林鄭送中民情跌？ 本港前瞻自由插？

載於2019年06月27日信報:

上文（見總督特首論成敗，林鄭行情好定壞？）提到，特首林鄭月娥（下稱林鄭）未來如無意外應能做滿一屆特首。然而，經過反送中一役，民意對政府評價已由上文2018年11月間的105.7（【圖一】藍點）急插穿橙色運行軌道，在反送中遊行爆發之前已經跌至90點，乃彭定康當年的低位（亦剛好是梁振英全期最高位，見【圖一】中最上之紅色虛線）。

回望過去兩周之集會盛況，可以想像，政府民情指數可能已再急跌不少，如能保住80點水平，已屬大幸！

圖一：林鄭開局已低於董、曾，不出兩年更低於彼等五年所耗之民望

由以往大型集會後的數據判斷（【圖一】紅點），若政府迅速止血（如：七一遊行後23撤回條立法，加上當時經濟觸底後強勁反彈的順風車），民情指數應會是反彈。不過，就算今次林鄭撤回送中修例，若然經濟及資產市場轉弱，加上外來不利因素（如貿戰），則幾多道歉可能都難以挽回政府的民望，指數甚至有機會下試65點低位（即董建華在位時的低位，見【圖一】中第二條紅虛線），甚至梁振英所創之歷史最低57水平（第三條紅虛線）。即管如此，在當今政制之下，只要中央／建制支持，市民又奈其如何？

自由指數大出血，中港距離再拉近


由港大民研發布的三項自由指數（包括新聞自由、言論自由、遊行示威自由）所得出的平均數可見，香港的人身自由在曾蔭權期間達至最高，但於梁振英治下急轉直下，而林鄭在上任蜜月期短暫反彈後更「飛流直下三千尺」，跌至有史新低（【圖二】中藍線）：

圖二：港人自由指數於梁／林兩特首任內急跌

有趣的是，此指數亦與加拿大智庫菲莎研究所（下稱菲莎）公布的自由指數排名走勢極之相似，或者港大數據可以用來預測未來本港在菲莎榜上之排名。

可惜，香港於2013年自由排名達至高峰之14名，與歐美自由國家並駕齊驅不久（【表一】左列），已拾級而下，沉到2016年之32名，是有史以來最低點，與東歐國家為鄰（表內中列）！以港大數據判斷，香港的排名有機會於2019年跌至40名以外，與再「次等」的南美國家作伴（表內右列）。而該段時間內，中國一直保持在130名以下，最近徘徊在141名。

表一：由西方先進，到東歐新晉，到南美。。。？

*最新為2016數據，作示範香港可能所屬之群組


若香港的自由度繼續全面「回歸」，將會引發發達國家重新審視香港自由／獨立地位風險，不但引發另一移民潮，屆時本港樓股對內地所享有之溢價亦可能極速消散。到底下行風險多大？筆者將另文分析。

筆者特別鳴謝香港城市大學管理科學學系學生黃麗怡協助收集及整理本文相關的數據及圖表。

How low will Carrie Lam’s popularity fall? And HK’s freedom ranking with it?

Posted on 24/06/2019 Stand News :

In your author’s last article (see here) on the subject matter, he projected strong chances of Hong Kong Chief Executive (CE) Mrs Carrie Lam serving a full five-year term of office. However, the Public Sentiment Index (PSI) has unexpectedly crashed after publication in Nov 2018 (from 105.7 points, see blue diamond in Chart 1), through what looked like a well established trend channel (orange lines), due to her handling of the extradition amendment bill. Even before the mass demonstrations of the past two weeks, the government’s PSI reading has already fallen to 90, which also happens to be the lows reached by former Governor Chris Patten, as well as the highs ever reached by CY Leung (see top red dotted line in Chart 1).

Judging from the mass rallies since the last PSI readings were taken, it is almost certain that the next polls will show materially lower values still, the government would be very lucky to not see the PSI plunge below 80.

Chart 1：Starting on a lower popularity than Tung and Tsang, Carrie Lam may have exhausted the political energy that took 5-years+ to wear out for her predecessors

Past experience suggests that, where the government swiftly addressed the issues that led to mass protests, the PSI (red diamonds in Chart 1) stands a chance of rebounding (eg withdrawal of the Article 23 legislation). However, in that instance, a strong recovery in the economy and asset markets may have contributed materially to the popularity reading also. This time round, should the economy and property market turn down hard (both near the end of long bull markets), whatever Mrs Lam does may not be enough to resuscitate the government’s PSI. In a worst case scenario, the PSI may even retest the all-time low of 57, which was the lowest point achieved during CY Leung’s term.

Haemorrhaging freedom rankings due to ever closer integration?

Taking the average of three freedom indicators published by the Public Opinion Programme of The University of Hong Kong (HKUPOP) – ie freedom of press, freedom of speech, and freedom of procession and demonstration – we have plotted the trend of how Hongkongers perceived their collective freedoms over time. The average freedom index (AFI) reached its maximum during Donald Tsang’s term, but has unfortunately fallen dramatically under the aegis of the next two CEs, reaching a record low shortly after Mrs Lam came to power (blue line in Chart 2):

Chart 2：Rapid decrease in perceived freedom under CY Leung and Carrie Lam

Comparing the domestic perception to international objective scores, one could plot the AFI alongside HK’s ranking in the Personal Freedom Index as compiled by the Fraser Institute, and not surprisingly see a reasonably good fit of the two surveys (see chart above) With the HK derived AFI leading the Fraser rankings, we might even be able to project where HK will come out in the upcoming Fraser results.

A troubling picture emerges from the projected Fraser rankings. Hong Kong’s freedom peaking at position #14 in 2013, when the city was a proud neighbour to western developed countries (eg UK, see left column, Table 1). The latest available Fraser survey, which relates to 2016 rankings, however shows Hong Kong to have deteriorated to #32 in the league tables (its lowest position on record), and is now side by side with emerging Eastern European countries (eg Slovakia, see middle column, Table 1).

Table 1：from Western neighbours to Eastern European cohorts to Latin Americans …

	Peak (2013)		Now (2016)		Future (2019+)*
11	Netherlands	29	Japan	37	Uruguay
12	Australia	30	Italy	38	Hungary
13	New Zealand	31	Romania	39	Chile
14	Hong Kong	32	Hong Kong	40	Hong Kong
15	United Kingdom	33	Slovakia	41	Bulgaria
16	Belgium	34	Cyprus	42	Argentina
17	Luxembourg	35	Croatia	43	Mongolia
134	China	141	China	141	China
135	Chad	142	Cameroon	142	Cameroon
136	Ethiopia	143	Pakistan	143	Pakistan

*The latest data is from 2016, which is used to see the possible cohort of Hong Kong.

By extrapolating the latest AFI from HKUPOP, we fear further big slides may be in store for Hong Kong – assuming the ranks for other countries from the 2016 results have not changed, Hong Kong could conceivably fall out of the top-40 list, to sit alongside the likes of Latin American nations (eg Argentina, see right column, Table 1). During the whole of the time period we discussed, China has persistently ranked below 133, neighbouring the likes of Cameroon and Pakistan.

The biggest worry for all Hongkongers must be further and continued slip down the freedom rankings, which could reduce their ability to think, speak, or publish freely, but cause negative economic repercussions – what if, due to the increasing likeness their home takes to any PRC city, the international community starts to withdraw the special favoured status afforded Hong Kong? Would such a change in status lead to another wave of mass emigration? Would this outcome result in uncontrolled drops in local asset prices? This is certainly a topic for another article, watch this space.

The author would like to thank Kristy Wong Lai Yi of The City University of Hong Kong for assisting in data collection, analysis.

Metro Radio - 新城地產街 20190614

筆者日前有幸出席新城電台的《新城地產街》，與主持林潔瑩女士、仲量聯行物業估價部執行董事劉振江先生、詳益地產總裁汪敦敬博士分析香港現時社會局勢及其對樓市的影響。

節目預告片：

完整節目錄音：

香港醫療 ：權力不回收，改革冇希望 20190509

昨天，醫委會向三個方案進行表決，經過「激辯」後選出由港大代表鄧惠瓊提交的方案。三個方案内容如下：

• 港大代表鄧惠瓊方案：海外專科醫生以有限度註冊受聘於醫管局、衞生署及2間大學醫學院工作至少3年，通過執業資格試後便可獲豁免實習，取得正式執照。

• 醫學會前會長蔡堅方案：海外專科醫生不論受聘於醫管局、衞生署及2間大學醫學院，通過執業試後，須於相關機構臨床工作18個月，由僱主提交報告證明即可免實習。

• 病人政策連線主席林志釉方案：海外專科醫生須於醫管局、衞生署及2間大學醫學院服務3年，其間需有3個月臨床臨床或醫學研究和教學等工作，並通過執業試才可免實習。

如此一場鬧劇，似乎主旨在於引開市民注意，以便既得利益團體繼續悶聲發大財，而市民則繼續付出昂貴醫藥費，低層繼續接受劣質服務（長輪候期加不足夠的診症時間），醫護前線則繼續疲於奔命！

正如市民明眼所見，各方案都搔不著癢處，根本就不能紓緩本港醫生短缺問題：
經濟日報：“輸入海外醫生關卡仍多，醫委會未來需續拆牆鬆綁，才能緩減本港醫生短中期不足之困”。
明報：“令海外專科醫生感到屈辱，連港人子弟也對回流卻步，若不進一步拆牆鬆綁，就算放寬實習要求也不會有太大作用”。


只有將醫療權力回歸非業屆手中，香港方有希望走出這個醫勝民敗的困局。請先革除食衛局長，減少醫委會內業界之票數（甚至重新檢視醫委會是否應該操外來醫生執業之生殺大權），同時跟足星加坡方式，才可盡快還健康於大眾。

詳細分析請參閱筆者前文：
醫療人手嚴重短缺 輪候時間恥對市民
醫界私相授受 改革刻不容緩

Taxi fare hike the wrong fix for bad services and poor driver pays

Posted on 2019/04/12 Stand News:

Hot on the heels of the last fare hike as recent as April 2017, the Government was reported in March to be seeking Legco views on another proposed taxi fare hike – with a magnitude of an eye-popping 25%-36.8% increase for the initial flag-down fares.

The mandarins who ride in chauffer driven AM plated government cars, who probably never have to ride in a taxi like the people, probably conveyed the justifications raised by the ‘taxi trade’ (not even a formal organisation was given in the government document!) for the fare hike as: to improve the low income earned by taxi drivers and to attract new blood to the trade. This was met with widespread scepticism, with political parties doubting that fare hikes would improve service standards and remove malpractices such as overcharging and refusing rides.

Licence owner wins in fare hikes, drivers lose
Instead of finger in the air guesses, we try to quantify the economics to see if indeed the scepticism is warranted.

Comparing the financial equation shortly after the previous fare hike (pink column in Table 1) and the current market conditions (orange column), we have assumed: 1) amount of work is unchanged; 2) running costs are unchanged. However, the current market rent of taxis have seen roughly a 19% increase from two years ago, but with all else being equal, the drivers seem to be getting 11% less
(their pay being the residual balance of all other revenues and costs:

Table 1. Financial scenarios – owners ultimate winners in fare hikes:

Now assume the fare hike proposal is implemented (green column above), and assuming there being no further rent hikes from current levels, then indeed theoretically the drivers will be better off, in fact 87% better off than now!

The reality will most likely be closer to the blue column, where the drivers are offered a meagre 3% pay rise from today (in line with current levels of inflation), and the licence holding car owners pocket all the rest – the net result? a 53% windfall for the owners versus a minute 3% improvement for the drivers. The claims by the ‘taxi trade’ that drivers will be better off may literally be true, but we all know where the vast majority of the benefits of a fare hike will flow…

Taxi returns much better than property, thanks to zero supply
Further analysis of the returns on taxi ownership suggests that the 2017 fare hike has raised yields on taxi from 3.2% to 4.4% today (third line from bottom in Table 1), whereas a new fare hike with the owner-takes-all outcome above would spike the yield to a jaw dropping 6.7% based on current taxi licence prices. This compared to the 2.6% yield on property assets at large, mean a 0.6 percentage points (or ppts) premium two years ago has enlarged to 1.8ppts now, and if the new hike proposals are implemented, will further expand to a mouth-watering 4.1pts!

Taxis most complained mode of transport – time to introduce competition
As is no doubt employed as a reason for fare hike every single time, that higher fares would reduce rider complaints, new data continues to rebut this assertion: the latest government complaints statistics puts taxis firmly in the lead, with no sign of slowing in the growth momentum of complaint numbers – the taxi related complaints are up another 7% to 2,894 for the year ended March 2019:

Table 2. No change in rising trend of complaints against poor taxi services:

All this confirms our thesis that the only way we can improve the HK taxi service standards is to increase competition, and this can be achieved in two ways:

1) issue unlimited number of licences which will immediately cause the per-shift rent for taxis to drop to the level of maintenance costs, and drivers can then take all the revenues themselves, boosting their income immediately
(see our prior articles: http://yulun2012.blogspot.com/2016/12/blog-post.html);

2) allow all ride-hailing operators to compete, such as Uber, provided simple insurance requirements are complied with. There should be no entry barrier besides very simple compensation requirements in cases of accidents.
(see http://yulun2012.blogspot.com/2018/03/blog-post.html)


The author would like to thank Gary Mak Ka Ho of The Chinese University of Hong Kong for assisting in data collection, analysis, and drafting of this article.