Generation 40s – 四十世代

Good articles for buddies


Leave a comment

Singapore’s embarrassing metro disruptions offer a salutary lesson for Hong Kong

CommentInsight & Opinion
2017-10-27
Bernard Chan says the problems afflicting a major transport network in a city known for its efficiency bring home the fact we must never take the quality of our services for granted

It is not only Singaporeans who generally think their city is better than Hong Kong; many Hong Kong people believe Singapore’s image as a clean, efficient and modern city. They must have been shocked last week to read a Post story about how Singapore’s MRT mass transit rail network has been hit by major delays and breakdowns in recent years.

Obviously, no metro system in the world has a perfect performance record. But, in Singapore, the rail system has developed serious reliability problems.

According to the story, Singapore’s MRT network is somewhat smaller than ours, at 198.6km versus the MTR’s 230.9km. Passenger load is lighter, at some2 millionper day versus 5.6 million here. The Singapore network first opened in the 1980s, roughly a decade after our MTR started – so both are far more modern than the century-old systems of London and New York. However, Singapore’s trains suffer one five-minutes-plus delay every 174,000km, against one every 360,000km in Hong Kong. This omits the less dense West Rail and East Rail lines, which make our numbers look even better. MTR can claim a world-leading 99.9 per cent reliability rate.

Compensation for affected passengers is a hot topic in Singapore, and the media publish advice on being prepared for a delay (go to the toilet before you travel, and make sure your phone is charged). There is even a Wikipedia page listing serious MRT disruptions.

This is embarrassing for Singapore. And it is not simply about image but practicalities: if commuters lose confidence in the trains, they will use cars and taxis more, and the whole transport and environmental situation will get worse.

There has been a significant increase in the number of passengers, reflecting a rise in Singapore’s population. But inevitably, responsibility must come down to management.

I am not writing this to score points for Hong Kong over Singapore. Most of us here would accept that Singapore beats Hong Kong in some ways – such as housing policy outcomes, and some would say in health care, urban planning and other areas.

Many people in Hong Kong will say the MTR’s performance has declined in recent years. The system has definitely become more crowded as passenger numbers have risen. And there are growing complaints about delays. (In fairness to rail operators, essential upgrades to tracks and signals are difficult without causing delays – and both the MRT and MTR face this problem right now.)

However, Hong Kong’s MTR is genuinely an outstanding rail system and a bigger international success than many of us realise. The MTR has been designing, building and operating our metro system from the start (in many cities, responsibilities are divided among different agencies). Over the years, it has acquired huge technical expertise, and it exports it to cities around the world. The MTR is involved in Beijing, Hangzhou, Shenzhen, and in the UK, Sweden and Australia. In fact, it is the biggest rail operator by passenger volume in Sweden. Profits earned outside Hong Kong also bring benefits to MTR shareholders as well as Hong Kong customers.

We expect very high standards, and our media reflect this in their coverage of MTR disruptions. On top of that, our legislators – from both pro-establishment and opposition camps – are very critical any time they feel the MTR has failed in any way.

Although the MTR is publicly listed, the community sees it as a vital public service. It is under constant pressure from society to deliver reliable, quality transport as well as profits.

However, the Singapore experience should be a warning for us. If a previously efficient service can deteriorate in Singapore, it could happen here.

It does not have to be the rail network, or any transport system. Macau’s experience with Typhoon Hato in August was a reminder of how much we rely on specialised infrastructure, and dedicated professionals who plan and operate it. It could be health care, food safety, air traffic control or dozens of other areas.

Our politicians and media watchdogs are right not to take the quality of these services for granted.

Bernard Chan is convenor of Hong Kong’s Executive Council

Advertisements


Leave a comment

澳門軟硬件朽壞 解放軍救不了

信報財經新聞
社評
2017-08-26

十八世紀俄國女皇凱薩琳大帝(Catherine the Great)的大臣波特金(Potemkin)深通阿諛奉承之道,每次女皇出巡,他都會預先到當地粉飾一番,製造繁榮富庶的假象以討女皇歡心;惟當女皇離開後,這些裝飾的門面就會被拆走,村落回復殘舊破落。西諺就常以「波特金村落」、「波特金經濟」形容金玉其外敗絮其中的物事。今次「天鴿」風災後的澳門就有點「波特金城市」的味道。在無情巨風下,這個原來五光十色、繁華勝過拉斯維加斯的名城恍若鉛華盡洗,變成斷水斷電、垃圾充斥、道路阻塞、居民惶惶不可終日的第三世界小城。

澳門特區政府為了防止情況惡化以至出現傳染病,破天荒按《基本法》的規定要求駐澳解放軍協助救災,收拾殘局,令澳門街頭出現千計解放軍集體執勤的景象。澳門跟香港一樣實行「一國兩制」,內部管治包括防災救災基本上由特區政府自行負責,須要出動解放軍幫忙實在是極度非常之舉,同時可能令國際社會對「一國兩制」的貫徹產生觀感上的問題。不過,在重大天災及緊急情況下,再加上澳門特區政府資源、人力左支右絀,為着市民的健康和早日生活復常,請求解放軍出手也無可厚非。

事實上,世界各地政府動用軍隊參與救災近年相當普遍。上月日本九州及早前台灣的雨災,兩地政府都曾出動軍隊協助疏散、搜救及維持災區秩序。澳門居民對解放軍出營為災區清理似乎甚為受落,認為可盡快解決當前危機。

可是,借助駐澳解放軍處理災後亂局只能是「江湖救急」之舉,既不應當視為新常態,更不能因此忽視澳門抗災救災能力低下、基建設施嚴重滯後的深層危機。澳門特區政府在風災過後必須痛定思痛,在改善城市的硬件、軟件方面痛下工夫,不能再像過往多年般只懂派錢而荒廢實事。

偏重賭業及旅遊業的澳門是個每年人均GDP超過五萬美元的發達經濟體,在亞洲名列第三,只排在卡塔爾及新加坡之後,比日本還高一級。以這樣的發展及收入水平,基建設施居然如此不堪一擊,對災害的救援與善後竟然如斯不濟,實在令人失望和驚詫。

再看澳門政府的財力。自從一九九九年回歸後,賭業不斷蓬勃壯大,博彩稅及相關收入節節上升,澳門庫房近十多年每年都錄得盈餘,其中二○一四年盈餘更高達九百億元(澳門元.下同),去年也有三百億元,令澳門財政儲備在二○一六年底逼近四千七百億元的超高水平。借用賭王何鴻燊多年前的妙語,「簡直肥到着唔到襪」。

擁有如此龐大的財源,澳門特區政府早應切實提升當地的基建質素,強化城市管理,解決排水系統老舊、電力供應不穩不足等長期問題。以電力供應為例,風災前,澳門電力供應主要依靠向內地電網買電,本土電廠生產的電量不足五百兆瓦,佔全市應用量不到一成。澳門當局曾表示會建設新電廠,把本地供電比例提升至三成甚至更高,但幾年下來,新電廠仍未見影兒,對內地南方電網的依賴有增無減。

今次強颱風「天鴿」來襲,內地電網出現事故,立時令澳門大部分地區停電,數十萬居民及旅客陷入混亂與惶恐中。斷電亦導致供水設施、電訊網絡以至電視電台廣播服務受影響,幾乎令澳門回到前現代「冇電冇自來水」的光景。若果澳門政府對於減少一面倒依靠內地電網,過去多年來不是只說不做,而是及時撥出資源提升本土發電能力,把整體備用電量推高,使供電穩定性較有保障,應不致因打一場風便導致長時間大範圍停電。

此外,水浸、海水倒灌都不是新問題。可是直到去年的《施政報告》,特首崔世安始提出與內地協商修築新水閘及興建新的雨水泵站,何時落成更是天曉得。

九個月前崔世安發表的《二○一七施政報告》,以逐步落實規劃,共建美好家園為主題。一場風暴已把這個承諾打得支離破碎,氣象局高官問責下台,還得出動解放軍協助救災。崔世安政府要挽回民望,重建居民及國際社會對澳門的信心,他在提升基建設施上絕不能再嘆慢板,必須坐言起行,迅速推展,並大刀闊斧改進吏治,雷厲風行打擊貪腐,不然澳門距離美好家園之境只怕愈來愈遠!


Leave a comment

Eight routes to better typhoon management in Macau, as Pakhar response reveals crisis lessons learnt from Hato

CommentInsight & Opinion
2017-08-29
Sonny Lo calls for proactive action to protect Macau against the kind of devastation left by Typhoon Hato, from an independent power supply to reinforced emergency services and better urban planning

Judging by the way the Macau government handled severe tropical storm Pakhar, it seems to have learnt quickly from its errors with Typhoon Hato.

The devastating impact of Hato on Macau was obvious and plunged the administration of Fernando Chui Sai-on into an unprecedented crisis. The deployment of the People’s Liberation Army to help clean up the garbage and debris left by Hato was necessary, to prevent further damage being inflicted by Pakhar, which followed close behind.

In 2012, when invited to train a group of upper-middle-level civil servants, my topic was crisis management. I asked for opinions on how Macau should cope with a crisis like the 2011 tsunami in Japan. The answers were disappointing, including the view that such a crisis was impossible, and that a higher-level emergency unit would tackle it. The only more proactive answer was that residents should be evacuated to higher ground and inner mainland areas. The lack of crisis consciousness was evident.

Judging from the reactions of Macau’s Civil Protection Action Centre, which dealt with Pakhar, the city’s leadership has learnt a bitter lesson from its failure to take effective precautionary measures against Hato. The following are further lessons that can be learnt in the aftermath of Hato and Pakhar.

Firstly, Macau should develop its own electricity supply and be less dependent on Zhuhai. Without an independent power supply and sufficient reserves, any powerful typhoon could well leave life paralysed.

Second, a large wall to the west of Macau could be built to protect from flooding caused by any future typhoon. At the very least, such a protective wall would minimise the serious flooding that often takes place during typhoon season.

Third, the size of Macau’s disciplined forces, including the police and fire services, will have to be enhanced, and stricter controls imposed to prevent unscrupulous taxi drivers charging exorbitant rates during typhoons, as they did during Pakhar.

Fourth, operational procedures of the observatory must be improved. Hato tracked closer to Macau than Hong Kong, and it is curious why the Macau observatory did not trigger typhoon signals eight and 10 much earlier, unlike Hong Kong, where the observatory reacted far more swiftly. Macau must gather meteorological data on typhoons from the Hong Kong and Guangdong weather stations, to be able to make more accurate predictions and initiate the necessary precautionary measures.

Fifth, Macau’s water supply system will have to be strengthened. The lack of water supply, in some areas for days, not only led to public complaints and discontent, but increased the risk of public health crises. Fortunately, the PLA soldiers were mobilised to sterilise the streets piled high with destroyed construction material, garbage, mud and sand.

Sixth, crisis governance embraces public-private partnership, which could be improved. While Macau’s uniformed services tried their best to restore normality, the private sector, including citizens and interest groups, mobilised to clean up garbage on the streets, supply bottled water and share information. The swiftness of the private sector was impressive. If Macau is regarded as a city full of interest groups, they could be brought under the umbrella of crisis management in a more coordinated and mobilised manner in the future.

Seventh, a blemish in Macau’s typhoon management was its curious reaction to deny entry to a few Hong Kong reporters. Open governments can deal with natural disasters more effectively than closed ones. Following the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in mainland China, the government welcomed local and foreign reporters to cover the tragedy.

Eighth, a rethink of urban planning is necessary. In the past two decades, urban development in Macau has focused on megaprojects, without sufficient flood prevention measures. The local drainage system will need a complete overhaul. Underground car parks will have to be avoided and more high-rise buildings dedicated to parking will have to be built.

Proactive typhoon management measurements will see Macau’s legitimacy strengthened rather than weakened, as was seen after Hato hit the city.

Sonny Lo is a professor of politics at HKU SPACE


Leave a comment

Trump’s America has given racism a new lease of life by making a mockery of its diversity

CommentInsight & Opinion
2017-04-20
Amy Wu finds she had been living in a bubble of a multicultural America, as she learns a few home truths on discrimination and the newly blurred divide between conservative and liberal states

I am a big city girl, having lived in New York, San Francisco, Washington and Hong Kong, all of them cosmopolitan, international, if not progressive cities when it comes to the arts, culture, gender and politics. Diversity, exposure and acceptance – whether racial, sexual, gender or socioeconomic – was, in retrospect, taken for granted.

Diversity was a given – my Caucasian, ­Indian and Latino friends celebrated the Lunar New Year and Autumn Moon festivals alongside me, while I celebrated Diwali, St Patrick’s Day and their children’s quinceañeras.

In Hong Kong, my colleagues ­included Britons, Australians, Filipinos, Indians, Singaporeans, South Africans, and people from many other countries. In coexisting, we learned about each others’ ­cultures and backgrounds. There were certainly cultural and linguistics barriers, but I was privileged enough to be exposed to such a ­diversity of cultures and thought.

Under this new administration, discrimination, and at times racism, seems to have reared its ugly head in everyday life

I use the word “privilege” on purpose; it wasn’t until the aftermath of last year’s US presidential election that it hit me that, in living in these big metropolises, I had lost sight of the rest of the country, and the reality that I was not part of the majority but rather the minority.

Under this new administration, discrimination, and at times racism, seems to have reared its ugly head in everyday life. I noticed the shift in the election year, when Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s campaigns started to be ramped up.

Maybe I had been a bit slow in noticing, since I had always lived on one US coast or the other. I hesitate to say I had been living in a bubble, but the bottom line is that it was a bubble. My friends in big cities called the states in-between “flyover states,” a way of saying these states were second-tier.

Many of us had never visited states such as Kansas, Arkansas, Missouri and Mississippi, and if pushed would admit that we had little desire to. And yet, the results of the election clearly showed that the majority of people in the “flyover states” were Trump supporters, and in many cases conservative in thinking.

So imagine my surprise when I moved to Fresno in 2015. As the fourth largest city in California, sandwiched between San Francisco and Los Angeles, Fresno is working-class and known for its three-digit summers and, as I fast discovered, conservative outlooks.

Imagine my shock when, over drinks, a friend turned to me and asked me to vote for Trump. “Why?” I asked. “It’s obvious and just look at what Obama did or didn’t do, let’s start with the health care fiasco,” she said.

I was taken aback. Until that point, my friends had been mostly Democrats, supporters of Barack Obama and Clinton, and several were advocates for women’s rights, same-sex marriage and a comprehensive immigration policy.

Well, maybe we could have a lively discussion, or even debate. But no such luck. “You are going to vote for him, right?” my friend ­repeatedly asked.

When I moved to Salinas last year, about two hours south of San Francisco, the conversations often had a similar ring.

Why should I have been shocked when a winery owner rolled his eyes at me and said, “Of course”, when I asked if he agreed with Trump’s plan to build a US-Mexico border wall. “Best idea ever,” he said. And then the unimaginable happened. “The Chinese know a lot about walls too,” he said, nodding at me.

None of this should have surprised me since it was all happening in the aftermath of the new Trump administration. There were shifts, however slight, in the kinds of ­stories I was writing about, in the tone of the conversations, and it seemed to trickle down to everyday life as well. Maybe there was a segment of the public who felt they now had the licence to expose their raw feelings and viewpoints, whereas they were hemmed in before.

This new chapter brought changes. I was driven out by my landlady and her husband for no reason, even though I paid my rent on time and rarely came home and used the kitchen or bathroom. They started leaving notes accusing me of leaving a drop of water by the sink, and for a week turned on the jacuzzi right outside my room even though it disturbed my sleep. By contrast, they were sweet to the other two tenants, who were white.

“I think they are racist,” one of my colleagues commented. My father concurred: “These days there are some segments of the population who don’t treat Chinese very nicely.”

It’s hard to attribute how much of the shift is due to President Trump, or what the true impact is of his executive orders on immigration, the impending border wall, and the finger pointing and accusatory tone that he uses when talking about Chinese workers stealing jobs from Americans.

It isn’t just the Chinese. I live in a city that is predominantly Latino-Hispanic, many of them migrant workers who work in the fields.

On a similar line, I was infuriated when a 40-something white man, jobless and able-bodied, said he ­refused to work in the fields. “It would be too taxing on my body,” he said. Does he think the Mexicans enjoy the back-breaking labour of picking lettuce in the fields, with ­often 10 hours under the sun?

And then there was the viral story of David Dao, the physician who was dragged out of a United Airlines plane by security officers after he refused to give up his seat on an overbooked flight. It matters that he was Asian. Would the same have occurred if the passenger were a tall and strapping white man? Somehow it seems unimaginable.

These snippets and stories tend to create an aura that is disturbing and at times dizzying. Ultimately there is nothing surprising about racism and discrimination, but it is sad when we’ve taken three steps forward but could potentially be moving backwards.

Amy Wu is a journalist based in Salinas, California