瘋狂的欄杆 無情的官僚

載於2019年07月10日信報：

在日益缺乏權力制衡的香港政治環境下，官員的自滿情緒日漸高漲，愈來愈視市民為應受驅趕或圍控的畜生，而非應享便利或幫助之同儕。而此類官大民微思維其中一個症狀，乃是街頭不斷泛濫，每每對行人造成不便，兼且美觀上慘不忍睹，但又令人難越雷池一步的欄杆。

圈趕市民，街頭變監獄

本文（另文見此）嘗試將香港欄杆與其他先進國際城市比較，帶出本港當權者如何高高在上，視群眾如無物，而他埠道路管理者又是如何體貼行人，處處為用者設想。

先由交叉路口著手，香港的欄杆只求行車暢順，不理行人方便，在極多路口都實行大包圍設計，留下極窄行人缺口【圖1a】以防路人自由橫過，結果反而導致繁忙時間人滿之患，逼人作出更危險的動作。相反，以人為本的星加坡及倫敦在同樣多人多車的交匯點都只是輕度樹障，而且是擋車而不困人：

香港政府對車輛的狂熱及崇拜，已導致路面上欄杆總長度超過1，500公里【註】，比八年前的730公里狂升一倍有多。相當於9%的年复合增长率，遠遠高於同期3.4%的國內生產值增幅！

香港欄杆的設計除了營造一個街頭監獄的環境，亦對美化環境毫不關注，顯示官僚遙遙在上，與民脫節。相對之下，上圖中新加坡以精心打理的草叢植被作引導行人的有機圍欄【圖1b】，不但親切，在視覺上更比香港充滿敵意的鋼鐵陣容美觀得多。

本港大量購置限制性最強的人群控制設備來對付自己的人民,實在令人擔心制定此一政策者之精神状態：近年在香港最多出現的欄杆型號，根據運輸署文件，乃是「第4款欄杆 - 控制用途（type 4 railings for control purpose）」而非其他較人性的設計【圖2】；相比之下，就連身處農場的綿羊可能也不禁取笑可憐的香港市民【圖3】。

圖2: H2282第4款欄杆 - 「控制用途」

圖3: 港人投胎做綿羊更好過？

然則，乘AM座駕出入的港官似乎沒有意欲讓可憐的行人更暢順地行走，在制定政策時只會為車輛的方便著想：據一份2017年的運輸署兼路政署的内部通告指，欄桿的用途「並非保護行人遭受車輛撞擊，而是控制及引導行人…以管理交通」（見來源）。可見官僚犧牲了市民在市中心街道内走行的權利，不斷將其逼向越趨狹窄的行人路上跟街鋪、上落貨工人、及其他路邊活動爭奪有限空間，同時在欄杆的另一面可能是空無一車的行車徑。此一境況與比較少甚或不設欄杆的新加坡和倫敦街道相比，更顯別城道路管理者對行人倍加尊重的態度！

惡魔島 對 聖托里尼 ？

再看安全島之鋪排：香港安全島上之鐵欄陣同樣敵視行人，以下三圖相比，結論不言自諭：

圖4a:香港雲咸街

圖4b: 星加坡絲絲街

圖4c: 倫敦博物館街

香港政府過度設置欄杆的行徑，再次表現出官僚對市民質素缺乏信心：安全島四處鋪滿欄杆【圖４a】；對比下，星加坡與倫敦的安全島更顯得簡潔、合理、舒服【圖４b】。現行政策處處以車為先，只會導致行人被迫鋌而走險，而駕駛者則因自己有優先而更加魯莽，道路因此可能變得加倍危險。

中央規劃　遠離用家

從圖１的對比可見以人為本的城市如星加坡和倫敦就算在最繁忙的地點上也不需要港式的惡形惡相欄杆，然而香港無論幾小的窄路小巷都草木皆兵，如臨大敵（見【圖５b】），足見本地官員之離地。

圖5a:香港禮頓道 – 直如Rails’R’Us

圖 5b: 香港廈門街 – 多多益善！？

民間的有心vs官方的冷漠

行文至此，讀者亦無須對香港行人路設施完全失去信心！只要是由鄰近居民和業主，而非高居象牙塔公務員來管理及設計，香港不乏優美適當的欄杆典範，如下：

圖6a: 太古城（太古） – 短柱足矣

圖6b: 太子大廈（置地） – 一段短路有三款圍欄安排

圖6c: 港島東（太古） – 安全島無圍欄一樣安全！

由此可見，過度濫放欄杆並不是市民一手造成的，而是官僚懶惰管理下不經大腦之副產品。如果私人業主可以引入時尚、方便、對行人友善的欄桿，也許更多行人路管理的權力應該歸還給業主甚至區議會。

只有「還政於民」，道路的設計、走線、用途和管理才能真正切合當地社區的個性和用者的需求。不知何日政府架構來一次改革，下放多些民生管理權，令市民更多直接參與，實一石二鳥之舉也。


筆者特別鳴謝香港大學學生張信一協助本文的数据收集，分析和起草。

Treat people like animals, they act like animals

Posted on 5 July 2019 Stand News:

HK people herded like livestock

Hong Kong bureaucrats, in the absence of proper check and balances, are getting more daring by the day in their view that the people are to be treated like sheep, to be herded and controlled, rather than being helped and guided. The most indicting manifestation of such high handed arrogance can be seen in the increasing proliferation of cruel looking, impenetrable, road side railings that are now becoming an epidemic that plagues all of the city.

In this article (link to earlier writing here), your author will show how Hongkongers have been demeaned by this low opinion their rulers have held of them, especially when contrasted to treatment of other fellow human beings in equally cosmopolitan cities.

Starting with road junctions and crossings, HK railings are erected at any conceivable location so as to prevent people from crossing roads, with often dangerous and inhumane levels of congestion and jaywalking resulting from this draconian overdose of barriers, as shown below:

Fig 1a: King’s Road, Hong Kong – barricading people in

Fig 1b: Church Street, Singapore – unobtrusive protection from vehicles

Fig 1c: Piccadilly, London – only railings are around Tube entrances (if you can spot them!)

This HK obsession with putting cars first is made obvious by the fact that over 1,500 kilometers (source) of railings now line the roads, more than twice the 730 kilometers that existed merely 8 years ago – a compound annual growth rate of 9% a year, far in excess of the city’s GDP growth of a paltry 3.4% for the same period!

Further to the widespread prison-like steel fences everywhere in HK, there is a total absence of attempts to beautify nearby surroundings, forming yet another sharp contrast with global peers – in Singapore, well tended and lively greenery act as barriers rather than crude railings (Figure 1b), even at the busiest of pedestrian crossings.

The wholesale purchasing of the meanest form of crowd control equipment makes one question the mental state of the persons in charge of such decisions – in HK the most common railing being put up everywhere nowadays are the “type 4 railings for control purpose” (Figure 2), even sheep will laugh at the poor pedestrians of HK (Fig 3):

Fig 2: H 2282 Type 4 Railings – “For Control Purpose” Fig 3: livestock railings a far cry above what Hongkongers have to put up with

Instead of helping to ease flows of people, the AM sedan riding mandarins will only pamper to cars, according to a joint Transport and Highway Department circular, railings are “not designed to protect pedestrians from vehicular impact but to control and guide pedestrians for road safety and traffic management purposes”(source). So the bureaucrats sacrifice the walkability of city centre streets by forcefully pushing people into ever narrower pedestrian strips where they often have to contend with stalls, loading goods, and a thousand other road-side activities, while the neighbouring car lanes often remain empty. In contrast, the bollards and absence of any type of barrier in Singapore and London in the above examples show how sympathetic road administrators there are to fellow human beings.

Alcatraz vs Santorini?

The same hostile mentality can be seen also in Refuge Islands in HK, and the following three examples prove the point conclusively:

Fig 4a: Wyndham St, Hong Kong

Fig 4b: Cecil St, Singapore

Fig 4c: Museum St, London

Again, Hong Kong’s overenthusiasm in erecting railings is a sign of lack of confidence in its own people – here most refuge islands are heavily impregnated with railings, whereas these are rarely found in Singapore in London. With car lane provision prioritising ahead of pedestrian facilitation, people on foot are goaded into careless or dangerous situations, whilst cars now drive more recklessly too.

Brainless application a symptom of centralized planning

In the first pictures above, one can see that even the busiest streets in caring metropolis such as Singapore and London can do without railings, which makes Hong Kong criminal in its blind sprinkling of savage railings, even in quiet walkways with barely any traffic (Figure 5b):

Fig 5a: Leighton Rd, Hong Kong – Railings’R’Us Fig 5b: Amoy Street – the more the merrier!

Private sector care contrasts sharply vs bureaucratic nonchalance

Before losing faith in the future of pedestrian experience in HK, you will be pleased to know that, when managed and cared for by nearby residents and landlords instead of ivory tower dwelling civil servants, there are some exemplary good cases in HK’s railings too, as shown here:

Fig 6a: Taikoo Shing, Swire – bollards suffice

Fig 6b: Princes Building, HK Land – 3 railings options in one small stretch

Fig 6c: Island East, Swire – no railings on refuge island!

It appears therefore, that the excessive use of hostile railing is a problem due not to the people but to the way roads are managed. If private property owners can introduce stylish, convenient, and generally pedestrian friendly rails, perhaps this should be a power that is returned to land owners or even district councils.
Only by returning power to the people, road designs, designations, and management can truly be tailored to the individual character and needs of the local community.

The author would like to thank Shaun Cheung of The University of Hong Kong for assisting in data collection, analysis, and drafting of this article.

After SGP, GVA seizes innovation opportunity... HK trailing again!

We have highlighted multiple instances of HK's hostility to real innovative phenomena (see here, here, here, here, and here) with its civil servants pouring tax payer money at vested interest groups, and only allowing heavily regulated, mandarin approved tech initiatives (eg virtual bank licences only granted to PRC linked applicants? see list here).

The result of this centralised strategy in promoting innovation is that big prizes such as reported below will increasingly head for fast moving competing jurisdictions such as Singapore and Switzerland...

Geneva gives Facebook's cryptocurrency a warm welcome

Wed, Jun 26, 2019 - 5:50 AM


POLICY makers around the globe have been cool to the idea of Facebook Inc.'s planned Libra cryptocurrency. In Switzerland? They liked it so much, Facebook decided to set up shop there.

Geneva is "excited" to work with Facebook, the canton's economic development chief Pierre Maudet said last week after it emerged Facebook had picked the Swiss city as the home of the Libra Association, a not-for-profit organisation that will govern the payment network and manage a financial reserve for the cryptocurrency.

...

The move reflects the country's light-touch approach to regulation and an enthusiasm for digital currency not shared by officials elsewhere who worry about its potential as a haunt for criminals.

"Switzerland's regulation is much lighter than in other European countries when it comes to cryptocurrencies," said Sven Korschinowski, a partner at KPMG. "It made sense for Libra to come to Switzerland."
...
Finma said last week it's in contact with Facebook to determine if the project would need approval. More broadly, however, Finma's approach to regulating crypto has gone down well with Crypto Valley executives. "Finma deserves a lot of credit for being very pragmatic and patient in the way they have been approaching the subject," said John Hucker, the president of the Swiss Finance & Technology Association.

It was Switzerland's appeal as a place to connect to civil society and international organisations that clinched it for Facebook, said Dante Disparte, a spokesman for Libra.

"Our goal is to manage Libra, the technology and the digital currency very much like a public good, so where better than Switzerland to make this kind of global organisation and project," he said in an interview.

Cryptocurrencies also offer a new area to compete in now that Swiss private banking has been so undermined by foreign prosecutors looking to root out tax evaders stashing their fortunes in Switzerland, says Andre Brunner, a cryptocurrency expert at Capco in Frankfurt.

"With bank secrecy under threat, crypto is a door to a new world and you have the lawyers and the currency experts here, the ecosystems," said Brunner. BLOOMBERG