Some Cursory Reflections on an Article by 五十米深藍

標籤:

五十米深藍,with greatest respect, I am very surprised by what you wrote in your article saying “香港人已不可再慷慨起來?” and “香港愈來愈變得某種人的意識形態作主”. First of all, can you please tell me why should I be generous to groups of immigrants who are reluctant to work and come to Hong Kong cherishing the fantasy that their well-being will be taken care of? What makes my/our generosity justifiable before people who choose to fold their arms up and idle their lives in restaurant or elsewhere and don’t bother to find a job and earn their own living? Situation would be otherwise if they are handicapped or have totally lost their working capacity. I have little idea of how much income tax you have to pay throughout all these years or how benevolent you are but I truly believe anyone with a reasonable mind would agree that public interest could be served better by having our income tax, derived from sweat and toil, spent on social infrastructure, education etc than feeding those good for nothing men of sloth. Nobody points a gun at their heads and asks them to marry women in mainland as one will not die of being a bachelor. At the time when these gentlemen put their signatures on the marriage certificates, they should anticipate separation with the loved ones is inevitable. Nor does anyone ask them to give birth to offsprings as neither of them are pedigree dogs or horses with prize-winning ancestry. So when it is on their own initiative to have children, they are not obliged to rely on you or me to pay their expenses out of our tax money. Even if you think Hong Kong is a place with abundant wealth, they are not entitled to look upon us for endless financial support. If they are orphans or widows with several children who have no means to earn their bread and butter, social welfare support of course should never be withheld as a miser would do in a situation as such. But for those who deliberately choose not to work and idly expect that bread be gifted by some merciful souls, then Hong Kong definitely should not portray itself as their wonderland where milk and honey is flowing everywhere.

Perhaps you may think I am just another victim of individualism or class consciousness, but honestly I am only an advocate of fairness. Right/welfare should only be rendered if there is an obligation borne on a person. In the West, the working population is heavily taxed, they therefore entirely deserve all the social welfare available for them and their family. But THEY, who only take but never give, are no better than locusts and deserve nothing but pesticides.

In relation to the inflows of mainland pregnant women, the problem could only be solved by amending the legislation of Hong Kong. Had our immigration law been amended to the effect that only babies with Hong Kong citizen parenthood could obtain the right of abode in Hong Kong, I daresay the number of mainland pregnant ladies coming to Hong Kong would have dropped within a forenight. Hong Kong is never, nor will be a legend(神話). Hong Kong is only a place where opportunities are available for those who would bother to give a try.

Personally I wish to give an applause to the Indians and Napelese who support their families by working as a security guard at a building or workman on the construction site.

Lastly, I think it is utterly unfair to compare the present immigrants, to whom Hong Kong is trying to close the gate, with those immigrants in the 1940s, 50s and 60s. Those who came in the 50s and 60s did bring along with them capital, both economic and cultural. Hong Kong's success should largely be attributed to their labour and investment, without which a barren rock could never have turned into an international metropolis.

12 留言:

道士 說...

死啦﹐我發覺越來越和偏激的左兄不謀而合﹐是否代表了我也過於偏激? 還是只是近日這兩宗話題(新移民﹑李柏儉)才所見略同?

五十米深藍 說...

我諗我篇野搞亂左低收入同lor綜援兩種人,實在抱歉, 我其實主要想講有d真係需要lor綜援既人, 同d專登lor綜援俾人拉埋一齊講, 所以有d人寧願死都唔lor綜援, 捱窮, 我好尊敬果d人. 我當然對有手有腳但係仍然特登lor綜援既人極度鄙視, 要解決內地大肚婆落黎要靠修法, 這兩點是無異議的, 我只係想指出有某d人對lor綜援既人有偏見, 認定他們都是廢物, 拖累香港. 另外, 對於左先生最後一點, 可以討論, 對於那個年代來港的人真的很多都是資本家嗎? 當然他們是促進香港成長的核心人物, 不過沒有同時期的一大群的平價labour force, 似乎香港的快速發展不能成事.

hystericireul 說...

五十米所說的三類人中,第二類的問題是那些產婦本身是內地人,不應有權利使用香港那些公營醫院服務,因為那是由政府補貼的。

就算是外國,未成為公民也不能享受福利,為甚麼香港要例外?

這樣一來,其他兩類的問題也很清楚了,問題是他們以「旅客」的身分(他們借旅客之名來港產子倒很明顯)來港,既非公民(或曰香港永久性居民),自然不應享有福利,而這福利,指的是公營的醫療服務,因為是政府補貼的。

這是原則問題,不是大不大方的問題。同理,即使是新移民,來港前應充分評估自己在新地方的適應力和自己的能力,你未住滿七年自然絕不應該有福利,放諸世界亦是如此,哪有例外?

香港的困局是在於太慷這不應慷的慨。

木杉止首十一郎 說...

藍生﹐一﹐肯定你未交過稅。二﹐低收入同拿綜援都未分清﹐學人評乜鬼論? 三﹐有需要而寧死都不拿宗援﹐不是有骨氣﹐亦不值敬仰﹐是白痴﹐是執著。四﹐不是認定拿綜援等同廢物﹐是他們來港預咗有綜援而不工作﹐齋生仔﹐才是鄙視為廢物的原因。五﹐早期落來的移民﹐唔做就無得食﹐邊有屋有錢派? 你拿來比?? 六﹐如果新移民可成為廉價labour force﹐就無人反對啦﹐就係唔單只唔成為labour force, 反而成為社會負累先比人屌。
你究竟點讀書架﹐咁簡單既野都要人解畫?

同意hystericireul.

BilDub 說...

其實我作為一個奉公守法嘅小市民, 有份小小的工, 準時交足稅, 冇話攞政府著數(唔似果啲大商家咁...), 但係我都儲唔到錢(我相信喺香港,唔止我一個係咁), 我好驚第日老咗冇錢生活要攞綜援... 美國人交咁多稅, 但係老咗有個保障, 果啲叫"保障", 唔係蓋著一塊"乞兒"面具的"綜援"... 係嘛? 我都覺得自己要交好多稅, 又冇話扼政府, 佢係我情人嘅話, 我對佢都算係咁, 咁點解佢俾唔到一種"保障"嘅感覺我, 而要去"溝"果啲對佢唔好, 一心想攞佢著數嘅人呢?

五十米深藍 說...

我所講既父母均非香港人但來港生子但要政府貼錢擺明居馬是貪香港的福利係我立場我係反對, 問題係你唔俾距黎香港道理上講唔過去, 未成為公民也不能享受福利我係認同. 我無話要對呢d人慷慨, 如果係甘我就真係有問題. 我意思係指對父或母係香港人係有權lor福利, 唔係前一類, 只係距地值唔值得lor係另一回事. 至於搞亂左低收入同lor綜援, 引致誤會, 實在抱歉, 我會自我檢討.

舒爾賽 說...

我首先想回應木杉止首十一郎的回應,第一,未交過稅就唔可以評論,如果照呢個邏輯推論,我地未做過大陸人,未生過仔又或者未做過大陸孕婦,似乎我地都唔可以評論啦,此其一。第二係,第二,低收入一樣可以拎綜援,不過當然,我地一般的概念呢d係補貼。第三,如果你認為佢地係白痴,係執著,咁其實香港所有做緊野的人都係白痴,係執著,我點解要辛辛苦苦打份工,唔去拎綜援呀?所有做緊野的人寧死都唔拎綜援,一樣係白痴,係執著(包括你同我),第四點,基本上同意,而來香港只係諗住生仔,拎綜援的人,當然要譴責,但係,個問題係,究竟呢班人係咪我地想像中咁多呢?又或者香港一樣有人係齋生仔唔做野拎綜援,甚至一些外藉(非中國人)的人仕,一樣都有呢種情況發生(我果條邨的巴基斯坦/印度人?一生生六七八個都係拎綜援,住公屋,咁係咪呢d都係你地定義下的廢物呢?最後兩點我希望今晚會有專文回應你。
至于hystericireul的回應,我覺得呢個屬于香港行政制度的問題,佢來生仔,香港醫院係有分本港居民同非本港居民的收費,至于走數的問題,呢樣野可以由醫院諗辦法堵塞漏洞。至于第二個問題係佢一來生仔,個仔就可以享有香港居留權,呢d我覺得可以透過修改法例,不過至于晌香港生仔的孕婦係咪就係輕易或者可以好抵咁享有晒所有香港的福利呢?我睇未必,有興趣不妨睇下呢個網就知:http://news.big5.enorth.com.cn/system/2006/06/22/001338228.shtml

木杉止首十一郎 說...

藍生: "父母均非香港人﹐唔俾距黎香港道理上講唔過去?" 對父母皆非原居民來港有所限制有問題? 定係你句句子結構有問題? 你的句子﹐段落很含糊。
"父或母係香港人係有權lor福利"﹐首先﹐分清居民﹐和公民﹐就算你移民外地﹐起初也只算居民﹐是沒有福利的﹐公民是當你在當地居住了一定時間﹐履行了一定的公民責任﹐才有權享受福利。
幫助低收入﹐大可提高個人免稅額﹐生活指數提高﹐大可把現時的十萬提升至十二﹑三萬左右。收入少了﹐就要節省開資﹐cut的綜援﹐唔做工就唔保你餐餐有飯開﹐焗住班人就點都要揾份工﹐咁既可提高勞動力﹐又可減輕低收入人仕既負擔。

舒生: 1﹐唔係因為未交過稅就唔可以評論﹐本生句句子係個statement﹐只是表明這一點﹐不要嘗試拖連帶關係。只是表明我認為藍生不明白這狀態﹐並不構成不能發言的理由。如過不知所云就不能發言﹐舒生就肯定排第一﹐還是繼續做你的西生自彈自屌吧! 2﹐補貼﹐就不是單一方面的付出﹐對貧窮的人舒以援手﹐無問題﹐亦和立場無衝突。3﹐一個係有需要﹐一個係非必需﹐如果你這點也分不清﹐可能憑你的智力的確可以拿綜援﹐弱能人仕接受資助我也不反對。4﹐無錯﹐不論國籍種族﹐有這樣行為的就是廢物﹐只不過新移民佔多﹐不代表沒本地垃圾。

你的連結做的是網絡調查﹐上得網投票既﹐就有一定的學識水平﹐起碼都買到部電腦掛? 弊在落來香港生個班﹐係以為落到來有金執個班盲毛﹐所以不能反映現實狀況。香港人去英國生仔﹐個仔根本唔會得到英國居留權, 更唔可以領到當地一毫子福利。美國就會拒絕入境。講人權既民主國家都如此﹐香港仲要超英趕美﹐扮晒仁慈﹐但咁唔係叫有人權﹐講人道﹐而係戇居。

不妨看看這圖表﹐由80年初十幾億﹐到90年代的五六十億﹐97後的200億逐年梯升﹐今年2006-07年度 ﹐社會福利署的開支預算總額為343億元(與2005-06 年度的329億元修訂預算比較 ﹐增加4.3%。這343億元當中﹐245億元(71.5%)為經濟援助金﹐67億元(19.5%)為提供予非政府機構的經常資助﹐其餘31億元(9.0%)為社會福利署的部門開支﹐當中包括僱用服務開支的6億元。)﹐真係唔關班燦頭事??06年12月﹐申請人數約30萬﹐約17萬是年老和傷殘﹐咁其餘十三萬人從何而來?

hystericireul 說...

對不起,我現在未有時間看舒爾賽的連結。

但我覺得問題是出在香港從始至終沒有審核入境者的權利,抱歉手上沒有相關的資料可以比較。為甚麼?如果說英美澳加等地,很明顯,不說孕婦,一般人的入境審查也相當嚴格,即使是旅遊簽證亦如是。

但香港的問題正是在於「一國兩制」,既是一國,那從內地來港應該是在「一國」之內,限制何來?這方面要找找世界上由某城到另一某城的一般規定作參考。而既是「兩制」,那麼香港要實行一定的審查又似乎相當合理。

但我認為無論如何,香港應該在審核入境方面有更多自主,這是問題的根本一。

根本二是公民不公民的問題,木杉止首十一郎已解釋得很清楚,如果我們仍住在伊甸園,我們當然可以讓人任意取用社會資源──反正是全能的神源源不絕地供應,但如果我們認清我們在人間,政府資源是全香港人的努力成果,我們便不得不小心了。

那些新移民慘不慘?慘!很多人都被人「蒙蔽」以為香港是樂土,誰知下來才發覺是地獄。那是否「因為他們很慘」,「所以給他們綜援」?否!很遺憾,但不得不然。像你在美國留學的話,一是一病病到死,一是不要病,就這樣。至多幫你找工作(其實這也會用到社會資源,不過不用這必需的社會資源的話,現時被動的香港只有「硬食」低技術人士)。(這部分不是回應任何一位的發言)

五十米,我也不太明白你的意思。我的立場很簡單:如果父或母是香港人(指永久性居民,非歧視之意),那麼是香港人的那個有香港福利,就這樣。如果父親是香港人,母親是內地人,對不起,正價。(正價意思是全價,一毫政府補貼也沒有。)(這點可能有商榷餘地,始終有一方是香港人。)

最後我想說,家庭團聚是每個人都樂見的,但為了這個原因而濫發居港權便是荒謬。只要看看外國的移民政策便可以知道。

五十米深藍 說...

我所指的是以香港的情況來看, 因為好像暫時沒有針對大肚婆入境的限制 (而家有), 所以好難堵截所有大肚婆黎香港, 包括父母係唔係或者唔係香港人, 除非你改例, 所以即使你覺得父母均非香港人既大肚婆黎香港係生仔厄飯食, 你都好難唔俾距黎, 因為無甘既入境限制, 當然我係反對俾福利呢班人.

木杉止首十一郎 說...

藍生:嘩!真係估你唔到...你原來係咁解(汗)﹐我相信你要好好學習你的表達能力。

Jacky TT 說...

其實,那些香港人父親,是否對社會沒有貢獻?