港鐵加價可恥

昨天，港鐵連續第三年在大賺特賺下加價。巿民一早就表達了強烈不滿。一個
月前，社會民主連線將收集得來的萬多封反對加價的簽名信交給港鐵。一如所
料，港鐵並無回應，繼續漠視巿民意見。

就此，我們今天特此到港鐵總部，找錢果豐及韋達誠算帳，要求他們馬上對
話，交代加價問題，撤回加價！

總結港鐵的多個問題︰
（一）連年大賺下加價，不負責任，製造極不必要的通脹；
（二）以帶有壟斷性質的公用事業斂財。明知即使港鐵一再無理加價，巿民仍
舊必須乘搭港鐵，故此有恃無恐，加完再加，榨盡基層巿民最後一滴血；
（三）沿線上蓋物業豬籠入水，商店面積不斷擴大，服務卻每況愈下；
（四）八達通已利用大量按金賺盡利息，又在各種不同的交易中賺取了大量手
續費，如今竟還上調車資——現在八達通比單程車票更貴的情況越見嚴重，盡
露港鐵之狐狸尾巴！

社會民主連線的嚴正訴求︰
（一）強烈要求港鐵必須撤回加價，凍結票價、甚至調低票價，履行社會責任
；
（二）港鐵必須大幅改善服務，及停止八達通方面的加價；
（二）香港政府作為港鐵之最大股東，必須盡快改革票價機制，取銷漏洞極大
的可加可減機制，及研究回購可能，控制這頭怪獸，保障巿民生計。

社會民主連線
2012年6月18日

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150885142325785.406868.59393860784&type=1 

反對港鐵大幅加價

  就  貴公司於3月26日宣佈，儘管去年盈利高達逾百億元，仍將按照可加可減機制調整今年的票價，加幅更會高達5.4%，自由黨認為加幅過高，不可接受。
   目前通脹高企，單是本年首兩月合計，基本消費物價通脹率達6.1%，數字甚高。而且，港鐵5.4%的平均加幅，較一般打工仔的加薪幅度還高。若港鐵堅持大幅加價，必會令市民生活百上加斤，難以負擔。
2007年兩鐵合併，為現時的港鐵鐵路網絡及地產項目發展發揮協同效應，也帶來了票價下調的空間，當時票價最高減幅達10%。自由黨認為，協同效應 為港鐵帶來的好處長遠的，故好應持續回饋市民，儘量將票價定於市民可負擔的水平。惟自2010年可加可減機制實施以來，已是連續三年加價，累積加幅已把兩 鐵合併時的減幅幾近抵銷。
設立可加可減機制的原意，本是為確保港鐵有足夠資源維修保養及維持服務質素，而非給予港鐵大幅加價的空間。事實上，港鐵去年盈利高達147億元，絕 對有調低加幅的空間。而且，港鐵得到政府給予的土地資源優惠，從中賺取巨大利潤，故理應比一般私營上市公司，更有條件履行企業社會責任，照顧市民的負擔能 力。但偏偏現時的可加可減機制中，並沒有作此考慮。
   而自由黨早前在街頭進行了簽名運動，反對港鐵大幅加價，並要求提供實質優惠，包括即時提供:1.「即日回程優惠」，2.擴大月票優惠，尤其要惠及居於偏遠 地區居民，3.取消全日制學生乘車優惠的年齡限制，及4.重推暫停了13年的「彈性上班優惠」，讓乘客在早上繁忙時間前以八達通入閘，均可享有優惠。
   結果，我們上述的建議，取得了逾萬名巿民的支持，故強烈敦促    貴公司能予以積極考慮，避免大幅加票價，加重巿民負擔。

                                       自由黨主席劉健儀 

二零一二年四月十七日

港鐵六月加價5.4% 被轟獅子開大口

2012-03-27

港鐵繼去年三月加價後，昨又公佈按「可加可減」機制，加價百分之五點四，加幅成引入機制後歷年之冠，亦是連續第三年加價，今年六月實施，預計每位乘客每程多付三毫以上。港鐵在去年勁賺一百四十七億元盈利下仍要加價，有民間監察組織形容加幅「離譜」。

    

■港鐵的車票優惠被批評只是「耍手段」。
■楊美珍指，不會從去年大賺百億的地產利潤中撥款作營運開資。

政 府昨公佈，去年第四季工資指數上升百分之五點一，而去年十二月綜合消費物價指數則上升百分之五點七，港鐵即按「可加可減」機制，將兩者相加除二，計算出今 年六月車費加幅，加幅達百分之五點四，不同站的新價目表詳情，將於五月底公佈。以由中環到尖沙咀現時為八元一角為例，加價後將為八元五角，預計港鐵可多賺 四億多。港鐵市務及車站商務總經理楊美珍強調，可加可減機制公平並具透明度，有助港鐵長遠營運。

        港鐵去年從地產所得的利 潤達一百億元，被問到會否從該利潤中，撥出部份作營運開資，以代替加價，楊美珍表示，由於「物業利潤不穩定」，故未有考慮。港鐵過去兩年，已按可加可減機 制自動加價，分別為前年的百分之二點○五，和前年的百分之二點二。為平息連續三年加價惹來市民的不滿，今年會繼續推出車票優惠。

        民間監察組織蔡耀昌批評，港鐵盈利達到一百四十七億元，仍要加價是「不能接受」，建議身為大股東的港府「出聲」暫緩加價，像去年兩電加價事件一樣。

        蔡又說，去年港鐵加價足足一年，但「搭百賞一」優惠卻只有半年，質疑港鐵「耍手段」。

        立法會交通事務委員會主席鄭家富認為，港鐵加價對每日需要乘坐港鐵來回的乘客造成很大負擔，建議設立票價穩定基金，並且推出月票優惠。

MTR fare increases should reflect profits, not just costs: Expert

Ada Lee ada.lee@scmp.com

Train fare increases should be linked to either the MTR Corp's railway profits or the rate of increase in people's incomes, a veteran transport analyst says.
Hung Wing-tat, of Polytechnic University, noted that while the formula for calculating fare increases reflected the railway's costs, it failed to consider profits.
"The MTR need not and should not raise fares when it has a huge profit," he said, suggesting instead to establish an upper limit to prevent the railway from raising its fees when its profits exceeded a certain limit.
Hung made his views clear in an interview after the government began a public consultation on a fare review mechanism.
He said another way to limit a fare increase would be to link it to workers' average pay rise. "Some people are angry because their wages weren't raised as much as the MTR's fare increase."
Officials are reviewing the fare adjustment formula, introduced in 2007, that has allowed the MTR Corp to raise its fares for three consecutive years, sparking widespread criticism from Hongkongers. The review of the mechanism, launched after a public outcry against a 5.4 per cent fare hike in May, is expected to be completed early next year.
Some critics have faulted the corporation for hiking its fares after it made a net profit last year of HK$14.7 billion, but the railway said it was only sticking to its agreement with the government. The MTR offered a HK$670 million package of concessions along with the fare increase, saying that it would offset the profit it made from the hike.
The fare adjustment formula is made up of three components - increases to reflect the consumer price index and changes in wages in the transport sector, minus a small percentage to cover improvements in productivity.
Hung also faulted the formula's productivity factor as unfairly low - zero per cent until next year, then adjusted to 0.1 per cent. "It should be at least 0.5 per cent, to align with the fare adjustment formula of the franchised bus companies," he said.
Richard Tsoi Yiu-cheong, of the Coalition to Monitor Public Transport and Utilities, agreed with Hung's suggestions, saying he also wanted to see quality of service added to the fare adjustment considerations. "When it comes to service performance, it's hard to rely only on a formula," Tsoi said. He said the MTR performance should be graded with a system in which points would be deducted for service interruptions and other problems.
The consultation will end later this month.

港鐵應帶頭提供優惠壓抑加風, MTR should take the lead in giving special offers to combat inflation

http://paper.wenweipo.com   [2011-03-18]    

　■港鐵去年錄得120億元盈利，按年升25.1%。行政總裁周松崗（右二）稱，現時難以預計會否加價。 資料圖片

　港鐵月初公布去年全年業績，錄得120億元盈利，按年升25.1%。行政總裁周松崗表示，公司 將於6月根據可加可減調整機制調整票價，現時難以預計會否加價，或加幅有多少。港鐵作為本港公共交通的龍頭企業，享受政府給予的特殊優惠，佔據市場競爭優 勢。政府作為港鐵的大股東，應推動港鐵在穩賺豐厚盈利的情況下，承擔更大的社會責任，主動提供票價優惠讓利於民，不帶頭加價，以抑制交通工具的加風。

　根據港鐵票價的調整機制，以每年12月的通脹率及運輸服務業的工資指數按年變幅再減半釐定，倘運算 結果高於正負1.5%，即可啟動調整機制，而毋須政府或立法會審批。政府統計處公布去年12月通脹率達3.1%，即使不計及工資因素，已超出1.5%的票 價啟動基線。但另一方面，正因為目前通脹趨熱、百物騰貴，港鐵加價「牽一髮動全身」，勢必掀起公共交通的加價潮，這對基層市民的衝擊最大。

　港鐵既然享有政府賦予的特權，即使作為上市企業，亦不能淡化公用事業的角色，應該將盈利與公眾分 享，而非完全商業化，不顧民情民意，在坐擁厚利的情況下仍要加價逐利。相反，港鐵應該及時回饋社會，為市民提供各種票價優惠，對其他交通工具加價形成壓 力，避免進一步刺激通脹。

MTR should take the lead in giving special offers to combat inflation

Early this month, the MTR Corporation announced its annual results. In the past year, the corporation reported a profit of HK$12 billion, representing a year-on-year increase of 25.1%. Chief Executive Officer Mr Chow Chung-kong said that the company would adjust its fares in June under the fare adjustment mechanism, and that it was difficult for the time being to predict whether there would actually be an increase in the fares or the rate of increase. MTR is a leader in the Hong Kong public transport sector; while enjoying special privileges granted by the government, it has a competitive edge in the market. Now that the company maintains a huge steady profit, the government, as a major shareholder, should urge MTR to undertake greater social responsibilities by taking the initiative to give fare offers to benefit citizens and taking the lead in refraining from raising fares in order to combat inflation in the public transport sector.

Under the fare adjustment mechanism of MTR, the adjustment rate is calculated on the basis of the year-on-year changes of the rate of inflation and the transport services wage index of December of the preceding year. If the rate exceeds the range of +1.5% after deducting 0.05%, the company may activate the adjustment mechanism without having to seek the approval of the government or the Legislative Council. According to the Census and Statistics Department, the rate of inflation recorded in December last year was 3.1%. Even without taking the wage factor into account, this figure has already exceeded the 1.5% baseline for activating the mechanism. However, it has to be noted that as currently the inflationary pressure is mounting and prices are soaring, any increase in MTR fares will have a far-reaching effect and will certainly trigger a trend of fare rises in the public transport services. The grassroots will be the hardest hit.

MTR enjoys privileges granted by the government. Even though it is a listed company, its role as a public utility will not diminish. The company ought to share the benefits of its huge profit with the public and should not regard itself as purely a commercial enterprise. At a time when the company is earning huge profits, it should not go on seeking greater gains by means of fare increases without considering the feelings and opinions of the general public. Instead, the company should timely contribute to society by giving various fare offers to the public, which will pressurize other modes of transport into not raising their fares, and help to avoid further pushing up the inflation. 　■Translation by 開明 chi.ming818@gmail.com

港鐵競步賽「贈興」 「吸血鬼」抗議加價

2012-10-29

港鐵去年勁賺逾百億，但在「可加可減」機制下，今年六月連續第三年加價。多個團體昨趁港鐵競步賽期間到場示威，有人一度闖入賽道上示威，也有人更扮成「吸血鬼」諷刺港鐵，運輸及房屋局局長張炳良稱，不排除將市民負擔能力等因素，加進港鐵票價調整制度。

        逾 十名社民連成員昨日趁港鐵競步比賽期間，手持寫上「事故頻頻有，車費年年加」等字眼的標語，沿途呼叫口號，批評港鐵在逾百億盈餘的情況下加價並不合理，示 威者更一度闖入賽道示威，比賽受阻數分鐘，之後他們向運輸及房屋局局長張炳良遞上請願信後離開。另外，「關注公共交通事務聯盟」成員，昨也手持多個貼有示 威標語的氣球在賽道旁示威，有人士甚至穿上「吸血鬼」服飾（小圖），諷刺港鐵「可加可減」票價調整機制，猶如「吸血鬼」般吸盡港人血汗錢。

        張炳良：政府態度開放

        對於坊間認為，港鐵「可加可減」票價調整機制，應計算市民的負擔能力、港鐵盈利和服務表現等因素，運輸及房屋局局長張炳良表示，政府持開放態度，考慮可行性。不過，港鐵主席錢果豐認為，檢討票價機制時，不應加入太多因素進入方程式，才可平衡各方利益。

立會要求港鐵擱置加價 鄭汝樺：全面檢視調整機制

2012年 04月 13日 10:1

【香港商報訊】記者戴合聲報道：去年盈利高達147億元的港鐵，在可加可減機制下，今年6月仍可連續3 年加價，加幅更是3年之冠的5.4%。立法會交通事務委員會昨日通過沒有約束力的動議，要求港鐵擱置加價，但仍無法改變加價的事實。運輸及房屋局局長鄭汝 樺重申，票價調整機制具有法律效力，不可貿然放弃，但表示今年會檢討機制；港鐵行政總裁韋達誠亦表示，下月會公布一系列的優惠詳情。     鄭汝樺：全面檢視調整機制     鄭汝樺表示，會客觀和全面地去檢視現行的票價調整機制，研究應否以及若要調整的話，如何引入一些新的元素去反映港鐵公司譬如它的營運成本，甚至是利潤水平、營運效率、服務表現以及重要的是市民的負擔能力等等，令機制更完善。     在動議辯論中，有議員指出，現時通脹一浪高過一浪，即使港鐵推出優惠，市民負擔都十分沉重，認為最好的應對方法是「擱置加價」；亦有議員 說，機制只是定出一個指標，最終決定是否加價仍然是由港鐵決定，建議當局應向全香港700萬市民確認，就算有這機制，如果港鐵自動認為不需要加價或者加少 一點，也不會違反合約精神。     有學者建議，政府在檢討機制時，應剔除一些與港鐵營運無關的通脹因素，如將綜合性通脹扣除食品通脹來變成核心通脹數字，另應該加入市民負擔能力及服務質素等因素。

Government maintains Fare Adjustment Arrangement for franchised buses

The Chief Executive in Council today (December 8)
approved that the current Fare Adjustment Arrangement (FAA)
for franchised buses, which includes a formula to assess the
level of supportable fare adjustment, should continue to be
adopted. While the components and their weightings in the
formula will be maintained, the value of productivity gain
in the formula will be set at zero until the next review in
three years' time.
The current FAA was put in place in January 2006 with
a view to enhancing the objectivity and transparency of the
fare adjustment process and enabling upward and downward fare
adjustments in accordance with economic conditions. In
assessing franchised bus fare adjustment for the purpose of
making recommendations to the Chief Executive in Council, the
Government would take into account a basket of factors which
include:
(i) changes in operating costs and revenue since the last fare
adjustment;
(ii) forecasts of future costs, revenue and return;
(iii) the need to provide the operator with a reasonable rate
of return;
(iv) public acceptability and affordability;
(v) quality and quantity of service provided; and
(vi) outcome of the fare adjustment formula (0.5 x Change in
Wage Index + 0.5 x Change in Composite Consumer Price Index
- 0.5 x Productivity Gain).
A spokesman for the Transport and Housing Bureau said
the Government had completed a review of the FAA and that based
on past experience, particularly in processing the fare
increase applications in 2008, the FAA was found to be working
well in general and should therefore be maintained.
"Although the fare adjustment formula has not triggered
any comprehensive fare review so far, it has enhanced the
responsiveness and objectivity of the fare adjustment process,
to the benefit of bus operators, passengers, and the general
public," the spokesman said.
Under the FAA, the Government will continue to monitor
the formula outcome on a quarterly basis and will proactively
initiate a comprehensive fare review if the formula outcome
reaches the -2% threshold.
In assessing the reasonable rate of return to franchised
bus operators, the Government will continue to make reference
to 9.7% rate of return on average net fixed asset (ANFA). The
9.7% rate of return on ANFA will continue to serve as the point
for triggering the passenger reward arrangement.
"The FAA for franchised buses will be reviewed again in
three years' time. This will allow us sufficient time to gain
more experience in applying the FAA in assessing fare
adjustments," the spokesman added.
The Government consulted the Legislative Council Panel
on Transport and the Transport Advisory Committee (TAC) in
October 2009. Members of the panel and TAC generally
supported the proposed way forward, particularly the
recommendation that a fuel element should not be added to the
fare adjustment formula.
Details of the FAA are set out in the Legislative Council
Brief issued today. The paper has been uploaded to the
Transport and Housing Bureau's website www.thb.gov.hk .

梁﹕港鐵加價應考慮地產利潤

建議市民負擔服務質素納機制

【明 報專訊】港鐵按可加可減機制加價觸發社會不滿，候任特首梁振英昨日表態，指港鐵加價已按現機制啟動，在檢討港鐵加價機制時應考慮三大因素：市民負擔能力、 地產項目利潤及服務質素。正進行檢討機制工作的運輸及房屋局亦承認，可加可減機制的檢討中，會研究是否把5項因素，包括港鐵營運成本、利潤水平、營運效 率、服務表現及市民負擔能力納入機制內。
港鐵過去的盈利中，三至五成來自物業收益，而去年錄得逾147億元巨額盈利仍可加價5.4%（見 圖）。梁振英昨接受商台《在晴朗的一天出發》訪問時表示，現時港鐵票價加幅是按機制運算，「除非是計錯數，否則合理不合理，大家心裏面有不同的尺」；但港 鐵作為公共交通機構，加價時應特別考慮市民負擔能力、港鐵地產項目利潤、收費水平是否與服務質素符合等因素，他關注現正進行的檢討工作。

運房局擬加成本效率等5新因素

現 時機制由通脹率、運輸業工資指數及生產力因素的數據組成，運房局發言人表示，正研究在以上3項因素外，再考慮是否引入5項新元素，包括反映港鐵營運成本、 利潤水平、營運效率、服務表現的數據，以及市民的負擔能力，以完善機制，下半年會跟港鐵商討，料今年底或明年初完成檢討。
恒生管理學院商學院院長蘇偉文直言，2007年政府設定機制時，本港已連續8年通縮，當時沒考慮到薪酬追不上通脹，造成現時市民交通費負擔愈來愈重。機制要設立客觀準則原意是好，但運作一段時間後已反映有所不足，有必要引入新元素。
他建議，如工資指數，應採納中下階層的收入水平，取代只計算運輸業的工資；政府亦可與港鐵就服務水平商討一個指標，「如最多容許港鐵每日只誤點1分鐘，如港鐵1年有365分鐘誤點，便需要扣除某個水平車費」。

團體促政府取回加價審批權

民間監管公用事業聯委會發言人蔡耀昌建議政府，應趁檢討取回加價審批權，「專營巴士同樣設有機制，但仍需行會審批，為何專營鐵路就可自動加價？」
立法會交通事務委員會主席鄭家富建議仿效專營巴士做法設立盈利上限，又重申應設立票價穩定基金，但蘇偉文認為不可行，「因港鐵會把成本轉嫁業主」，即由港鐵樓盤業主補貼車費。
當年有份支持機制的工聯會王國興承認，當時立法會側重考慮兩鐵合併後港鐵會減價，機制未反映實况是「漏招」，促政府盡快完善檢討。
明報記者

Executive Council approves bus fare increase

The Executive Council today (April 19) considered the fare increase
applications from the Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited ("KMB") and
Long Win Bus Company Limited ("LW"), and approved an overall average fare
increase of 3.6% for KMB and an overall average fare increase of 3.2% for LW. The
new fares will take effect on May 15, 2011.
Compared with the proposed fare increase rates applied by KMB and LW at the
rate of 8.6% and 7.4% respectively, the approved rates of fare increase are lower by
over 50%.
The Executive Council, in their deliberations, have fully considered and
balanced all relevant factors in the fare adjustment arrangement for franchised buses,
which include:
(a) changes in operating costs and revenue of the bus companies since the last fare
adjustment in June 2008;
(b) forecasts of future costs, revenue and return;
(c) the need to provide the operator with a reasonable rate of return;
(d) public acceptability and affordability;
(e) the quality and quantity of service provided by the bus companies; and
(f) a formula (Supportable fare adjustment rate = 0.5 x Change in Wage Index + 0.5 x
Change in Composite Consumer Price Index ("CCPI") - 0.5 x Productivity Gain).
A Government spokesman said that the approved fare increases have struck a
balance between minimising the impact of bus fare increase on passengers and at the
same time enabling the franchised bus operators to continue to provide public bus
services at its current standard.
"In processing KMB and LW's application, the Government has assessed
relevant operating information carefully and comprehensively, and considered that
there was a case for fare increases for the two franchised bus companies in order to
maintain their financial viability and service sustainability. On the other hand, the
Government understands that, under an inflationary environment, the general public is
very concerned about the impact of bus fare increases on their livelihoods. The
Government has therefore handled the fare increase applications with caution," a
spokesman said.
"The change in CCPI from the last fare increase in June 2008 to February 2011
is +5.72%. The approved fare increase rates for KMB and LW are in effect lower
than the inflation during the same period."
As regards the fact that the approved fare increase rates do not follow the
formula outcome (+3.92%), the Government spokesman explained that the formula
reflects changes in the macro-economic conditions and past operating costs of the bus
companies, and does not operate as an automatic determinant of bus fare adjustment
outcome.
The Government spokesman added that the Government understands that KMB
and LW are facing challenges in their operations. In particular, fuel prices have been
subject to an upward trend and remained at a high level since the two companies
submitted fare increase applications last year. The additional costs incurred have put
immense pressure on the two bus companies. However, having regard to public
affordability and acceptability in the inflationary environment, it is hoped that the bus
companies would share the hard times with the community, and continue to provide
quality services. In considering the bus fare increase applications, the Executive
Council has fully considered the views of the Panel on Transport of the Legislative
Council and the Transport Advisory Committee.

Transport support scheme

【明報專訊】AS the major parties are opposed to the Work Incentive Transport Subsidy Scheme, the government has decided to optimise it. It will make concessions. For example, it has vigorously considered raising the two-member family income limit to between $11,600 and $12,000 so that it will be in line with the statutory minimum wage rate. Furthermore, it will put in place a two-tier rule of work hours so that a person may receive a half of the subsidy if he works 36 hours a month.
More than a half of the legislators are opposed to the scheme the government has proposed. Unless it makes concessions, the Legislative Council (Legco) Finance Committee will certainly throw it out tomorrow. The government having offered concessions, we believe its amended scheme will go through. If the Legco Finance Committee grants the appropriation, about 380,000 eligible citizens will receive transport subsidies later this year.
Until dusk yesterday, the government stood firm, saying the proposed scheme was final and there was no way it could make any concession. It may have thought that, if the Finance Committee threw out its application for funding, the scheme would not be implemented in the foreseeable future, citizens, who would then lose out, would blame legislators, and they would come under political pressure. If it did so, it would be gravely mistaken. In fact, if legislators threw the scheme out, citizens would blame that on the government's stinginess and reluctance to benefit more citizens by offering concessions. It would then come under greater political pressure than legislators.
Only if the government threatened it would withdraw the scheme and that would be the end of the matter if the Finance Committee rejected its application for funding would legislators be considered guilty of depriving citizens of the benefit. Would the government be so bold as to do so? Given the political reality and atmosphere in Hong Kong, it would not have dared to contemplate doing so were it as courageous as a leopard. If it had refused to budge, the Finance Committee would reject its application for funding, and citizens and legislators would day after day demand that it come up with a new scheme. In that event, it would certainly come under the greatest ever pressure. Furthermore, its new scheme would not be supported by the majority of legislators unless it was better than that it had produced. In other words, only if it offered concessions would the dust settle. It had to give in sooner or later. It acted realistically when it told some legislators at dusk yesterday it was prepared to budge.
However, the government is adamant that individuals should not be allowed to apply for transport support. It says that, as all benefits are given to households, transport support must not be made an exception lest its policies should seem inconsistent. This argument makes sense. In fact, if individuals are allowed to apply for transport support, it may be difficult to ascertain whether applicants really need the benefit. There would be risk of the scheme being abused. The suggestion that individuals should be eligible for the benefit may be set aside until there is a simple, practicable mechanism for approving applications.
The amended scheme is fair, reasonable and worthy of support. We hope the good scheme will soon be implemented so that citizens who need the support will soon receive it.
明報社評 2011.02.17﹕交津計劃決優化 讓步方案可接受
關於「鼓勵就業交通津貼計劃」（以下簡稱交津），政府在主要政黨聯手反對下，決定優化原初提出的方案，作出讓步，包括積極考慮調高二人家庭入息上限至1.16萬到1.2萬元，與最低工資掛鈎，並設立工時兩級制，每月只需工作36小時已可領一半交通津貼。
政府原初提出的方案，超過半數的立法會議員反對；除非政府讓步，否則只會在明天的財務委員會遭到否決，現在政府讓步，修訂方案應可過關。財委會若能順利通過撥款，約38萬名符合資格的市民今年稍後便可以領取交津。
昨 日黃昏之前，政府一直「企硬」，聲言已提出最後方案，並無讓步空間；政府原初擺出不惜以零和對決的姿態，迫使議員批准撥款。政府或許盤算，財委會不批准撥 款，使計劃落實無期，市民在未能盡快得益下會怪責議員，議員要承受政治壓力。若政府這樣假設，就想錯了。從市民角度來看，議員不惜否決方案，多會認為政府 吝嗇，不肯讓步使更多市民受惠，兩相比較，政府所承受政治壓力，會較議員為大。
關於交津計劃，除非政府聲言若財委會不批准撥款，整個計劃就 會撤銷，整件事就完結，則議員才會面臨阻礙市民享有福利的「罪名」，但是政府敢這樣做嗎？以本港的政治現實和氛圍，就算政府吃了豹子膽，相信也不敢作如是 想。另外，若政府不讓步，財委會否決方案之後，政府面對的是市民和議員每日都催迫「拿出新方案來！」，壓力肯定空前龐大。再其次，若政府再提出方案，一定 要較現有方案更放寬，才可以爭取多數議員支持，也就是說，政府必須讓步，事件才會解決，與其遲早都要讓步，政府昨日傍晚約晤部分議員商議，表明願意讓步， 是實事求是的做法。
政府拒絕接受雙軌制，主要是申領其他福利都以家庭為單位，交津不能另搞一套，以保持政策精神的一致性，政府這個堅持，有 一定依據和道理；事實上，雙軌制在辨識有需要人士存在一定困難，可能使不少沒有逼切需要的人得到資助，被濫用風險較大，故在未有一套較簡單可行的審查做法 之前，雙軌制可以擱置不議。至於其他兩項，政府都讓步了。
經過修訂的方案比較公平合理，值得支持，我們希望這一件好事盡早落實，使有需要的市民盡早得益。
明報英語網「雙語社評」
http://english.mingpao.com/critic.htm

Various Stakeholders' Responses

【明報專訊】◆The government
"The formula needs to be revised."
Anger against the MTR is often targeted at the government as well, for it is the largest shareholder in the group. The government has said it is open to ideas from the public, and has published a 5-page consultation document, which contains no government proposals. Secretary for Transport and Housing Anthony Cheung Bing-leung (運輸及房屋局長張炳良) admitted the current formula is not "comprehensive" enough, saying the government has commissioned an independent consultancy to help devise a new mechanism.

◆Lawmakers
"Give us some direction."
Wong Kwok-hing, a legislator of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, (工聯會議員王國興) lambasted the government's five-page document for providing "no direction or suggestions". Frankie Yick Chi-ming, a Liberal Party lawmaker for the transport sector (自由黨航運交通界議員易志明), has suggested that the MTR set aside 5 percent of its annual profits for a fund and use the fund to roll back proposed fare increases.

◆The MTR
"Let's keep it simple."
When he was at the MTR's annual race walking event, MTR Corporation Chairman Raymond Ch'ien Kuo Fung (港鐵主席錢果豐) was confronted by a group of angry protesters condemning the fare adjustment mechanism. Ch'ien, responding to some people's suggestion that the fare formula should include more components, said it was no good making things complicated.

◆Transportation monitors
"You should make the grade first."
Richard Tsoi Yiu-cheong of the Coalition to Monitor Public Transport and Utilities (民間監管公共事業聯委會蔡耀昌) has said the MTR's performance should be graded and points should be deducted for service interruptions and other problems.

◆Citizens
"The government should buy back the MTR."
Some citizens think the government should buy back the MTR, while others maintain that, apart from its current components, the fare adjustment mechanism should include such factors as the MTR's profits and citizens' affordability.

FAM MTR fare hike plan a wrong move, may start vicious circle

By Violetta Yau
March 29, 2012 - 9:30am http://chinadailyapac.com 

 

Following hot on the heels of the city’s two power providers’ tariff increase debacle, it is as if that had not been exciting enough, with Hong Kong’s only subway operator MTR Corporation (MTRC) lately dropping a bomb that there will be a 5.4 percent fare hike in June.
This piece of news is of course outrageous and surely not welcome given the fact that the railway monopoly reaped a hefty net profit of HK$14.7 billion last year with a sharp rise of 22 percent from the year before. In fact, the railway operator has been making annual profits of over HK$10 billion for years but has never adjusted its fares downward even once. Coupled with the fact that this increase is the highest since 2007 after its merger with the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corp following a 2.05 percent rise in 2010 and 2.2 percent last year, it is not unfair to say that the more it earns, the more it sucks blood from the people.
The decision is based on a fare adjustment mechanism using a formula that takes into account the inflation rate and salary index for the transport sector, which stands at 5.7 percent and 5.1 percent respectively. In other words, in times of inflation, this adjustment formula will serve as a license to justify fare rises by the MTRC regardless of passengers’ affordability and its social responsibility. The 5.4 percent fare hike will mean an average rise of about 37 cents per trip. For middle-class families, they may just shrug if off. But for poor families, students, the unemployed and elders, this fare hike matters much as it will surely make their lives harder.
The biggest public worry, however, is the vicious cycle that will be triggered by this fare hike. As the leading corporation in the public transport sector, the fare increase may spark off a wave of fee rises by other public utilities. It will not be surprising to see Hong Kong Tramways, Star Ferry and the city’s mini buses demanding a fare rise. The Kowloon Motor Bus, which sank into the red last year, has also rolled its sleeves up to follow suit. Needless to say all these potential fare rises will fan the flames of inflation, aggravating the plight of the working class and underprivileged.
However, what really baffles me is the government’s laissez-faire and wishy-washy attitude. Just three months ago when the two power companies put forward their original proposals to increase electricity tariff by 9.2 percent and 6.3 percent respectively, the Environmental Bureau was quick to chide the two power giants for ignoring their social responsibility and branded the tariff rises unreasonable. Now, as the government is the biggest MTRC shareholder with a 77 percent stake, why does it stay mum on this issue? Why did it give the railway operator the green light to allow its unabashed greed to take priority over public interests?
No doubt that the fare adjustment mechanism allows the MTRC to exercise its right to a fare rise. But this right should not be mandatory but discretionary, taking into account other factors such as the MTRC’s profitability, the economic environment and the passengers’ affordability. With the railway operator sitting on a net profit of HK$14.7 billion last year, why would the government still think this is alright to squeeze every penny out of the public’s hard-earned money?
Who can be capable of standing up for the public when the government chooses to take a laissez-faire approach? When even the fare adjustment mechanism for buses will factor in a basket of indicators and economic indices and subject to the Executive Council’s approval for a fare rise, why is the government still sticking to this flawed mechanism for the MTRC? For the city’s two power companies, they also set up a tariff stabilization fund to offset the pressure for a tariff increase.
In fact, the fare hike might be justified if the MTRC had improved its service quality and safety facilities. But this has not been the case. There have been 300 incidences that caused delays of between eight minutes and over an hour last year compared to 234 in 2007, while there is still no platform screen doors in place at the East Rail line, Ma On Shan station and the Light Rail stations. It is obvious the railway operator has done more on advertising campaigns than on railway maintenance and repairs. Is it fair for passengers to pay more for the unimproved service?
The Leung Chun-ying-led government will take over in July. It is time for him to flex his governance muscles to overhaul the fare adjustment formula for the MTRC by taking into account a host of factors like passengers’ affordability and the salary index of other sectors. The new government should also consider setting a cap on MTRC’s profits and transfer extra profits to a fund to stabilize fare.
The author is a current affairs commentator.

FAM Public transport fares and inflation, separate issues

BY HO LOK-SANG

Public transport fares are on the rise. They are arresting, because public transport is considered a public utility. The impending fare raise by the MTR has attracted much criticism. Critics say the MTR is already making money, with its 2010 profit at HK$12.172 billion, much higher than that of 2009. Critics say the proposed fare increase is not justified, and that it will prompt other companies to raise prices too.
The proposed increase is based on a fare adjustment mechanism that makes reference to the consumer price index and the wage cost index in the transport sector. The proposed rate of increase of 2.3 percent is smaller than the headline inflation of 3.6 percent and the inflation rate applicable to the lower 50 percent of the Hong Kong population, which was 3.9 percent in February.
Just as the critics predicted, other public transport fare increases were announced shortly after the announcement of the MTR fare increases. Six outlying island ferry routes will rise an average of 10 percent from April. Various light buses are applying for fare increases too.
As much as we do not like inflation, however, to argue that a company should not raise fares because it is making profits is not right. I would argue that a profitable company should have the right to raise fares in step with inflation. To argue otherwise would completely destroy any incentive to improve efficiency, and that will not be good for society, because inefficiency is wasteful and does no one any good.

The proposed MTR fare increase is based on a previously agreed formula, and that makes it even more illogical suddenly to disallow it.
Still, I have in this column argued in the past, that we should reduce fares for long trips, which often cost more than HK$20 one way, and which are harmful, in particular, to low income people who tend to live farther away from the city, leading to their becoming segregated. But this should not be at the expense of the shareholders who own the companies. If there is a public policy justification for a reduction in fares, the public should bear the cost, not the private companies.
Some political parties propose that the government use the dividends drawn from the shares it owns to subsidize fares, so that fares need not rise. A spokesperson from the Transport Department warns against possible inefficiency arising from such subsidies. Professor So Wai-man from the Hang Seng Management College thinks the subsidies could lead to a vicious circle of fare increases, averted through subsidies, with the result that taxpayers lose out over the long run.
Actually, the "subsidies" need not have any adverse consequences on efficiency at all, if they are carefully designed.
In particular, if subsidies are in the form of a lump sum payment that is not related to earnings performance at all, and if such lump sum payments are based on revenue forgone due to a specific policy-driven fare arrangement, there will be zero adverse consequences on efficiency.
I am, in particular, concerned about the effects of the proposed round of fare increases on already very onerous fares for long trips, such as between Tin Shui Wai and Central. The one-way fare on an Octopus card is HK$22.4, which will be raised to HK$22.9. This will only worsen the segregation problem. Rather than raising such fares even more, we should reduce them. The revenue implications of this can be worked out and a yearly lump-sum payment can be made to offset the projected revenue losses from the fare reduction. Whether this subsidy comes from the dividend payout to the government or from the general revenue is immaterial.

Some people are concerned about government "subsidizing a private company". This thinking sidetracks the issue. The important point is that the proposed subsidy is not a subsidy to make the operations of a private company more profitable than it is now. It is a price to pay to change the fare structure of a private company, in order to achieve clearly identified social objectives. There is no "transfusion of benefits" to a private company.
It is important, in matters related to public policy, not to be bogged down by dogma or by entrenched beliefs. The single most important consideration is whether a proposed arrangement will further the public interest. Reducing fares on long trips will enhance social inclusion, will truly make more jobs within the reach of people who live far away, and will promote more efficient land use. As I have argued before, public fares typically exceed true marginal social costs by a wide margin, and the deviation is greatest for the longer trips. Given that the West Rail is already up and running, we want it to be better utilized. Lower fares will certainly improve the utilization rate, and with higher utilization rates, the MTR may actually be able to collect more advertising and leasing revenues from the shop spaces along the railway line. I do hope the MTR and the SAR government will consider this proposal seriously.
The author is director of the Centre for Public Policy Studies, Lingnan University.

FAM MTR fare hike: legality, reason and compassion

BY SO WAI-MAN

The MTR Corporation announced late last month that it would raise its fares by another 2.3 percent when the Fare Adjustment Mechanism takes effect in June. At a time when consumer prices are soaring, the company has decided to raise MTR fares although it booked HK$10 billion in profits last year. Little wonder it seemed to become public enemy No 1 immediately.
This is pretty much expected, as the Hong Kong public today is automatically against all hikes in money matters except their personal income. The anti-price hike mentality has in fact a populist hue to it but that is quite normal here of late.
Many people, speaking from a compassionate point of view, have concluded that the MTR Corp should not raise subway fares. With a 76 percent stake, the SAR government is the largest shareholder of the MTR Corp and local residents naturally assume the government wields the decision-making power when it comes to fare hikes. By the same token, people kind of look at the MTR Corp as a "State-owned enterprise" because it is majority-owned by the government. As such it is expected to serve the people rather than hurting their interests, hence the widespread opposition to MTR's fare hikes two years in a row.
On the grounds of lawfulness and reason, however, the MTR Corp has the right to raise fares according to relevant laws and regulations. The subway operator slashed its fares by 13 percent when it merged with the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corp (KCRC) in December 2007 and has lifted fares twice since by a little over 2 percent each time. In other words, the company cannot make up for its steep fare cut three years ago even with the planned 2.3 percent rise in June. A business has to be profitable to survive and has no reason not to adjust prices/fares upward when necessary. Besides, the planned MTR fare hike is below the current inflation rate, meaning it is "reasonable" on MTR's part.

Also, the Legislative Council (LegCo) approved the MTR Corp's Fare Adjustment Mechanism upon its merger with the KCRC and the mechanism allows both fare hikes and cuts, which means it is legal for the company to raise fares and so is the percentage of the latest fare hike. Based on the above analysis this writer believes the MTR fare hike is "lawful" and "reasonable" but not "compassionate". It is regrettable that the MTR Corp has neglected popular discontent when it decided to exercise its legal right to adjust fares upward.
The MTR Corp's role is unusual in that many people see it as a government institution and therefore believe profitability should not be its top goal. For a listed company this is in a way a case of mistaken identity. A listed company is under constant market pressure to make profits. It would be considered dereliction of duty from a business point of view if MTR management decides against raising fares according to law. It actually was a debate over "legality", "reason" and "compassion" when the company told the public it cannot demand discounts no matter what.
When the two sides of the debate are not on the same page, it is only natural for the MTR Corp to be seen as the "bad guy", whether it goes for fare hikes or not. So, how should we deal with the planned fare hike? Some people have suggested that the government set up a fare-stability fund, while some others proposed that the government reviews and approves the business operations of the MTR Corp like it does a franchise. Some even maintained the company should be "nationalized". None of these, I'm sorry to say, is a good idea.
First, a fare-stability fund is in fact subsidizing MTR patrons with public money, because the MTR Corp pays dividends to the government every year, which is part of the government revenue. If the government puts a certain amount of money aside solely for the purpose of stabilizing MTR fares, it really is no different from subsidizing fare hikes.
As for treating the MTR Corp's operations like a franchise, that would create another problem all together, as it is assumed that proponents of this idea hope to see the subway operator's profitability will be managed the same way as the two power utilities' or bus companies', so as to avoid big fare hikes.
The profit control of the city's two electricity suppliers, or the bus companies for that matter, has an upper limit set according to a particular return on asset (ROA) rate. In the MTR Corp's case however, the ROA rate is only 6 percent for a company worth HK$187.1 billion (its property business included). The ROA rate will be even lower if only train ticket sales were counted. If a profitability ceiling similar to the utilities companies' is imposed on the MTR Corp the subway operator would be under even greater pressure to raise fares. And be prepared to hear a lot of complaints from the MTR Corp if its profit limit is lower than the utilities firms'.

"Nationalizing" the MTR is not a good idea, either, simply because that would mean a return to what the system used to be - little pressure to make profits and perform well as a government-run utility. Is that really what we want?
Likewise, if we "nationalize" the MTR Corp just because we think its fares are too high, should we do the same to the bus companies when their fares go up? And, by the same token, should the fast-food chains be "nationalized" when we are convinced they are charging too much for meals? Many people automatically expect the government to come to their rescue whenever they feel price hikes are unbearable, without considering the moral risks of government intervention on the market.
It is this writer's belief that MTR fare hikes are inevitable however one looks at the matter and so is the demonizing of the subway operator as a result. The MTR Fare Adjustment Mechanism will be reviewed next year, five years after its introduction, but whatever new terms are made to reflect consideration for public sentiment, such as required reference to average pay raises when calculating fare hikes, will be of little benefit, since the users will always hate the operator for fare hikes.
The author is professor of finance and head of the Business School of the Hang Seng Management College. The article is translated from the excerpts of his article published Wednesday in Hong Kong Economic Journal.

FAM MTR's Exorbitant Fare Increase

http://edu.sina.com.hk/news/42/4/1/111748/1.html


【明報專訊】DESPITE a hefty profit of $14.7 billion last year, the MTR Corporation is set on a 5.4 percent fare increase based on the fare adjustment mechanism. The increase, expected to generate for the Corporation an additional profit of more than $600 million, has sparked widespread public outrage, and the transport panel of the Legislative Council has passed a non-binding resolution urging the MTR Corporation to suspend the proposed increase in view of its huge profits.
Mass transit systems in most countries or areas operate at a loss. The MTR is able to make fat profits principally because of preferential government policies. In addition to railway operations, the MTR has other sources of income, including commercial activities, property development, rental of retail and advertising space, and estate management, which last year amounted to about $12 billion, or 79 percent of the profit. This huge amount of non-fare revenue could not have been earned but for the Corporation's railway operations.
As far as regulations are concerned, the MTR has every right to raise its fares by 5.4 percent. After all, the figure is arrived at in accordance with the fare adjustment mechanism. This is why, in the face of opposition, government officials can unblushingly speak in MTR's defence, insisting that "the established mechanism has to be followed". It should however be noted that, as the fare adjustment formula was worked out by the government, the officials are just evading responsibility by saying that "rules must be observed".
But if we are to consider social justice, the MTR's role in society should not be that of a company run on purely commercial lines since it enjoys every advantage over its rivals under the government's preferential policies. In addition to the pursuit of money, there is something the MTR must not forget: social responsibility. While the fare increase planned is in accordance with regulations, it is against social justice. The MTR is bound to come up against fierce opposition if it insists on the ill-advised increase in fares.
To pacify the public, government officials in charge of transport declare that the fare adjustment mechanism will be reviewed, and that in addition to the consumer price index and wage index, the new formula may factor in the MTR's service and performance, as well as the affordability of the public. But is it not because of these government officials that the public is suffering from the ill-conceived mechanism? Moreover, as the government is the MTR's major shareholder, it most certainly is party to the proposed increase in fares. We are therefore convinced that the government should exercise its influence and have the MTR freeze its fares.
Chief Executive-elect Leung Chun-ying did not seem to be happy when commenting on the MTR's proposed fare increase. He believes that the fare adjustment mechanism should take into account three factors, namely the affordability of the public, the MTR's earnings from property development projects, and the quality of service provided. Leung's concerns are quite different from the current government officials', and his emphasis on the MTR's earnings from property development projects marks a fundamental departure from the fare adjustment formula currently in force. We can probably see in this how Leung's political beliefs are different from those of the incumbent government.
The government has all these years so unduly favoured the business sector that the public has come to resent what is commonly called "collusion between the government and the business sector", and this has given rise to society's deep-seated conflicts. While it remains to be seen what changes Leung will bring about, there is no denying that Leung's rise to power is partly the result of our social atmosphere.
明報社評 2012.04.19﹕由港鐵加價賺到盡 看社會變革的土壤
港鐵去年勁賺147億元，港鐵仍然按票價可加可減機制，加價5.4%，估計車費可多收超過6億元，引起市民極大憤慨。立法會交通事務委員會通過無約束力議案，要求港鐵在巨額盈利下擱置加價。
各國和地區營運的集體運輸系統，大多虧蝕，港鐵有此可觀盈利，是政策傾斜的結果。除了鐵路營運盈利，港鐵去年其餘79%盈利、即約120億元，來自商業營運、物業發展、租金收入和管理收入等，這些都是營運鐵路給港鐵帶來的巨大界外效益。
就法規而言，港鐵大條道理加價5.4%，因為此乃按可加可減機制計算所得，所以主事官員面對反對聲音，可以臉不紅、耳不赤地以「根據機制辦理」來為港鐵說項。不過，港鐵可加可減機制方程式，當年由政府制定，所謂依法辦事，只是政府和官員的推卸責任之辭。
就情理而言，政府政策讓港鐵盡得其利，則港鐵在社會所扮演角色，就不應是純粹按商業原則營運的公司，不能只向錢看，必須顧及和履行一定社會責任。所以，港鐵今次加價，合法而乖離情理，如果執迷不悟，勢必惹來強烈反彈。
主 事官員表示檢討港鐵可加可減機制，研究除了物價和工資因素外，加入港鐵服務水平、服務表現和市民負擔能力等因素，意圖紓緩市民不滿。其實，機制缺漏使市民 受害，乃官員一手造成；另外，政府是港鐵最大股東，在此事上，絕對不是局外人。所以，我們認為，政府應該運用影響力，迫使港鐵凍結票價。
候 任特首梁振英評論港鐵票價加幅，言語之間也不以為然，他認為檢討港鐵可加可減機制，應考慮3個因素，包括市民負擔能力、港鐵地產項目利潤、票價水平是否與 服務質素符合等。梁振英這些關注點，與現在主事官員的說法有不同，特別是梁振英說港鐵票價與地產項目利潤掛鈎，屬於根本轉變，這個，或許也是梁振英在理念 上與現屆政府的不同之處。
多年來，政府向商界過分傾斜，種種情况使市民認為官商勾結，因而怨聲載道，社會深層次矛盾與此有關。梁振英會帶來什麼變革，且待觀察和驗證，社會有土壤讓他冒起，卻是客觀事實。

FAM 保障「大股東」 改港鐵票價機制

港鐵公司在擁有過百億巨額盈餘的情況下，竟然連續三年加價，並且宣布打算在今年6月加價5.4%，比前兩年加幅的總和還要高！
現機制似合理 實內藏機關
消息傳出後，無論是社會或議會都感到譁然，一來因為港鐵的巨額盈餘，二來因為這個加幅不單超過通脹（財政司司長曾俊華預期2012年全年的整體通脹率為 3.5%），而且還遠遠超過香港勞動人口實質工資的增加幅度（據統計處3月公布，2011年第四季實質工資指數較上年同期上升3.2%）。
因此，立法會交通事務委員會於昨日舉行公聽會，討論港鐵加價及票價調整機制（Fare Adjustment Mechanism，下稱FAM）。我認為現行的FAM大有問題，值得商榷。
港鐵公司無論在2000年成為上市公司的前後，都有加價自主權。據了解，在2007年兩鐵合併的過程中，政府當時感覺好像是贏了一仗。事緣，雖然2007 年以前連年通縮，港鐵以財政狀況不佳為由多年沒有減價。因此，當港鐵表示願意用一個客觀的票價調整機制（FAM）來取代票價自主權，政府考慮到在通縮期港 鐵會依機制減價，被成功游說接納港鐵的建議。
最終，政府與港鐵公司在2007年8月簽訂具有法律效力的《營運協議》，正式落實FAM的運作。自此港鐵要調整票價，都交由FAM的公式決定。雖然仍要諮詢立法會，但卻不需再交行會審批了。
據FAM公式，票價調整等於「通脹幅度」及「運輸業名義工資」兩者一半的總和，最後減去「生產力因素」。表面上是合理的，但我相信實際上是內藏機關。
人工有升無跌 機制有加無減
首先，我相信地鐵與政府進行兩鐵合併談判的時候，經已知道通縮之後就會通脹。港鐵的專業會計師團隊，及多位營商資深的高層管理人員必然留意到2006年及2007年的通脹經已復甦。而且，港鐵當然也知道最低工資必定會於不久實施。
事實上，政府早在2006年經已推行「工資保障運動」，立法規管最低工資是事在必行，其時公式中的「運輸業名義工資」將必然上漲。而有關將「生產力因素」 設定為0的理由，港鐵表示因為考慮到合併初期協同效應未產生，以及合併時已作出減價。因此，當時政府以為在FAM實施的時候港鐵票價會「可加可減」，結果 這幾年無論盈餘有多少都是「只加不減」。
我當然明白FAM公式的目的是反映港鐵的營運成本，而當中一定要考慮通脹和運輸業的工資，但問題是這個生產力因素是沒有意義的，因為它被設定為0，只是由2013年起是0.1%，對於抑制票價加幅毫無實質意義，而現時港鐵仍未能圓滿解釋生產力因素的數值如何釐定。
其實要釐定「生產力」是需要考慮效率。生產力是以效率量度，而提升生產力即是需要增加效率。效率即是output per unit of input，例如你僱用100人搬兩袋米，而其他人僱用50人搬兩袋米，那麼其他人的效率，以致生產力就比你高。
為增加價空間 無心增生產力
我們現時看不見港鐵曾用甚麼方法增加效率，從而提升它的生產力。事實上，「生產力因素」既然作為FAM公式的唯一減值，即是降低票價加幅的唯一因素，港鐵 根本不希望它上升。FAM變相鼓勵港鐵不增加，甚至減低生產力。換言之，生產力愈高，加票價的空間就愈少，港鐵怎會有誘因去增加生產力呢？因此，我有理由 相信港鐵的「講數專家」可能早已預知FAM是不會降低票價，所以可以說是「搵了政府笨」。
另一方面，港鐵每每獲政府准許在興建新鐵路的同時，發展上蓋物業以資助鐵路興建，這些都是最優質的地產項目，因而促使港鐵成為現今舉足輕重的發展商。由於 政府給予大量可供商住發展的地皮，港鐵因此一直受惠於大型地產發展項目，而持續獲得過百億的巨額盈餘。反觀政府無論興建公屋或居屋，都因找地皮而「頭 痕」，又要填海製造土地，而填海生產土地的費用又高昂，顯示港鐵在地產發展所佔的極大優勢。而港鐵在諸般受惠於政府而得巨額盈餘下，仍要「賺到盡」，值得 市民批評。
雖然港鐵有五分一的股份是由小股東持有，但不要忘記我們普羅市民也擁有76%的港鐵股份。當市民是大股東的時候，港鐵根本沒有理由不考慮市民的利益。其實 當年港鐵上市經已製造了一個精神分裂的組織，一方面港鐵需要向市民負責，一方面又要向小股東負責，立法會經多次辯論都認為這是一個怪胎。通脹高企加上市民 實質工資加幅微不足道，港鐵卻殘民自肥，狂加票價5.4%，是可忍孰不可忍。
有鑑於此，我們建議立即檢討票價調整機制；立即就機制展開公眾諮詢；並立即研究由行政會議審批港鐵提出的票價調整。而在行會審批的時候，就要重點考慮市民的承擔能力。
撰文:葉劉淑儀 新民黨主席及立法會議員

FAM 關焯照、詩瀚﹕重檢港鐵票價調整機制 還社會公道

04 - 27 05:34 AM

【明報專訊】在個多星期前立法會交通事務委員會通過無約束力動議，要求港鐵立即擱置加價。香港作為一個具備成熟法治的商業社會，「合約精神」固然應 受到重視，但當合約其中一方受到極不公平的待遇，他絕對有權向不同媒介反映以尋求公義。筆者認為，各界應全力發動，迫使有關當局立即重檢港鐵現行之「票價 可加可減機制」（Fare Adjustment Mechanism〔FAM〕），以彰顯香港維護公義的決心和訴求。

先看「可加可減機制」的不公平和不合理之處：

1. 按公式計算，如1997至98年亞洲金融風暴期間已有「可加可減機制」，公式將容許港鐵加價2.125%。至於2008至09年金融海嘯，車票加幅也達2.05%。
2. 過去3年港鐵的票價累積升幅已達9.65%，較同期累積通脹更高1.45個百分點。

兩級定價機制

兩 個簡單的例子足以顯示，「可加可減機制」既無法適當地反映港鐵的營運成本變化，也完全無顧及市民的負擔水平，這與政府訂立「可加可減機制」的初衷大有出 入。而現行「可加可減機制」准許加幅竟比同期通脹為高，此一不合理之處暴露了當年制定公式時應未有經過回溯測試（Back-testing），有關當局存 在明顯失職，難辭其咎。即使不予問責，亦應立即改正過失，還普羅市民一個公道。
針對現行機制的不足，筆者認為新機制應充分考慮經濟周期變化對社會產生的影響，建議實行以下兩級定價機制（two-tier pricing mechanism）：
‧當實質家庭收入增長為正數，港鐵「可加可減機制」為：
0.5 X 「核心通脹」+ 0.5 X 「運輸業工資變動」
‧當實質家庭收入增長為負數時，「可加可減機制」需考慮負擔能力惡化因素，建議公式如下：
A x 「核心通脹」+ B x 「運輸業工人工資水平」+ C x 「負擔能力惡化因素」

（A、B、C的總和為1）

‧負擔能力惡化因素＝（名義家庭收入中位數）－（過去N年的名義家庭收入平均值），N＝5至10。
統計學專家可再就A、B及C的比重設定作細化調整，最重要是進行足夠的敏感性分析（sensitivity analysis）及模擬測試（simulation analysis），在此不贅。

需考慮負擔能力惡化因素

建議機制以「核心通脹」取代綜合消費物價指數（CPI）作為公式基數之一，這是因為核心通脹可將與地鐵營運成本無關的CPI組成部分，特別是食物價格變幅加以剔除。雖然「核心通脹」未必會與CPI背馳，但更能反映地鐵營運成本變化，加強FAM的認受性。
另 公式特別強調引入負擔能力惡化因素以平衡潛在票價加幅，雖則港鐵是上市公司，但作為公共事業，港鐵絕對需要負擔其應有的社會負任。新建議「可加可減機制」 可迫使港鐵在經濟衰退或滯脹出現時（即高通脹、高失業率、經濟放緩）與市民共渡時艱，而非僅以一瞬即逝的票價優惠拖捨大眾。
根據以上的兩級定價機制，筆者做了一個簡單的數學值例子：假設A=0.455，B=0.455，C=0.09和N=5，附表顯示在2009年金融海嘯期間，港鐵將不能調升車票價格。此結果無論對社會大眾和港鐵也是更為公平和合理。
至於個多星期前立法會交通事務委員會曾就「可加可減機制」提出其他修訂建議，筆者對部分建議有所保留。
首 先是引入「服務質素」作為「可加可減機制」準則之一，雖則這可鞭策港鐵做好其服務資素，惟「服務質素」十分抽象，需要引入更多評核維度以維持評分客觀性， 但這就令公式變得更為複雜，大眾更難理解公式，影響機制的公信力；再者如果港鐵服務好得「超乎想像」，那市民又是否接受票價得到更大幅度的上調？這恐怕難 以形成社會共識。
其次是建議「引入港鐵物業收益」作「可加可減機制」準則，筆者認為在處理上也應極之小心。以港鐵物業收益緩和票價加幅，雖 應得到市民歡迎，而港鐵藉政府關係而得到特殊物業開發優勢，有評論認為也應從所得撥出部分收益以回饋社會。但筆者不認為港鐵在賺取物業收益期間存在違背公 義的元素，再者以物業收益作補貼，最終也令政府股息收入減少，這就涉及到公共資源分配的問題：畢竟不是所有人均可從票價補貼中受惠，這對港鐵小股東也未必 公平。
如無意外，港鐵將在6月加票價。新特首未能趕及上任處理事件，我們又能否期待現任政府果斷地立刻重檢「可加可減機制」，在黃昏之時為市民多做一件好事？
作者關焯照是獨立經濟學者，詩瀚現於香港金融機構任職

MTR 1991-2001 accidents

http://www.mtr.com.hk/chi/sustainability/sustainrpt/2001rpt/soc-health.htm 地鐵致力保障員工、顧客、承辦商及公眾在地鐵範圍內的健康及安全，並強調無論身處任何範圍均須提高安全意識以及不斷改善安全表現。在2001年，全賴上下齊心協力，公司所有組別的安全紀錄再度成為全球同類業務的表表者。 提高安全意識 在2001年，公司繼續透過「乘客行為及教育」活動向乘客灌輸有關乘搭地鐵的安全知識。地鐵員工曾探訪39間學校及老人中心，並安排多次參觀地鐵設施的活 動。透過「模範乘客獎」、「扶手電梯安全運動」、「地鐵安全月」及參與「交通安全日」等，進一步增強顧客的安全意識。有關「地鐵安全」 的乘客指引請按地鐵網站網頁上參閱。
		年內，透過定期培訓和舉辦「地鐵公司安全週」及「安全題上論英雄」等活動，進一步提高僱員的安全意識。而機場鐵路也推行了一項名為「行為模式意外預防安全方法」的試驗計劃，務求改善車務及新建工程的工作方式。
改善風險管理 專供地鐵使用的所有新設備均繼續接受健康及安全性能評估。年內，由於「危機登記系統」的功能提升，令負責找出並減低潛在危險的風險管理系統也得以改善，現可更快檢索、分析及匯報資料。
事故數字(1992 - 2001年)	每接載一百萬名乘客所發生的事故數字(1992-2001年)	員工及承辦商工人意外數字(1992 - 2001年)
2002年目標 減少每一百萬名乘客發生意外的次數 減少員工及承辦商工人發生意外的次數

Promotion Campaign: Ride 10 Get 1 Free

http://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/

From 18 June to 30 December 2012, with 10 fare-paying journeys on MTR* using your Octopus from Monday to Friday in the same week, you can get a single journey ticket^ for free. You can redeem your ticket on or before Sunday within the same week at Customer Service Centres, designated counters at stations and MTR Malls. You can also get a redemption coupon from e-Instant Bonus Terminals# first and redeem your ticket at Customer Service Centres on or before the following Sunday.

Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities

MTR has been offering concessionary fares to senior citizens and eligible persons with disabilities*. In addition, the "$2 Promotional Fare on Wednesdays, Saturdays and Public Holidays for Senior Citizens" has been launched to encourage more people to actively participate in family and community activities. Starting from 28 June 2012, with the implementation of the Government’s "Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities", senior citizens using Elder Octopus or Personalised Octopus and eligible persons with disabilities using Personalised Octopus with "Persons with Disabilities Status" can enjoy $2 per journey (if the original fare for the journey is lower than $2, only the original fare will be charged) for MTR domestic services** anytime.

Tung Chung - Hong Kong Monthly Pass (Pass)

The validity period and coverage are encoded on to any currently valid Octopus or Octopus product ("Octopus"). Passengers with a valid Pass can make unlimited journeys between the designated stations at any time within the month.

Travel Coverage	Tung Chung Line stations and Tsuen Wan Line Central Station
Sales Outlets	Unpaid area of Customer Service Centres along the Tung Chung Line and at Central Station
Sales Period	From the last 7 days of the preceding month to the first 7 days of the month
Validity Period	From the first to the last day of each month, inclusive
Price	$550 (Cash payment only)

Listening • Responding

1) Ease crowding and reduce waiting time

• Enhance train frequencies along busy corridors during peak periods and on weekends
• Provide more frequent service in the periods immediately after peak hours
• Have trains on hot standby to relieve crowding at pinch points
• Deploy additional staff to direct and smooth out passenger flow
• Buy more trains

2) Upgrade station facilities to enhance convenience

• Step up installation of external lifts for easy connections between ground level and station concourses
• The complex technical challenges of installing Automatic Platform Gates on East Rail Line will be resolved when combined with the work to rebuild station platforms under the Shatin to Central Link project; while the installation of APGs on Ma On Shan Line is expected to complete one year ahead of schedule
• Add toilet facilities at existing interchange stations when major renovations are planned
• Install more facilities such as wide gates and platform seats for the convenience of passengers with special needs
• Enhance passenger information through application of new technology

Promotions, Schemes & Discounts

1.      Train Services Promotions & Discounts

   New Fare Saver at AsiaWorld-Expo

   Day Pass - Monthly Pass (PDF leaflet)

   MTR Fare Savers

   MTR Interchange Discounts

   New Fare Saver at Shenzhen Metro Save up to $3

   Tung Chung - Hong Kong Monthly Pass

2.      Airport Express Services Promotions & Discounts

Airport Express"Ride to Reward" Programme

Morning Express Service

Take a taxi as a feeder to enjoy Airport Express offer

4-person Group Ticket from HK$150

Earn Asia Miles by ordering Airport Express Ticket online

Take a taxi as a feeder to enjoy Airport Express offer