directions or watch the news while riding the subway, walking in the street or driving a car. It is said to be in the early stage of development. Early pictures of the prototypes show a device that looks like an eye-glass frame with a stamp-sized screen.

Google’s Project Glass is described as a display with notifications that float above your nose, and icons that float in front of your eyes. Apple isn’t known to have commented publicly on its efforts. But recent patents filed by the company show that a similar project is in the works, and fans already have a name for it “iGlass”.

Hardcore geeks will no doubt be excited by a product with such a wow factor, but to most of us, it is another innovation that begs the question how much more disconnected we want to be in this age of smartphones and computer tablets.

In recent months, I have tried to avoid going to lunch with some of my colleagues. It’s not that I am becoming increasingly antisocial as I grow older, or that they are in any way unpleasant. In fact, I like them. It’s just that I can see no point to spending time with them, as they are always absorbed in playing with their smartphones or iPads, even when they are eating.

Not long ago, I joined two male colleagues for dinner. Once the ordering was done, they pulled out their smartphones. I asked them what they were doing. One said that he was talking to friends on his micro blog and the other said he was keeping an eye on his micro blog for the latest gossip. After that, we spent the entire dinner without exchanging another word while my two companions disconnected themselves from their environment.

Of course, I do that too, but only when I am riding the subway or taking a flight by myself. Even then, I sometimes find it quite interesting to look at what people around me are doing. As humans, we are supposed to be naturally curious about our environment.

I find it absurdly funny to see people talking on phones that cover half their face. And I find it excruciatingly annoying to have people thrusting their tablets in my face to show me high-resolution but badly taken pictures of their babies, pets or themselves in funny costumes.

Now, we will soon be getting wearable head-up displays, as both Apple and Google have deep enough pockets and the technological prowess to produce them sometime in the future, some experts have predicted as early as 2014.

Walking home in the evening after work is becoming a chore. Because as well as dodging the maniacs( STRONG INTEREST )in cars and on electric bikes, I have to avoid bumping into other pedestrians not looking where they are going, as they are totally preoccupied with talking or messaging on their smartphones. Just imagine what it would be like if they start wearing head-up displays.

Half-baked reforms will satisfy few

Nearly half the MPF investments in the past five years were money-losing, the very best managed an average annual return of 5-6 per cent

Here’s the good news and the bad news. As of last week employees can benefit from the new Mandatory Provident Fund Employee Choice Arrangement scheme. The bad news is that the choice will be limited in a most surprising way.

Photo: Corbis Now you can choose to split your dough among providers.The idea is to give employees a better choice of fund providers for their part of the MPF contribution. The employer’s contribution will remain in the hands of whichever company they selected for this purpose in the first place.

So far, so bad but what is not generally known is that although employees will have an annual opportunity to switch funds they will not be able to transfer new payments in their funds.

In other words only existing investments can be transferred; all new payments will have to go to the original fund selected by the employer although they too can be moved after a year and, assuming that MPF contributors have the energy to do so, they can repeat the transfer on an annual basis.

Furthermore, employees can only transfer funds they contribute to a plan, not their employer’s contributions. That money stays with the fund provider selected by the employer. (See cover story).

It is unclear why this restriction lingers because anyone choosing to transfer must be doing so because they are not satisfied with their current fund manager. Yet they are stuck with that manager until they change jobs or the MPF Schemes Authority (MPFA) grasps the nettle and gives employees a full choice of where their funds are invested. The authority is mulling the idea of allowing employees to switch all funds from the original provider but the mulling is taking a while.

And while they are thinking about this they should also be thinking about allowing employees to shift the employer’s contribution because although the employer has a statutory obligation to make these contributions they are made for the benefit of retiring employees not retiring employers.

Also on the MPFA’s radar are ways to cut the high fees levied by the small group of authorised MPF scheme providers, an issue that has been much discussed. The charges are among the highest in the world and these companies are already fighting a rearguard action to maintain this lucrative windfall.

One of the arguments they have been deploying is that investors should focus less on the charges and more on the performance of the funds. It may be wise if they exercised greater caution in using this line of defence.

Last month the Consumer Council published a study which showed that nearly half the MPF investments made in the past five years were money-losing and even the very best funds only managed to achieve an average annual return of 5-6 per cent. The average return was 0.24 per cent, in other words, less than the rate of inflation, thus, in real terms, producing a loss.

The fund providers have argued that this is a difficult time for investors and that other fund managers have also had difficulties securing good returns. A recent report by the data provider Lipper found that in the past 20 years only 40 per cent of equity funds run by European-based fund managers were able to
outperform the benchmarks of the markets in which these funds were invested. This finding closely mirrors that of others, which show that fund managers end up making less money for their investors than could have been achieved by buying exchange traded funds (ETFs) that simply mirror the performance of the markets.

As the MPF fund providers are, without exception, also in the more general fund management business it might be thought that they would be more reticent in highlighting the inadequacies of their industry.

This brings us back to the matter of ETFs, already much discussed on these pages, but not discussed enough at the MPFA. An excellent case could be made for adding the HK Tracker Fund to the list of approved MPF investments, affording better returns than the other MPF providers and at a fraction of the cost.

No doubt this would provoke a new outbreak of dismay from the existing MPF clique and they would muster up all sorts of arguments about Tracker Fund’s lack of experience in this field, and so on. But they cannot say they are offering a better deal for investors – surely this is the bottom line here.

Half the battle

MPF: THE BASIC FACTS

The Mandatory Provident Fund was introduced in Hong Kong by the government in 2000. It is a marketbased plan that covers those workers who never had any kind of pension.

Every month the worker and the employer each contribute 5 per cent of the worker’s salary, or up to HK$1,250. Any extra contribution by the employee is voluntary and, given there is no tax incentive to contribute, many don’t. The employer chooses the provider, which can be a bank, insurance company or fund manager. The employee then decides how to allocate his or her contribution, depending on the appetite for risk.

At the official retirement age of 65, a worker withdraws a lump sum, including any investment gains.

Long-awaited changes to the MPF allow employees to pick their own fund provider, but fall well short of giving them full control, writes Nicky Burridge

If people consolidate [preserved] accounts under one service provider, they will realise they have accumulated a lot of money BONNIE TSE (BELOW), CEO AIA PENSION AND TRUSTEE

All well and good, and fully in keeping with the city’s laissez-faire philosophy. However, the government made people’s participation in the plan mandatory and, furthermore, let employers choose the MPF trust and fund manager used by employees. This resulted in bad outcomes for some. A Consumer Council study released on October 15 found that almost half (45 per cent) of MPF funds lost money over the past five years.

MPF fees are also high. In May, consulting firm Ernst & Young issued a report finding that Hong Kong’s MPF fees averaged 1.74 per cent per annum, much higher than average charges in pension schemes in Australia (1.21per cent), Singapore (1.41per cent) and Britain (1.19 per cent).

Some funds charge very high fees. The AMTD Invesco Target 2048 Retirement Fund involves total yearly charges (fees and expenses) of 4.62 per cent, according to the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority, a regulator.

The MassMutual MPF Guaranteed Fund involves total expenses of 3.86 per cent.

MPF administration is also unwieldy, as it is managed by 19 different trustees that come attached to the 464 funds involved in the scheme.

People change jobs, and they tend to acquire a new MPF fund with each employer. They leave behind a trail of shut, or preserved, accounts. People lose track of their MPF plans. They don’t know where their money is, and because administration is not centralised, they cannot get a single, simple statement of their holdings.

The scheme, in other words, has had much of the downside of a free market (high fees, low regulation and no centralised administration) with little of the upside (choice, competition).

That is why the long-awaited Employee Choice Arrangement, which arrived November 1, is getting so much attention. Finally individuals can choose their own fund provider, presumably one with the lowest fees and most attractive returns.

The liberalisation will give people an incentive to consolidate their funds. After all, if you want to move your current MPF plan to a new fund provider, you might as well gather up all your existing funds and make a mass move. (See sidebar for explanation on how to consolidate funds).

The liberalisation gives people choice and empowers users. But never underestimate the MPF planners’ ability to disappoint – the plan only goes halfway.

Employee Choice does not apply to the matching funds contributed by an employer, which will stay with the old trustee and fund provider.

This is because, under current legislation, employers can offset payments made to workers’ MPF against long-service payments or severance payments. As a result, the MPFA will have to find a way for employers to keep track of the money they have contributed if it is to become fully portable, too. It has started to look at ways of doing this.

Meanwhile, people will still have to live with split accounts, at least with regards to their employers’ contributions.

People can also transfer contributions they paid into MPF funds held with previous employers to a new scheme of their choice.

Inconveniently, people who do switch from their employer’s MPF provider can only move their funds once a year, and have to apply to do so once a year. (See The Week

Explained, page two). New contributions made by them and their employer will still be paid into the original MPF account selected by the employer. Workers can then transfer their contributions to the new fund the following year.

The Employee Choice also only applies to mandatory contributions, and does not affect voluntary contributions.

Wyman Leung, director of the investment services department at Altruist Financial Group, advises everyone to consider whether they should switch provider, but he stresses that not everyone will need to change.

He adds that people should reassess whether they are still with the best provider at least once a year.

Leung says people should not just look at the number of funds a provider offers, but should focus on how much choice there is in terms of the different sectors, asset class and regions in which they can invest, as well as how well the different funds are performing compared with their peers.

For example, does a provider only offer regional bond and equity funds, or does it also have single country funds, sector funds (such as health care) or yuan funds?

“Some providers have more than 30 fund choices, others have only five. Ten to 15 funds is likely to be enough,” says Leung.

Picking a fund will depend a lot on your attitude to risk, as well as how close you are to retirement. For example, if you are 30 years away from giving up work, you can afford to take a greater investment risk than if you will need the money within five years.

The MPFA has a website (mpfa.org.hk) that describes the investment objectives and level of risk of the key MPF fund types, such as equity funds and bond funds. It also gives guidance on which funds suit which type of investor.

Having chosen a fund type, it is then important to compare the charges and past performance of the same type of fund offered by the different schemes. Leung advises people to look at returns going back at least five years, and preferably 10 years, to see how a fund performed in both a bull market and a bear market.

Charges on an MPF fund are made up of three components: the trustee’s fee, the administrative fee and the fund management fee.

Trustee and administration fees are meaningful – the Ernst & Young study found that they make up most (67 per cent) of total MPF charges. However, these fees tend not to vary much from trustee to trustee. It is a kind of fixed cost of MPF.

Fund management fees are more variable, and people have more control over this expense. They can comparison-shop among funds. Tse advises people to look at the fund expense ratio, which measures a fund’s total expenses, including the management fee.

The MPFA website offers an excellent online tool that lets users look up the expense ratio of all MPF funds.

Kelvin Lee, head of institutional business at Schroder Investment Management in Hong Kong, says any fee discussion needs to be balanced with a look at what a fund does, and its returns. Some funds are more ambitious and involve more active management, which might involve higher fees. The fund returns might justify the fees.

He says: “If you look at the fees charged by different providers, the difference is only about 20 basis points. But performance difference for the same category of fund can be between 4 per cent and 5 per cent per annum between the best performing manager and the worst performing one.”

Although MPF providers are not allowed to charge fees when members switch providers, and there are no bid-offer spreads for people buying and selling units, people need to be aware of other possible costs to switching.

Bonnie Tse, chief executive of AIA Pension and Trustee, advises people with money in guaranteed funds to check if there is a restriction on withdrawing their money.

Lee also reminds people that they will face an “out of market risk” every time they change provider, as they will have to sell all their units in one fund, convert them into cash and buy units in their new fund. It is possible that markets could move against them during this period.

People who have changed jobs many times in Hong Kong may have lost track of some of their previous MPF accounts.

The good news is that the MPFA keeps a centralised database of these accounts, which are known as preserved accounts.

To track down a preserved account, members can download an inquiry document from the “forms section” of the MPFA’s website, and send the completed form back to the MPFA, along with a copy of their Hong Kong ID card. Or they can visit one of the MPFA’s offices and show their ID card.

Tse says: “People may have too many preserved accounts to manage, but if they consolidate those accounts under one service provider, they will realise they have accumulated a lot of money.”

Workers should also remember that not changing provider is also an option, if they feel their current plan is doing well.

 

暴 徒 縱 火 衝 擊 入 境 處 50 傷

2000年8月2日，大批聲稱擁有居港權的內地人仕，因不堪忍受政府輸打贏要、利用人大釋法推翻終審法院判決，於是帶著易燃液體和打火機到入境事務大樓內辦公室，
要求與官員見面及遞交請願信，但擾攘整天要求都不被接獲，請願人仕因此威脅自焚。
黃昏時分，入境處要求清場。當時，粱錦光在現場，他是其中一個負責此事件的入境處人員。
清場期間，疑有人情緒突然激動，火團就在一剎那間在人群間燃起並迅速漫延，釀成入境處失火事件。

灣 仔 入 境 處 大 樓 昨 日 傍 晚 發 生 歷 來 政 府 部 門 最 嚴 重 的 縱 火 暴 力 事 件 ﹐ 曾 在 三 個 月 內 十 七 次 滋 擾 入 境 處 的 近 三 十 名 逾 期 居 港 內 地 人 ﹐ 攜 備 多 樽 易 燃 液 體 及 利 器 以 圖 「 一 鑊 熟 」 ﹐ 前 往 入 境 大 樓 要 求 簽 發 身 分 證 被 拒 後 ﹐ 至 入 境 處 下 班 準 備 關 門 時 ﹐ 突 然 發 難 ﹐ 引 燃 大 量 易 燃 液 體 縱 火 ﹐ 並 發 生 爆 炸 ﹐ 室 內 多 名 入 境 處 職 員 及 內 地 人 頓 成 火 人 ﹐ 共 造 成 五 十 人 受 傷 ﹐ 其 中 七 人 危 殆 ﹐ 傷 者 包 括 廿 三 名 入 境 處 職 員 。

在 縱 火 事 件 發 生 後 ﹐ 由 於 傷 者 眾 多 ﹐ 現 場 情 況 十 分 混 亂 ﹐ 消 防 署 派 出 逾 二 十 部 救 護 車 輛 到 場 運 載 傷 者 ﹐ 警 方 亦 將 對 出 告 士 打 道 部 分 馬 路 封 鎖 協 助 搶 救 ﹐ 大 部 分 重 傷 者 頭 面 及 全 身 燒 傷 ﹐ 警 方 港 島 重 案 組 已 接 手 調 查 ﹐ 並 將 六 名 傷 勢 較 輕 的 內 地 人 帶 署 調 查 。

發 生 嚴 重 縱 火 事 件 現 場 位 於 港 灣 道 入 境 事 務 大 樓 十 三 樓 一 三 ○ 一 室 ﹐ 上 址 為 四 乘 五 米 辦 公 室 ﹐ 屬 一 般 調 查 組 及 行 動 組 辦 事 處 ﹐ 負 責 調 查 前 來 自 首 的 逾 期 人 士 。 昨 午 二 時 許 ﹐ 約 近 三 十 名 聲 稱 擁 有 居 留 權 的 男 女 ﹐ 突 闖 入 辦 公 室 內 ﹐ 要 求 面 見 負 責 人 ﹐ 並 要 求 入 境 處 立 即 替 他 們 簽 發 身 分 證 。 當 時 該 辦 公 室 有 約 二 十 名 入 境 處 職 員 ﹐ 由 高 級 入 境 事 務 主 任 梁 錦 光 接 見 ﹐ 並 向 他 們 解 釋 須 合 乎 資 格 及 為 本 港 人 士 始 獲 發 身 分 證 。

該 批 男 女 不 滿 意 回 覆 ﹐ 並 全 部 留 在 該 處 不 肯 離 去 ﹐ 由 於 這 批 人 士 過 往 曾 多 次 到 入 境 處 滋 擾 鬧 事 ﹐ 處 方 職 員 意 識 到 他 們 可 能 會 再 度 生 事 端 ﹐ 於 是 通 知 上 級 增 援 ﹐ 並 知 會 警 方 在 昨 午 五 時 派 出 一 隊 機 動 部 隊 警 員 在 入 境 處 大 樓 地 下 戒 備 。

到 約 六 時 ﹐ 入 境 處 人 員 向 該 批 人 士 表 示 需 要 關 門 下 班 ﹐  他 們 全 部 離 去 。 在 這 時 候 ﹐ 有 人 突 然 發 難 ﹐ 其 中 四 人 取 出 帶 來 的 數 個 裝 有 天 拿 水 的 膠 水 樽 ﹐ 並 將 液 體 倒 在 地 面 ﹐ 部 分 更 潑 向 職 員 。 入 境 處 職 員 初 以 為 液 體 為 清 水 ﹔ 豈 料 有 人 隨 即 點 火 ﹐ 液 體 迅 速 點 燃 並 發 生 搶 水 爆 炸 ﹐ 在 附 近 的 十 名 入 境 處 職 員 ﹐ 包 括 梁 錦 光 ﹐ 當 場 全 身  火 ﹐ 火 勢 更 蔓 延 至 傢 俬 雜 物 一 發 難 收 。

由 於 起 火 地 點 接 近 房 門 ﹐ 四 十 多 人 擠 在 房 內 無 法 逃 生 ﹐ 部 分 職 員 雖 盡 力 救 火 ﹐ 惟 當 中 竟 有 人 再 取 出 利 器 ﹐ 企 圖 「 一 鑊 熟 」 向 入 境 處 職 員 襲 擊 ﹐ 部 分 傷 者 手 、 腳 遭  傷 ﹐ 室 內 的 自 動 滅 火 系 統 被 觸 動 灑 水 。 消 防 處 在 下 午 六 時 零 一 分 接 到 火 警 報 告 ﹐ 而 在 地 下 戒 備 的 警 員 迅 速 趕 上 現 場 ﹐ 抵 達 時 火 勢 已 被 淋 熄 ﹐ 但 仍 冒  濃 煙 ﹐ 室 內 則 堆  有 大 批 傷 者 ﹐ 當 中 多 人 被 燒 至 重 傷 ﹐ 不 斷 呼 叫 呻 吟 消 防 處 及 警 方 馬 上 增 援 ﹐ 派 出 大 量 人 手 到 場 救 援 。

救 援 人 員 一 方 面 將 傷 者 送 院 ﹐ 同 時 疏 散 大 廈 的 其 他 入 境 處 職 員 及 市 民 。 多 名 傷 者 在 送 出 時 均 已 皮 開 肉 綻 ﹐ 消 防 處 派 出 流 動 醫 療 車 到 場 ﹐ 將 傷 者 分 流 及 急 救 ﹐ 並 分 送 港 島 三 間 醫 院 搶 救 ﹐ 事 件 中 合 共 有 五 十 名 男 女 傷 者 送 院 ﹐ 包 括 廿 三 入 境 處 職 員 及 二 十 七 名 內 地 人 。 

2000/8/3

通識爽教室–今日香港：內地孕婦問題

2001年終審法院裁定在港出生但父母皆為內地人的莊豐源勝訴，讓在港出生的內地人可獲得港人身份（莊豐源案）；2003年內地開放自由行，正式為赴港產子的內地孕婦打開大門。面對蜂擁而至的內地孕婦，2011年政府宣佈內地孕婦來港產子的限額：公私營醫院接收內地孕婦最多合共34,400人，其中公立醫院佔3,400人，私家醫院佔31,000人。 逢星期一、五刊出

為甚麼內地孕婦蜂擁來港﹖

1.中國內地一孩政策 中國採用「一孩政策」，限制每一家庭只生一個孩子。違例家庭將喪失房屋及免費教育權利，同時也須繳付罰款。不少內地父母來港產子以逃避內地政策的限制和懲罰。

2.香港較高的醫療技術和醫德 香港醫療服務完善，醫療技術先進；香港醫療人員廉潔奉公，甚少出現受賄的情況（內地醫生仍普遍存在收取病人家屬紅包的情況）。

3.子女的香港居留權 內地孕婦在香港所生的子女擁有香港永久性居民資格並享有眾多社會福利：免費12年教育、公立醫院醫療福利、社會保障福利等；同時便捷出國發展（持香港特區護照可免簽證進入全球134個國家和地區）；內地父母也可申請單程證成為港人。

4.較高的榮耀感 隨?中國內地經濟起飛，富有階層以各種方法炫耀財富，香港醫療素質較佳，費用高昂，成為內地富有階層炫耀財富的動作。                                   

有不少內地孕婦產前檢查不足，增加孕婦和嬰兒的生產風險。

內地婦湧港產子，令本地產婦出現床位嚴重不足問題，多次上街示威抗議。

來港產子帶來甚麼問題﹖

1.本地孕婦床位不足 內地產婦湧入香港產子，由於香港孕婦沒有使用香港醫院的優先權，在需求大增的情況下出現床位不足問題，導致香港人普遍出現不滿情緒。

2.沉重醫療負擔 增建醫院需要較長時間規劃和準備，例如選址、醫療器材、醫療人員的培訓等。供應未能短期內增加，同時私家醫院高薪吸納公立醫院婦產科醫療人員，導致公立醫院醫療人員嚴重短缺，增加了醫療負擔。

3.增加醫療風險 內地孕婦一般產前檢查不足，香港醫生沒有孕婦的病歷記錄，增加了孕婦和嬰兒的生產風險。

4.長期社會福利負擔 在港出生的內地嬰兒可獲得港人身份及享有香港的社會福利，例如津貼醫療服務、房屋福利、免費教育福利等，增加了香港政府的潛在福利開支。

5.增加政府制定政策難度 香港政府未能確定佔香港出生人口接近一半的兒童是否會到來香港讀書、居住及就業。基於這些不確定性，政府未能制定準確的規劃，例如政府在決定是否殺校時，應否把這些內地嬰兒的教育需求考慮在內。                                   

撰文： Hong Sir 遵理學校通識科補習名師

香港政府有甚麼解決辦法﹖

1.長遠增加香港醫療供應 政府可以興建更多醫院，增加醫療供應以解決內地和本地產婦床位不足問題，甚至有聲音指香港可趁機發展醫療產業。但是內地嬰兒仍有香港居留權，未能解決長遠的社會福利，教育負擔和增加制定政策難度的問題，因此這只是治標而非治本的方法。

2.取消內地嬰兒在港出生享有居留權 香港政府可邀請人大修改基本法內相關條文，取消內地嬰兒在港出生後享有居留權的資格，消除內地產婦來港產子的誘因。這較為複雜和有爭議，但無疑是最有效的解決辦法。

3.限制沒有預約的內地產婦入境 港府最新政策是限制公立和私立醫院接收內地產婦的數目，政府可在入境方面對沒有預約香港醫院床位的內地孕婦作出入境限制；內地孕婦如來港進行公務，在得到內地相關部門和公司的保證書後才允許入港。

4.加強在內地的宣傳 政府可以通過廣告或出入境部門向內地孕婦傳達：「香港醫院接待內地孕婦的能力已經達到極限；衝關將嚴重威脅孕婦和嬰兒安全」的信息，讓蜂擁而來的內地孕婦清晰知道潛在風險，減少來港產子和衝關的可能性。