【e線金融網】標指、那指創史詩級新高 港股繼續主題炒作？ 20260512

2026年5月12日

王震宇、郭思治：標指、那指創史詩級新高 港股繼續主題炒作？

內容：

。聯儲局換主席，對利息走勢影響

。美匯指數走勢

。香港樓價走勢

。美伊戰爭未來發展的預估及對通脹影響

。黃金未來的走勢

。bitcoin的未來走勢

。美股會否爆煲

。亂世下的投資策略

來源：香港電台【e線金融網】

特此鳴謝

香港電台

主持人：劉明正、徐昂、袁立一、段潔

攝影及剪接: 香港電台公共事務組

香港交通管理: 虎媽般寵溺 多於 利民式便捷

香港交通管理: 虎媽般寵溺　多於　利民式便捷

本文亦於2026年5月12日在【信報】刊登：虎媽交通管理 溺愛多於便利?

繼上篇改善香港交通管理的文章發表後（請見此），更多的想法持續湧現或回饋自讀者。筆者遂狗尾續貂，再提多些理性的建議：

絕對的過路安全vs行人心理／聽力的安寧？

本港的行人交通信號聲音嘈吵兼刺耳，甚至對過馬路的行人產生心理壓力。更有甚者，當多個橫越線密集時，重疊急促的訊號聲更令人難以忍受。操控交通的公僕是否因以道路安全上綱上線，而犧牲了其他持份者（例如住在路口上方的居民）的利益？

相較之下，許多其他國家使用更柔和、更悅耳的信號燈聲音，既能提醒行人，亦可保持良好的道路體驗：日本、墨西哥和西班牙使用令人放鬆的鳥鳴聲，而泰國則使用有節奏的嗶嗶聲或悅耳的滴答聲。以下列出這些更安靜舒緩的替代音效以供比較：

表一：他國悅耳信號聲音例子

訊號燈風格	影片連結 (時間標籤)	聲音有如
	日本 (2:03)	鳥鳴聲
	加拿大 (4:10)	柔和的旋律
	墨西哥 (4:31)	鳥鳴聲
	西班牙 (6:36)	鳥鳴聲
	泰國 (7:25)	柔和的節拍

來源：全球對比影片(見此)

 

港式保姆　極端呵護？

自2022年7月以來，運輸署在本港行人過路處安裝了1600個「紅色人像」投影燈，「以提升行人安全」。

圖一: 兩盞紅燈仍不足，鋪天蓋地再染紅！

但人性決定了這種紅光照明充其量也只能起到微弱的警示作用：諾丁漢大學的研究（見此）表明，90%的行人會無視投影燈，通常會在查看交通狀況後過馬路，而非跟從投影燈指示。

這些出於好意的強光惹來附近的居民的厭惡──灣仔區議員林偉江的光污染質詢【圖二】就是一個例子。當然，真正會投訴的只是受影響居民中的極少數，大部分市民可能只會啞忍了事。

圖二：關於光害的區議會提案

運輸當局以典型的家長式作風輕易揮霍公帑，已經豪花了959萬港元部署這些燈光投影燈，這些設備不僅需要維修和更換，而且須於一年365天、一天24小時長期開著，花費大量的電費。

假設每台投影燈的功率為200瓦，那麼每年將消耗1752千瓦時的電量。依照目前的部署規模，該項目已經耗費納稅人超過1,670萬港元金錢（見下【表二】）。如此上綱上線地對安全的著魔，在世界上似是首屈一指！

 

表二: 幫投影燈電力成本計數

	參考	計算
全年消耗200W燈泡(kWh)	A	200x24x365/1,000 = 1,752
每千瓦時的費用 (用電+ 燃料)*	B	($1.1 + $0.39) = $1.49
每個燈泡全年的費用	C=AxB	1,752 x 1.49 = $2,610.48
納稅人的總費用 (預計共有1600個投影燈，4個燈泡在1個行人過路處: 6400個燈泡 )	C x 6400	$2,610.48 x 6400 = $16,707,072

*使用較便宜的中華電力定價，此處為當前費率: CLP & HK Electric

港府似乎一心想要控制道路使用者的行為，以追求絕對的道路安全，市民卻會為此付出巨大的代價，亦損害了用者的方便和道路系統的整體效率。最近另一個愚蠢兼不受歡迎虎媽政策莫過於「強制巴士乘客繫安全帶」，犯法市民不單罰款，更可入獄！幸好此惡法現已暫停（見報道）。如果香港想要躋身世界級城市前茅，當權者就必須改變這種居高臨下的法家治理心態。

行人交通燈為何不裝倒數計時器？

筆者上篇文章建議為汽車紅綠燈裝上倒數計時器（見此），但為何不將此便民裝置推廣到行人交通燈呢？倒數計時器對汽車的所有好處同樣適用於行人：

圖三： 行人倒數計時器

 

香港早應實施「紅燈轉彎」安排

香港交通管理的另一項改進措施，對於經常去北美的人來說應該並不陌生：即當前方交通信號為紅燈時，車輛可以在十字路口轉彎，如下圖所示：

圖四: 紅燈左轉

當前方信號燈為紅燈時車輛可以左轉（或於美式交通系統下，則為右轉），如上圖綠色箭頭所示。這種設置有許多好處（例如，國際交通科學與技術期刊的研究證實了這一點），通常可以改善交通流量和整體道路通行能力。

本港油麻地佐敦道與威民道交界處就是一個很好的例子。即使橫向交通流量通常很小，目前過時的路口控制安排導致繁忙時段車輛嚴重阻塞，從西隧道駛出、經佐敦道向東行駛的車輛無法被引導向北行駛（即【圖五】中的左轉）。此外，該路段短距離內設有多個紅燈路口，導致頻繁停車。

圖五: 佐敦道交通應可因紅燈左轉改革而受益

香港是其中一個禁止紅燈左轉的地區，儘管這種做法在中國大陸已很普遍。隨著香港與內地的融合日益加深，現在正是升級此一規則的良機。

本港可能還有很多其他方面可以改善交通體驗，有機會筆者會再拋磚引玉。如果您想幫助城市更為方便宜居，請主動寫信給有關部門或政策制定者遊說變革...

 

筆者特別鳴謝香港城市大學環球商業系統管理周澤均同學和香港城市大學金融系陳凱琪同學協助收集及整理本文相關數據及圖表。

 

額外材料

香港大學的一項研究表明，這些設備可以有效減少 25% 的闖紅燈行為

https://english.dotdotnews.com/a/202306/23/AP649541cee4b08eeabfe03db8.html

 

Overcomplexity confuses/deters - HK’s talent schemes should be pruned

Following our comments on improving Hong Kong’s talent attraction regime (see link), the HKSAR government, instead of simplifying and rationalising the existing scheme, has multiplied and complicated the set up into a whole pile of new initiatives which are now overlapping and confusing not only to the casual observer, but probably to the administrators themselves. Let us unravel this massive entanglement in the rest of this article:

Hong Kong has attracted, cumulatively, some 1.36m fresh talent to the city since the handover in 1997 through various schemes; as of 2025 some 55% of approvals granted are still due to the original ‘vanilla’ scheme under the General Employment Policy (GEP, red bar in chart), but the Admission Scheme for Mainland Talent & Professionals scheme (what a mouthful, we will call it ASMTP below, see orange bar) has since taken a second position to have allowed 18% of PRC applicants to enter HK. Although not a permanent entitlement to stay, the then freshly introduced Immigration Arrangements for Non-local Graduates (another mouthful! or IANG below, see green bar) takes third position in total intakes at 14%:

Chart 1: Cumulative approvals for HK’s talent admission schemes since 1997 handover

This apparent achievement however masks a deeper problem: the proliferation of overlapping and increasingly complex schemes may be creating unnecessary confusion for applicants and employers alike, and undermining the original intent of making HK competitive in the global race for talent. We have spent huge amounts of efforts to try and categorise these various schemes, hang on to your seats…

A maze of pathways, but are they even necessary?

Our analysis here has excluded some of the other lower paid labour import schemes and focused on the ‘highly educated’ segments – so no Enhanced Supplementary Labour Scheme (ESLS, totalling 29,255 by mid 2025) or Foreign Domestic Helper Scheme (FDHS, totalling 367,971 by end 2024).

Hong Kong’s talent scheme proliferation is now out of control - instead of two or three clear routes (eg. one for investment, one for talent, and one for labourers), we have now a long list of branded programmes – each with its own acronym, thresholds and marketing slogan – aimed at broadly the same pool of skilled workers. This creates an illusion of ‘innovation’ without expanding the real options available: most applicants still just need a predictable path to live and work, not a menu of near‑duplicate labels. The more schemes are added, the harder it becomes for individuals and employers to understand which channel to use, and the easier it is for government to claim success by launching “new” initiatives. Table 1 summarises the picture of current state of affairs, after we dug deep and summarised from the plethora of definitions and statistics, press releases and legco answers by the government:

Table 1: comprehensive compare and contrast of the various current talent schemes

What do you think? Is this an easy way to attract talent, or does it merely create paperwork and rent-seeking by so called ‘consultants’ who extract economic value from the applicants due to the system’s complexity?

Overlapping Talent Admission Scheme

Instead of blindly opening up new avenues to attract quality migrants, it will help to adopt a more structured approach, by categorising the channels of admission into a small number of key attributes – it is easy to summarise the existing schemes into 5 broad categories intended to attrace:
a) capital – applicants need to invest in HK;
b) expertise – applicants brings needed skills;
c) academic qualifications – applicants need to be good at passing exams;
d) labour in shortage – applicants fill jobs that locals cannot or will not fill;
e) mainlanders – applicants are PRC residents.

The rough overlap of the various schemes are best laid out in the following schematic.

Figure 1: segments intended by the various current admission schemes

It becomes very easy to suggest what to scrap and what to keep as a result of this analysis – any two schemes occupying the same segment should be cut down to just one. Possible abolition possibilities, in no specific order, are:

Expertise (red circle) – given the need for skills is far more important than endless collections of degree qualifications, QMAS should be abolished and just keep TTPS-A;

Labour in need (green circle) – given GEP is tried and tested, and Tech TAS smacks of ambulance chasing when everyone is bullish AI, while ASMTP should not really be given preference to better qualified global talent, these two superfluous schemes should be cancelled, and keeping GEP alone;

Mainlanders (yellow circle) – there is a familial reason to bring HK residents’ children to be reunited, hence ASSG makes sense, but ASMTP is obviously unnecessary when other categories can serve genuine talent needs better;

Academic Qualifications (blue circle) – there is a presumption that higher degrees make for better workforce. This is an attitude that worked perhaps up to 20 years ago, but with more global successful companies turning away from academic qualifications (see Google hiring non-graduates here, with IBM and Apple de-emphasising degrees too, see here, and even accounting firms, see here), and the academia increasingly becoming profit centres and woke factories, not to mention China alone churning out 11m university graduates a year (link), HK can surely do better attracting entrepreneurs instead of exam boffins. As a result, we advocate scrapping this category altogether (IANG, TTPS-b, TTPS-c, QMAS).

Back to basics?

Splitting single logical categories into multiple bureaucratic silos based on some arbitrary civil servant feel good fads is neither efficient nor beneficial to HK’s economy, let alone the local graduates paid for by tax payers whose jobs are now taken by floods of new immigrants. HK’s talent admission framework has also become bloated with institutional redundancy, creating administrative red tape.

Our proposals consolidate the overlapping areas into distinct, non-competing streams is the most sensible way to deal with population policy as well as economic skills matching, with the new lay of the land looking like this:

Figure 2: a simplified admission framework after rationalisation

In fact, we might be able to reduce the complexity even further – the fact that ‘expertise lists’ based admission being a bureaucratic construct means this category can be completely annulled and we stick only to the tried and tested GEP – in other words, imagined shortage of skill never beats actual skills in need, which the economy benefits from introducing.

Chart 2: date of scheme launches and total approvals to date

The author would like to thank Chong Cheuk Yiu from The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology majoring in Economics and Finance for assisting in data collection and analysis of this article.