|
Please scroll down for English version 譚偉豪議員：代理主席，在特首發表施政報告後，我一直在互聯網內外向香港市民查問他們對施政報告的滿意程度。數個大方向，包括土地政策、復建居者有其屋單位，以及政府在長者福利上的投放，是得到普遍市民認同的。當然，細節是否公平或會否引起爭議，我相信政府還要多下工夫，才不致令大方向在得到認同之餘，細節卻引起爭議。 很多年青人亦關心就業問題。雖然香港現時的失業率處於低位，但這卻不代表年青人可以找到心儀的職業。這絕對是隱憂，因為香港正面對經濟轉型，但年青人卻無法找到新機遇一展所長 就如何創造新經濟，從而令新一代能夠找到一展所長的職業，如果政府不投放資源，便早晚會形成落差，令香港社會的新一代失去幸福感或期望，亦得不到心中所想的。 雖然香港正發展新經濟，但政府卻必須在舊經濟方面繼續下工夫。很多議員剛才說過，香港的金融業及旅遊業辦得很出色，為我們製造不少就業機會。不過，如果政府不把資源投放在新經濟上，香港有可能在短期內便會被鄰近國家或地區取代。 要搞好新經濟，當局便必須瞭解我們的機遇為何。大家皆知道，由於歐美未來的發展是絕對不能看好的，因此大家會聚焦於亞洲市場上。在芸芸亞洲市場中，中國絕對是香港最容易爭取打入的市場之一。香港可以從“十二五”規劃着手。 去年6月，我前往北京與國內一些朋友討論，中國不想繼續擔任“世界工廠”的角色究竟會造成多大影響。大家皆知道，在香港從事工業的已經面對很大壓力，莫說是從事工業的，即使是從事物流業的或工業輔助的，他們亦面對嚴峻的經營困難。那麼，香港的企業應何去何從呢？ 代理主席，有一個方向是肯定有前景的。在未來30年裏，中國要依靠創新及科技產業，以持續發展。我聽到溫家寶總理在一次發言時說道，在過去30年間，中國的發展的確很迅速，但未來30年的隱憂卻在於國家能否持續過往的經濟發展模式。他更表示在這方面，當然是困難重重。我認為，國家最擔心的是人口老化及成本上漲的問題。凡此種種，對香港也有影響，因為香港不能繼續依靠廉價勞工或繼續從事出口生意。 既然創新及科技產業是中國追求持續發展的最重要方向，那麼香港可扮演的角色為何呢？特區政府需要對這方面作積極考慮及投入資源，並思量如何把香港打造成創新及科技產業平台。大家或許會問，在過去30年來，香港的創新及科技產業發展未如理想，未來可否扭轉此局面呢？中國地大物博，人才眾多，香港在相比之下有何優勝之處呢？ 在我與國內官員討論時，我卻另有一番體會。國家所擔心的，是其科學研究(“科研”)的發展缺乏如香港般優良的大學及科研機構，並受到一些別的發展中國家所受的限制。香港可謂得天獨厚，如果不把握未來10年至20年的時間，把香港發展成為內地其中一個科技窗口的話，當香港失去機遇時，便難以重新擔當類似角色 就此，我翻看施政報告對創新及科技產業的提述。施政報告第160段提及當局會檢討現時的“投資研發現金回贈計劃”(“回贈計劃”)及加強“小型企業研究資助計劃”。我認為這是正確的方向。當局宣布推行有關計劃時，眾多企業對當局決定作出投入的確感到很開心。不過，由於種種原因或資源投入的力度不足───我想相關的政府官員亦心知肚明──有關計劃的效果與大家的目標存在落差。 我希望政府能積極考慮擴大回贈計劃。當局可否考慮將現時10%的現金回贈比率增加至20%或25%呢？此外，當局可否放寬回贈計劃的條件呢？例如，當局可規定申請的企業只需承擔75%的開支，而餘下25%則由政府承擔，以加大彈性。我希望政府在此方面能作出更多投放。 把香港打造成創新及科技產業平台，以吸引國內科研機構進駐香港，也是可予考慮的大方向。過去10年，很多香港企業(特別是工廠)北移，要它們回流香港並非易事，跡近不可能。據聞現時有很多香港公司已經把研發部門慢慢回歸香港。為何如此呢？原因是要進行科研，便不能一味追求價廉。要是如此，矽谷根本便不能進行科研。科研追求創意及應用，香港是時候擔當國內科研機構與國際科研機構合作的橋梁，並把前者吸引來港。不過，問題是，為何要吸引前者進駐香港呢？原因何在呢？ 對於政府投放資源來興建香港科學園第三期，我心感高興。不過，我不禁要問道，只提供土地，難道便能夠吸引國內科研機構進駐香港嗎？絕對不能。國內的土地量比香港多數千倍。香港要擔起科研橋梁的角色，當局便要投放資源在香港的大學、保護版權，以及滿足國內科研機構進駐香港所產生的人才需要，為他們提供誘因 就這方面，我不在此贅述。新加坡及台灣比香港做得更好。所以，我希望政府對創新及科技基金採取新思維，以吸引國內的科研機構進駐香港。只要把香港的創新及科技產業辦好，便能為香港的年青人及大學生製造他們期望已久的工作機會。 主席，我上星期帶領一個科技團前往北京，訪問國家工業和信息化部，希望進一步瞭解在芸芸科研項目類別中，香港可扮演甚麼角色、國內最缺乏的科研項目類別，以及哪些科研項目類別的需求最大。我走了一圈便略知梗概，便是國內要大力研究雲端運算。雲端運算在世界各國已討論經年，近來終於為不同公司廣泛使用，例如蘋果公司也推出了雲端運算(即“i-Cloud”)服務。 中國有數百個城市爭相表示有意研發雲端運算技術。我得悉中央政府已挑選5個城市(包括北京、上海、深圳、杭州及無錫)作為雲端運算試點城市。我一聽到這消息便立即詢問香港可否參與其中，而有關官員的回應是，如果香港想參與，政府便要制訂方案，將其納入CEPA中再作討論。 為何我認為，香港參與雲端運算服務試點會為香港帶來機遇呢？原因是我剛才提及的5個城市皆是國內城市，要在國內與其競爭絕非易事。不過，香港如果能參與其中，便有機會一如以往擔當中國的物流業窗口般，往後成為中國雲端運算服務的對外窗口。如果香港政府願意爭取在CEPA中納入“5+1”的概念，並取得成功，我相信將會吸引很多海外公司把其計算機設置在香港。 最近有報道指，Google把設置在北京總部的“google.cn”伺服器遷到香港。為甚麼呢？原因是香港的通訊接駁設備較佳，亦更安全，其平台也更開放。 當然，要吸引其他機構效法，我們的土地供應便不應缺乏。因此，在特首發表施政報告前，我曾向他詢問可否撥出20公頃土地作為發展香港數據中心(“數據中心”)。特首當時回應說，香港的土地相當珍貴，如果要另撥土地發展數據中心，會存在難度。不過，特首最終亦承諾會撥出土地發展數據中心。教人感到可惜的是，該塊土地的面積與我所要求的有落差。 然而，我認為此舉是好開始。施政報告第159段指出，“政府在將軍澳預留約兩公頃土地作發展數據中心之用”，並“......會積極考慮利用活化工廈措施發展數據中心”。 我認為，要推動香港成為“5+1”雲端運算平台，政府的土地供應量絕不可少。我期望特區政府認真考慮在未來1年至3年內增撥土地，因為雲端運算不單涉及機器的放置，更需要地方凝聚雲端運算服務計算中心。 我相信很多國內企業如果要進行國際生意，便必須擁有“國際雲”。與其讓他們把“國際雲”設置在新加坡或美國，倒不如把該等企業吸引來香港，讓這些希望往海外“衝”的國內企業選擇香港作為設置電腦、計算機及雲端運算中心的平台，藉此把服務和生意覆蓋至海外。就此，我正與很多企業進行商討。我相信財政司司長如果能夠藉CEPA爭取落實“5+1”的建議，對香港而言會是很大的機遇。 主席，我剛才提到創新及科技對香港的重要性，亦提到雲端運算計算中心將構成香港服務業及出口業的重要一環，那麼究竟當局應採取甚麼措施，才能讓香港走上高增值服務的發展道路呢？我相信，依靠現時的官員和資源並非無法辦到，只是會較為吃力。 為此，我在上年度的立法會會議上曾提出一項議案，建議特區政府進行研究，並考慮向下屆特區政府建議成立創新科技局。當然，這必須由下一屆特區政府的特首決定，但預先進行研究及下工夫，絕對有利新一屆特區政府參考。 我相信香港要步入新經濟發展，便需擁有新架構，從而協助香港步入互聯網經濟發展，為下一代創造更多就業機會和機遇。 主席，我謹此陳辭。 資料來源：（頁面編號573-577） http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr11-12/chinese/counmtg/hansard/cm1026-translate-c.pdf ********************************************************************* DR SAMSON TAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, after the Chief Executive delivered the Policy Address, I have been conducting surveys among Hong Kong people on and beyond the Internet to find out to what extent they are happy with the Policy Address. Several general directions, including the land policy, resumption of the provision of HOS flats, and the Government's injection into elderly welfare, are generally supported by members of the public. Of course, there may be controversies over the fairness of the details, and I believe the Government will have to make greater efforts to ensure that the details would not arouse controversies even though the general directions have commanded public support. Many young people are concerned about employment. Although the current unemployment rate in Hong Kong is on the low side, it does not mean that young people can find jobs that they like. This is absolutely a hidden worry because, while Hong Kong is now undergoing economic restructuring, there is no way for young people to find new opportunities to bring their talents into play. With regard to the question of how a new economy can be created to enable the new generation to find jobs in which they can give play to their talents, if the Government does not channel resources to this cause, a gap would emerge sooner or later and this would cause the new generation of society to lose their sense of well-being or expectations and make it impossible for them to obtain what they want. While Hong Kong is gearing up for the development of a new economy, ongoing efforts of the Government are still required for the old economy. As many Members have said earlier, the financial services and tourism industrie have made remarkable achievements and created plenty of job opportunities for us. But if the Government does not plough in resources for the development of a new economy, Hong Kong may possibly be taken over by neighbouring countries or regions in a short time. To effectively develop a new economy, the authorities must have a clear picture of what opportunities are available to us. As we all know, given that there is absolutely no reason to take a positive outlook on the future development of Europe and America, everyone will, therefore, turn their attention to the Asian markets. Of the many markets in Asia, China is absolutely a market most readily opened for development by Hong Kong. Hong Kong can start from the 12th Five-Year Plan. In June last year, I visited Beijing and discussed with some friends in the Mainland how significant the impact would be in the event of China relinquishing its role as the "world factory". As we all know, people engaging in industries in Hong Kong have already faced immense pressure; even those engaging in the logistics industry or ancillary services for industries are faced with serious operational difficulties, not to mention people engaging in industries. Such being the case, what should be the way forward for enterprises in Hong Kong? Deputy President, there is one direction which certainly offers good prospects. In the next three decades, China will have to rely on innovation and technology industries to achieve sustainable development. I heard Premier WEN Jiabao once say that China has developed very rapidly indeed over the past three decades, but a hidden worry in the next three decades is the sustainability of its mode of economic development, adding that this would obviously be a task punctuated by countless difficulties. In my view, population ageing and rising costs are the gravest concerns of the State. All these will have an impact on Hong Kong, for it means that Hong Kong can no longer rely on the supply of cheap labour or sustain the export business. Since innovation and technology industries are the most important direction in China's pursuit of sustainable development, what role can Hong Kong play in this process? It is necessary for the SAR Government to actively consider this and inject resources to this end, and study how Hong Kong can be developed into a platform for innovation and technology industries. Members may ask: Since the development of innovation and technology industries in Hong Kong has been far from satisfactory over the past three decades, can the situation be reversed in the future? And, as China has vast expanses of land and is endowed with rich resources and an abundant supply of talents, what advantages does Hong Kong possess for it to have an edge in comparison? I have gained some insights from my discussion with Mainland officials. The State is concerned about the lack of quality universities and scientific research institutions as those in Hong Kong, while being subject to restrictions similar to those of other developing countries in the course of scientific research development. Hong Kong can be said to be enjoying a privileged position. If we do not seize the opportunity opened to us in the next decade or two to develop Hong Kong into a "technology window" for the Mainland, and when Hong Kong lets this opportunity slip by, it would be difficult for us to play a similar role again in future. In this connection, I have read the paragraphs under innovation and technology in the Policy Address. Paragraph 160 of the Policy Address mentioned that the Government would review the Research and Development Cash Rebate Scheme (Rebate Scheme) and enhance the Small Entrepreneur Research Assistance Programme. I think this is a correct direction. When the above scheme and programme were announced, many enterprises were very glad indeed to learn of the Government's decision to make these commitments. But owing to various reasons or inadequate injection of resources ― I think the relevant government officials know the reasons only too well ― the results of these initiatives have fallen short of our targets. I hope the Government can actively consider extending the Rebate Scheme. Can consideration be given to increasing the rate of cash rebate from the current 10% to 20% or 25%? Moreover, can the requirements of the Rebate Scheme be relaxed? For instance, the authorities can stipulate that the applicant enterprises only have to pay 75% of the expenses, whereas the remaining 25% will be borne by the Government, in order to allow greater flexibility. I hope that the Government can make greater commitments in this respect. The development of Hong Kong into a platform for innovation and technology industries to attract Mainland science research institutions to station in Hong Kong is also a direction worthy of consideration. Over the past decade, many Hong Kong enterprises (especially factories) have relocated northward, and it is not easy or almost impossible to bring them back to Hong Kong. It is learnt that many Hong Kong companies have gradually moved their research and development departments back to Hong Kong. Why? Because when it comes to scientific research, "cheap cost" cannot be the sole overriding factor, or else scientific research primarily would not have been conducted in the Silicon Valley. Scientific research attaches great importance to creativity and application. It is time for Hong Kong to act as a bridge for collaboration between Mainland scientific research institutions and their international counterparts, and attract the former to come to Hong Kong. But the question is why we have to attract the former to station in Hong Kong? What are the reasons? I am glad that the Government will inject resources into the development of the Hong Kong Science Park Phase 3. Having said that, I must ask: Can the mere provision of land attract Mainland scientific research institutions to station in Hong Kong? This is absolutely impossible. The quantity of land in the Mainland is several thousand times more than that in Hong Kong. In order for Hong Kong to act as a bridge in scientific research, resources must be provided for the universities in Hong Kong and also for the protection of copyrights and meeting the needs for talents arising from the stationing of these Mainland institutions in Hong Kong, in order to give them incentives. On these points, I will not go into details here. Singapore and Taiwan are doing far better than Hong Kong. In view of this, I hope that the Government will adopt a new mentality towards the Innovation and Technology Fund, with a view to attracting Mainland scientific research institutions to station in Hong Kong. So long as the innovation and technology industries in Hong Kong are developed effectively, we can provide our young people and university graduates with job opportunities that they have long yearned for. President, last week I led a deputation of the technology sector to Beijing. We visited the State Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, hoping to further find out from the many types of scientific research projects, what role Hong Kong can play, which types of projects are most lacking in the Mainland, and which types of projects have the greatest demand. I have got some broad ideas after this brief visit and realized that the Mainland intends to put in great efforts on studies of cloud computing. Cloud computing has been discussed for years in places all over the world and in recent years, it has been eventually adopted extensively by different companies. Apple Inc., for instance, has also provided i-Cloud service. In China, hundreds of cities are competing to show an interest in studying the development of cloud computing technologies. I have learnt that the Central Government has selected five cities (including Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Hangzhou and Wuxi) for application of cloud computing technologies on a pilot basis. No sooner had I learnt of this news than I asked whether Hong Kong could also be involved. The relevant officials responded that if Hong Kong would like to play a part in it, the Government would have to draw up a proposal and incorporated it into CEPA for further discussion. Why do I think that playing a part in the pilot application of cloud computing can bring opportunities to Hong Kong? The reason is that the five cities that I have just mentioned are all Mainland cities, and it is absolutely not easy to compete with them in the Mainland. But if Hong Kong can be involved, we will have the opportunity to become a window for China's cloud computing service to reach out to the world in future, just as we have been serving as a window for China's logistics industry. If the Hong Kong Government is willing to strive for the incorporation of the "5+1" concept into CEPA and if this can be achieved successfully, I believe many overseas companies will be attracted to set up their computer systems in Hong Kong. Recently, it has been reported that Google has moved to Hong Kong their server "google.cn" which was originally set up in its Beijing head office. Why? The reason is that Hong Kong has better communication connection facilities and fares better in terms of security and openness of the platform. Certainly, in order to attract other companies to follow suit, there should not be any shortage in land supply. In this connection, before the Chief Executive delivered the Policy Address, I had asked him whether 20 hectares of land can be earmarked for the development data centres in Hong Kong. The Chief Executive responded that land in Hong Kong is very precious and there would be difficulty in setting aside land for the development of data centres. But the Chief Executive has ultimately undertaken to provide land for developing data centres, just that the area of the site to be granted falls short of what I have requested, much to my regret. Having said that, I think this is a good beginning. Paragraph 159 of the Policy Address pointed out that "…… the Government has reserved about 2 hectares of land in Tseung Kwan O for data centre use.", and "…… we will seriously consider the feasibility of developing data centres in revitalized industrial buildings". In my opinion, in order to promote the development of Hong Kong into the "5+1" cloud computing platform, the Government must ensure that there is absolutely no shortage in land supply. I hope the SAR Government will seriously consider increasing the provision of land over the next one to three years, because cloud computing involves not only the placement of machines. Space is all the more required for the clustering of cloud computing service centres. I believe many Mainland enterprises must have "international clouds" in order to engage in business globally. Instead of turning them to Singapore or the United States to set up their "international clouds", we had better to attract these enterprises to Hong Kong, so that these Mainland enterprises hoping to venture into overseas markets will choose Hong Kong as the platform for stationing their computers, systems and cloud computing centres and hence extend the coverage of their business and service to overseas. In this connection, I have been discussing this with many enterprises. I believe if the Financial Secretary can seek support for implementing the "5+1" proposal through CEPA, it would open up a huge opportunity for Hong Kong. President, I have just highlighted the importance of innovation and technology industries to Hong Kong. I have also mentioned that cloud computing centres will become an integral part of the service industry and exports of Hong Kong. In this connection, what measures should be taken by the authorities to put Hong Kong onto the path towards the development of high value-added services? I think it is not impossible to achieve this end by relying on the existing officials and resources, just that it will take quite strenuous efforts. To this end, I had moved a motion at a meeting of the Legislative Council in the last Session, proposing that the SAR Government should conduct studies and consider proposing to the next term of SAR Government the establishment of an innovation and technology bureau. Of course, a decision will rest with the Chief Executive of the next-term Government, but conducting studies and carrying out work in advance will absolutely provide useful reference for the next term of the SAR Government. In order to develop a new economy, I believe Hong Kong must have in place a new structure to help it pursue the development of Internet economy, thereby creating more jobs and opportunities for the next generation. President, I so submit. Source: Pages numbered 820-826 http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr11-12/english/counmtg/hansard/cm1026-translate-e.pdf |
