南華早報的訪問

LIFECITY 南華早報 2008-05-22

Virtual agenda -katie lau

Brian Wong Sze-leuk seems politically well-connected in a city where personal contacts count. He can call at least 10 Hong Kong politicians friends with whom he can discuss current affairs and mutual interests and perhaps influence their agendas. But Wong is no schmoozing lobbyist on the cocktail-party fringes of the Legislative Council. The 29-year-old dotcom investor has no political affiliations other than an interest in talking to the increasing number of Hong Kong legislators and opinion leaders on Facebook. Local politicians of many persuasions have woken up to the benefits of the popular social-networking website. A Facebook profile costs nothing and is a cost-effective way to disseminate information and receive feedback. MySpace is also popular but League of Social Democrats chairman Raymond Wong Yuk-man says he devotes less energy to other forums and websites since he started getting feedback on Facebook. Long Hair Leung Kwok-hung and Emily Lau Wai-hing of the Frontier Party also present themselves to Facebook's mainly young, computer-literate audience. So have Lee Wing-tat and Albert Ho Chun-yan of the Democratic Party and Tsang Yok-sing, former chairman of the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong. The Civic Party also invites Facebookers to correspond with Alan Leong Kah-kit and Ronny Tong Ka-wah. The network is easy to use, says 25-year-old Young Civics chairman Thomas Yu Kwun-wai, whose organisation has created support groups and connected with volunteers through Facebook. The system also makes political issues more interesting, says Civic Party leader Audrey Eu Yuet-mee, a regular network user. You can make something serious look fun on Facebook, she says. There's life to it. It warms my heart to connect with people with similar values. But former legislator Lo Wing-lok would rather use the network for small talk with friends than to push his political agenda. I never thought it'd be so much fun, he says. But I am less motivated to use it to advance my causes because I think Facebook is not often frequented by people interested in politics. Some Hong Kong politicians use their profiles to post their credentials and views; others present a gentler side. Former security chief Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee is pictured on her personal page stroking her cat with a subtle smile, while her interest groups reveal part of the Savantas Policy Institute chairwoman's life beyond politics: that she enjoys wine, countryside photography and scrambled eggs at a Jordan eatery. Ip's assistants have updated the site's content since it was set up last October and have compiled a 2,500-strong friends list, her publicist says. Raymond Wong's associates say he has 3,500 Facebook friends and 100 volunteers. Both politicians' offices say their leaders reply to messages themselves. Hong Kong cyber-surfers are surprised to hear from prominent politicians, however. Thanks for adding me, one user wrote on the wall of the politician who accepted his friend request. I just realised that many Hong Kong politicians have Facebook accounts, too, and so I search each one to see if they will bother to add me. Cyrus Siu credits Facebook for turning him into a fervent Ip supporter. I was intrigued at first and got to know her more as we discussed important issues on Facebook, and I found we have a lot in common, says the 27-year-old human resources officer, who regularly participates at Ip's gatherings and volunteered for her re-election campaign last December. It's thrilling to meet her in person. We're like friends now. I don't think I'd be doing all this if Facebook hadn't come along. But it only works if both parties are actively involved. It takes two to tango, says Siu. Brian Wong says the network's dialogues could be a boon to what he calls cyber-democracy. It can have a huge political impact if everyone is aware of its power, he says. It could hit people on a global scale. It's easy to find each other. Many people use their real names and the quality of discussion is better on Facebook than on other forums or websites, where people attack each other under an alias. It's very conducive to political discussion. The system could also engage politically apathetic younger people, says Brian Wong. If they join groups that concern their interests, they'll eventually develop an interest in political discussion, as everything is related to politics. That would be a good way for them to get started. Yet the system's users can only communicate on a superficial level, says Lingnan University cultural studies lecturer Ip Iam-chong. It's hard to study problems in depth there, says the academic and editor of independent media website inmediahk.net. It might work as a platform to make a simple announcement urging people to vote, but no more than that. Politicians could also damage their political image if they failed to maintain their Facebook profiles, says City University political analyst James Sung Lap-kung. It's a double-edged sword, he says. You'd give a poor impression if you opened an account and didn't update it. You have to sustain your profile to show you're keeping pace with society. But only those with abundant resources can keep up a good-looking profile. And although he recognises that everyone in local politics seems to have their account now, he says the network is unlikely to swing the results of September's Legislative Council election. To win an election you have to appeal to the middle-aged and the underprivileged, too, who do not have access to the internet, but I'd still say [the network] has a positive impact on engaging young people in political affairs. Facebook also leaves politicians open to mudslinging, even though some say they let it be. I am trying to keep my platform as open as possible because I believe in freedom of expression, says Raymond Wong, whose account was disabled for no apparent reason last month. Siu's profile was axed in February after a user accused him of sending spam. He later blocked the user from sending him messages and hopes to put the dispute to rest. But he looks forward to the next Facebook gathering next month, a karaoke competition. I suggested this idea out of the blue, says Siu. I am glad they like it. It's a great chance to meet my like-minded friends again.

如何成立世界貨幣

金融風暴使美元資產變得不可信，成立世界貨幣之說法興起，雖然美國勢必極力阻撓，但看來無法阻止世人進行研究。說來有趣，以往一些美國和歐洲精英對成立世界政府或地球單一政府甚為熱衷，一些諸如共濟會和羅馬俱樂部的故事亦廣傳於民間，今天成立新國際儲備貨幣(本文稱作世界貨幣)的討論卻由中國提出，可見中國強勢參與重塑世界新秩序的目標已很明確。

要成立具公信力的世界貨幣，背後必然需要有具世界公信力的機構進行運作，並得到世界各地政府的支持和世界各金融中心的強力支援。世界貨幣基金組織和世界銀行雖由來以久，但絕不足以領導世界貨幣的發展，充其量也只具能力進行一些小規模的金融操作和統籌研究工作，要建立具真正意義的世界貨幣，必須另立組織。參考歐洲一體化之進程，歐盟和歐洲議會扮演極其重要的角色，沒有這些具有相當權力的機構進行操作，歐羅絕對不能誕生。以此推論，世界聯盟和世界議會該是推動世界貨幣的重要部份。這某程度上是關於世界大同之倡議，以削弱美元為始，以建立世界貨幣為終。這與上世紀聯合國之建立、資本主義的流行、歐盟之興起、現代化社會和現代化政府之完成有著同等重要性。

今天人類面臨環境危機和金融體制改革問題，上世紀的敵我二元思考理當完全摒棄，代之而起的該是合作和良性競爭，香港作為世界其中一個金融中心和文化交流中心，對新時代的建設和參與絕對責無旁貸。雖然香港現在面臨各種問題，但都不是不能解決的，如何成立世界貨幣，香港的參與是不可少的，社會各界相信亦會展開討論，為本世紀的金融體制發展竭盡己力。

回應張五常於信報撰寫的「金融中心上海將遠勝香港」一文

張五常此文提及六個論點說明香港為何會敗於上海，我同意若香港不思進取確會如張五常所言敗於上海，但這個世界沒有甚麼必敗的仗，歷史上亦出現多場以弱勝強之戰，本文現提出方法解困，與上海作良性競爭。上海，接招吧!

一).文中說上海陸家嘴要鬥華爾街而非香港中環a)文中說上海比香港早開市(因上海太陽比香港早出一小時，紐約比芝加哥早一個小時，後者股市搞不起。)

建議之應對方法:
1)香港以24小時交易應戰
2)交易平台支援更多語言(如印度文、俄文、日文、西班牙文、法文等等)

二).文中說長三角的工業發展勝珠三角建議之對應方法:因多年來不少港商不思進取，一味想靠內地的低成本優勢而不發展高科技產業，導致競爭力逐步墮後，今後香港或珠三角廠商必然要生產領先世界之科技產品，香港新一代的工業家亦需如此。

建議之應對方法
香港必需制定超前的科技政策
1)西九文化區改為西九科教文區(結合科技、教育和文化)
2)被殺學校改作科技中心，供有興趣學生聚會比併
3)遊樂設施變回以前的多元模式，不是現在的有小小危險便廢掉
4)增加大學科研金額
5)設立科技政策委員會主動更新落後及防礙新科技品進入香港的條文
6)支持中藥科學化發展並制定相關政策
7)放寬廣播條例，容許小電視台出現，報導更多科技新聞

三)文中說金融人才也是上海勝

建議之對應方法:
1.金融人才乃全方位通識人才，金融機構及大學教育要有更高的視野改變現在大學教育功能化及社會功能化問題，培育更多具歷史文化政治國際視野的人才。
2.大學生甚至中學生要及早成立更多不同的組織(如佛利民研究會、金融制度研究會、哲學研究會、馬克斯研究會等等無數稀奇古怪的組織)，及早作更多更全面的思想培訓。

四)文中說高等的金融人才可到上海發展，香港金融衍生工具人才年入數百萬元，不容易繼續下去
建議之對應方法:
1.香港不要做衍生工具市場，而是要做全世界安全可靠的集資及投資中心，在世界上建設一個形象「香港集資你放心」、「香港投資你放心」
2.建設先進的金融投資及資本主義哲學，例如「創意資本主義」、「可持續資本主義」，讓投資創意產業和環保產業如太陽能產業的人仕務必經香港集資。
3.膽識、自由和多元化是城市吸引力的基礎，城市有吸引力人才便會吸過來，現在香港各方面變得另人慘不忍睹的保守和膽小是香港失去吸引力的原因。香港新一代必需自我振奮士氣，改變這敗局。

五)文中說港元不能獨當一面並建議香港轉用人民幣。(這點為重中之重)

建議之對應方法:
1.大力鼓吹超主權貨幣(現為國際貨幣基金中的特別提款權制度)並在適當時機與之掛鈎。
2.文中認為港元欠缺面目，香港應乘國際普遍收緊監管之機反其道而行吸引更多人在香港用港元進行更多金融活動，加大港元使用量。
3.支持設立世界議會進行更多牽涉全球問題如環保問題和金融問題之討論，並爭取世界議會於香港設立總部。

六)關鍵在北京央行，因為人民幣是北京央行負責的

1.香港比上海優勝之處在於港幣的決策權以及金融政策的決策權幾乎全在香港，香港必要在此時機加大和台北、東京和新加坡尤其是台北之合作，建立更緊密之金融聯盟，強化香港作為亞洲金融龍頭之地位。

香港應定位作倫敦

時局運轉，本世紀上半葉(即2000年至2050年)的世界大勢乃由西向東移，上世紀下半葉底定的紐約倫敦西方金融雙城將面臨東方名城的強力挑戰，而東方諸城中，目前為止以上海香港最具政經天時天利挑戰紐約倫敦，其中上海最像紐約，香港最像倫敦。紐約的金融市場國際化程度不及倫敦，但以美國的超級綜合國力，單靠國內經濟已能支撐一個舉世無匹的紐約，目前形勢觀之，上海今後十年會像紐約般發展成中國國內超級金融中心。

此結論近來讓香港人悲觀不已，紛紛裝作樂觀的說香港可成為第二金融中心或輔助金融中心或效芝加哥般發展成商品中心又或發展成衍生工具中心。上述各項皆差矣，香港絕對不能以任一項作定位，否則必定兵敗如山倒，最後變成如中國古金融中心平瑤般於洪洪歷史大朝中淹沒。首先，金融中心並無第二，一雞死一雞鳴，中國公司大可全在上海上市，因為資金特多，文化相近，政制文化全皆一致，香港全無優勢。第二，金融中心那需輔助? 舉世之下並無所謂輔助金融中心一事。第三，香港並無農業，如何像芝加哥般發展成商品中心大手買賣粟米紅豆，中國商品中心乃天津而非香港也，此外，經濟學上的芝加哥學派舉世聞名，香港的大學又有何學派能成世界經濟學名燈堡壘?最後所謂衍生工具中心亦是貽笑大方之說，一些衍生工具賭博成份甚濃，從業員人工過高，香港過去發展過一段日子後已極速落幕，不少港人對此已提不起多大興趣。

由此觀之，看似悲觀，但事實並非如此，上海要發展成全國金融中心，亦有諸多難題，第一，上海的金融監管必定需要極為嚴格，因為全國財富一旦集中在一個超級城市身上，機會多危機也將特多，全國人口繁雜，發展情況參差，全面開放之時亦必綁手綁腳，任何一位領導人都必會以保護人民財富為先，對國際資金、國際炒家和國際金融亦必然滿有介心，香港這座國際大都會這時將發揮巨大無匹的作用，香港的金融監管、上市審批及發展方向必然要較上海大膽進取和寬鬆，例如想方法發展24小時交易、大手引進非洲中東企業在港上市等大膽作法亦必要作考慮之列。

香港的進取與否不旦牽動香港本身存亡問題，亦牽動本世紀東西方競爭的大戰略問題，香港政府及社會各界對此不可不察也。