致： 各大傳媒機構編輯先生小姐
新聞稿
由：獅子山學會
日期：14/7/2010, 星 期三 (共1頁)
獅子山學會專責小組監察最低工資的損害
獅子山學會重申，堅決反對任何形式的工資立法，因為永遠都只有我們的城市中最弱勢的社群會受到傷害。為此獅子山學會決定投入資源，成立一個常設專責小組， 監察最低工資對香港所造成的損害。
專 責小組將會就政府在最低工資實施後投入金錢和時間作衡工量值研究；以及處理政府不顧企業的現實情況，用盡一切手段執行最低工資的荒謬 個案。此外，專責小組將深入探討因最低工資帶來的失業、凍薪以及隨就業機會損失帶來的福利開支增加。
獅子山學會行政總監王弼：「最令人擔憂的是最低工資做成的局部高失業，尤其是對年青人的影 響。 新移民沒有工作，我們又如何可以幫他們融入社會？」
獅子山學會歡迎邀請市民分享在最低工資下 有關個人經驗的故事和評論。獅子山學會也將收集因最低工資帶來的局部失業數據，以及跟進其他對市場帶來的轉變，例如一次性使用的餐具 使用、 商場減少開放私人廁所、客戶需要自己處理表格等。低工資將會改變香港的生活方式，企業也或許將被迫裁減員削減成本。
本來以為會因這項法例得益的，最終卻受到損害，這就是有關最低工資立法最大的損失。 「最低工資將來在香港會生產文化的轉變，但失業始終是最大的衝擊。」獅子山學會研究助理梁妍珂表示：「這是獅子山學會唯一關心的問 題。」
THE LION ROCK INSTITUTE PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
Lion Rock’s task-force monitors damage of Minimum Wage
HONG KONG – The Lion Rock Institute firmly reiterates its opposition to the minimum wage legislation, as it will harm our city’s most vulnerable. It is only becoming more obvious that forcing a minimum wage will be disastrous, and in response, Lion Rock has a task-force in place to monitor the damages of the law.
In the aftermath of the law’s implementation, the Government will throw away money and time, as well as businesses’, in efforts to implement the minimum wage. Subsequently there will be unemployment and frozen wages. Questions such as, how many vulnerable workers will be forced out of a job and rely on CSSA, will be tracked by the task-force.
Peter Wong, Lion Rock’s Executive Director, fears the impact of job losses, “How will young people get on the career ladder? How many old people will lose their job and also their social life? How will new immigrants integrate into society without being able to enter the workforce?”
Moving forward, The Lion Rock Institute welcomes the public to share their stories and critiques involving personal experiences under minimum wage. LRI will also be collecting data on unemployment, track the use of disposable utensils and other indicators which signal job losses in low-income industries. Lion Rock suspects that the law will change Hong Kong’s way of life, as many businesses will have to cut costs through eliminating staff, or reduce regulatory risk by outsourcing, taking the form of less public convenience, such as less availability of free, private toilets, increased use of disposable utensils and bowls as a result of less staff, and the need for customers to bus their own tables.
Those who should be benefited by this legislation will ultimately be harmed; it is the biggest loss associated with the Minimum Wage legislation. “Yes, there will be cultural changes in Hong Kong because of minimum wage, but unemployment will be the biggest issue” said Nicole Alpert, LRI Research Associate, “and at the end of the day, that’s the biggest issue Lion Rock cares about”.
Notes:
The Lion Rock Institute, founded in 2004, is Hong Kong’s leading free market think tank. Lion Rock subscribes to the view that open and free markets, strongly defended property rights, small government, low taxes, and minimal restrictions on the business environment create the best atmosphere for freedom and prosperity. For more information, visit www.lionrockinstitute.org
Showing posts with label Press Release. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Press Release. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Connecting to Facebook
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Hong Kong's Budget Bests Singapore's
THE LION ROCK INSTITUTE PRESS RELEASE
Contact: Peter Wong;
Peter.Wong@lionrockinstitute.org (+852) 8101 2112
Alternative Contact: Nicole Alpert; Communications@lionrockinstitute.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
24 February 2010
Hong Kong's Budget Bests Singapore's
The government's sliding approval was surely given a boost today by the Hon. Finance Secretary John Tsang. The Budget thankfully bore few surprises and reinforced Hong Kong's unique foundation, built upon the principle of "big market, small government."
Examining the Budget, The Lion Rock Institute would like to comment briefly on the following items: the HOS Scheme, the Development of Financial Services, and the Stamp Duty.
The HOS Scheme
• Co-Founder of The Lion Rock Institute, Andrew Shuen Pak-man said, "[He's] glad the government has decided not to revive the HOS scheme, despite tremendous pressures from the left, right, and center.”
Development of Financial Services
• Lion Rock commends the government's focus on reinforcing Hong Kong's position as a Financial Centre. However, there are worries that other jurisdictions' finance rules might be copied unnecessarily. Further, the government should work to streamline processes for licenses and setting up business, further aiming to attract business and talent.
Stamp Duty Increase
• In response to the increase, Executive Director of Lion Rock, Peter Wong said, "The government's actions concerning stamp duty will not be effective to curb future speculation if it is only applied to flats over HKD$20 million. Under the new scheme, investment costs for luxury flats will be increased by 35% up to 90% – this will not affect properties under HKD$20 million – and therefore the scheme will not help ‘non speculators,’ those people who want to own a home.”
• Communications Manager, Nicole Alpert said, "HK Land Policy presents an issue problematic enough that the details set out here only tinker at the margins."
Briefly, The Lion Rock Institute would also like to applaud the government for not raising the Tobacco Tax despite external pressures.
Shuen said in conclusion, "if [the government] was to be graded on a curve, this Budget would receive an 'A'. The government's Budget looks especially good when compared with Singapore's, which was announced Monday."
Hong Kong is a unique place for many reasons, and benefits from its foundation. However, there are worries about losing Hong Kong's freedoms and attitudes changing. If Hong Kong firmly sticks to its principles, maintaining its good foundation, it will succeed. A reversal on Hong Kong's core values is the biggest single threat to Hong Kong.
Contact: Peter Wong;
Peter.Wong@lionrockinstitute.org (+852) 8101 2112
Alternative Contact: Nicole Alpert; Communications@lionrockinstitute.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
24 February 2010
Hong Kong's Budget Bests Singapore's
The government's sliding approval was surely given a boost today by the Hon. Finance Secretary John Tsang. The Budget thankfully bore few surprises and reinforced Hong Kong's unique foundation, built upon the principle of "big market, small government."
Examining the Budget, The Lion Rock Institute would like to comment briefly on the following items: the HOS Scheme, the Development of Financial Services, and the Stamp Duty.
The HOS Scheme
• Co-Founder of The Lion Rock Institute, Andrew Shuen Pak-man said, "[He's] glad the government has decided not to revive the HOS scheme, despite tremendous pressures from the left, right, and center.”
Development of Financial Services
• Lion Rock commends the government's focus on reinforcing Hong Kong's position as a Financial Centre. However, there are worries that other jurisdictions' finance rules might be copied unnecessarily. Further, the government should work to streamline processes for licenses and setting up business, further aiming to attract business and talent.
Stamp Duty Increase
• In response to the increase, Executive Director of Lion Rock, Peter Wong said, "The government's actions concerning stamp duty will not be effective to curb future speculation if it is only applied to flats over HKD$20 million. Under the new scheme, investment costs for luxury flats will be increased by 35% up to 90% – this will not affect properties under HKD$20 million – and therefore the scheme will not help ‘non speculators,’ those people who want to own a home.”
• Communications Manager, Nicole Alpert said, "HK Land Policy presents an issue problematic enough that the details set out here only tinker at the margins."
Briefly, The Lion Rock Institute would also like to applaud the government for not raising the Tobacco Tax despite external pressures.
Shuen said in conclusion, "if [the government] was to be graded on a curve, this Budget would receive an 'A'. The government's Budget looks especially good when compared with Singapore's, which was announced Monday."
Hong Kong is a unique place for many reasons, and benefits from its foundation. However, there are worries about losing Hong Kong's freedoms and attitudes changing. If Hong Kong firmly sticks to its principles, maintaining its good foundation, it will succeed. A reversal on Hong Kong's core values is the biggest single threat to Hong Kong.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Government Intervention Counterproductive: Economic Crisis Calls For New Thinking On Managing Risk, Stimulating Economies – New Report
NEWS BRIEF
Monday 17 November 2008
THE LION ROCK INSTITUTE, Hong Kong
On the eve of a meeting of government officials from the G20 group of leading economies, a new report from a global group of think-tanks argues that the attempts by governments to intervene in the financial crisis have been counterproductive and it calls for clearer thinking on how to manage the risks inherent in the financial system.
How Not To Solve A Crisis - http://www.policynetwork.net/uploaded/pdf/HowNottoSolveaCrisis.pdf ,
written by Bill Stacey and Julian Morris, notes that the financial crisis was created in part by well-meaning market interventions intended to enable low-income US households to own homes, and in part by discriminatory regulations against certain classes of asset that resulted in 'regulatory arbitrage,' whereby financial institutions created off-balance-sheet structures in order to generate synthetic credit.
These factors drove lending to impecunious borrowers in the US, fuelling a housing boom. The subsequent bust has led to the collapse in value of the off-balance-sheet structures. Because those structures had been used to underpin loans, their collapse has caused banks to stop lending to one another.
Sequential attempts by governments around the world to intervene in the markets and bolster lending have been largely counterproductive – they have pre-empted private market solutions and in many cases generated further moral hazard, contributing to further erosion of trust and weakening of incentives to lend. As a result, what started as a financial crisis is turning into a full-scale economic catastrophe.
There is currently talk of creating stronger and more global regulatory structures. This would be a disaster on several counts. First, as the report notes, several smaller countries have suffered less in the crisis – seemingly because of different regulatory regimes. If there had been only one global rule and it had been the wrong one, everybody would have suffered equally and we would have less knowledge as to why – and what - to do. When governments compete with one another, they have stronger incentives to identify solutions rather than placate vested interests.
Second, stronger regulation is almost certainly the opposite of what is needed. The danger of creating further incentives for counterproductive regulatory arbitrage is large. The report concludes that from a regulatory perspective, the better solution would be to create governance structures based on simple, clear rules that do not discriminate in favour of or against any particular class of asset. "It appears that regulators in Hong Kong, Canada and Australia have done better than those in the US or the European Union. This emphasizes the importance of encouraging rather than restricting competition in regulatory regimes. As a corollary, global regulations should be avoided," Bill Stacey said in the report.
The report cautions against any direct intervention by government. It notes that: "Governments are terrible at allocating resources and their attempts to boost our economies will almost certainly backfire. Economic growth is the result of entrepreneurs identifying and filling niches by developing better products and production processes, thereby boosting production and productivity. In contrast, when governments throw money at the economy, they divert resources away from their most efficient and effective uses, undermining innovation and growth."Finally, the report concludes that: "The best way to stimulate the economies of the world would be to reduce the number of overbearing taxes and regulations that currently inhibit the development and delivery of all manner of products and services.
"FULL REPORT: How Not to Solve a Crisis, published by Lion Rock Institute and International Policy Network, in association with other think-tanks and civil society groups around the world:
http://www.policynetwork.net/uploaded/pdf/HowNottoSolveaCrisis.pdf
CONTACT: Nicole Alpert & Bill Stacey, The Lion Rock Institute (Hong Kong) ,Tel: +852 6239 8930
E-mail: nicole.alpert@lionrockinstitute.org
Monday 17 November 2008
THE LION ROCK INSTITUTE, Hong Kong
On the eve of a meeting of government officials from the G20 group of leading economies, a new report from a global group of think-tanks argues that the attempts by governments to intervene in the financial crisis have been counterproductive and it calls for clearer thinking on how to manage the risks inherent in the financial system.
How Not To Solve A Crisis - http://www.policynetwork.net/uploaded/pdf/HowNottoSolveaCrisis.pdf ,
written by Bill Stacey and Julian Morris, notes that the financial crisis was created in part by well-meaning market interventions intended to enable low-income US households to own homes, and in part by discriminatory regulations against certain classes of asset that resulted in 'regulatory arbitrage,' whereby financial institutions created off-balance-sheet structures in order to generate synthetic credit.
These factors drove lending to impecunious borrowers in the US, fuelling a housing boom. The subsequent bust has led to the collapse in value of the off-balance-sheet structures. Because those structures had been used to underpin loans, their collapse has caused banks to stop lending to one another.
Sequential attempts by governments around the world to intervene in the markets and bolster lending have been largely counterproductive – they have pre-empted private market solutions and in many cases generated further moral hazard, contributing to further erosion of trust and weakening of incentives to lend. As a result, what started as a financial crisis is turning into a full-scale economic catastrophe.
There is currently talk of creating stronger and more global regulatory structures. This would be a disaster on several counts. First, as the report notes, several smaller countries have suffered less in the crisis – seemingly because of different regulatory regimes. If there had been only one global rule and it had been the wrong one, everybody would have suffered equally and we would have less knowledge as to why – and what - to do. When governments compete with one another, they have stronger incentives to identify solutions rather than placate vested interests.
Second, stronger regulation is almost certainly the opposite of what is needed. The danger of creating further incentives for counterproductive regulatory arbitrage is large. The report concludes that from a regulatory perspective, the better solution would be to create governance structures based on simple, clear rules that do not discriminate in favour of or against any particular class of asset. "It appears that regulators in Hong Kong, Canada and Australia have done better than those in the US or the European Union. This emphasizes the importance of encouraging rather than restricting competition in regulatory regimes. As a corollary, global regulations should be avoided," Bill Stacey said in the report.
The report cautions against any direct intervention by government. It notes that: "Governments are terrible at allocating resources and their attempts to boost our economies will almost certainly backfire. Economic growth is the result of entrepreneurs identifying and filling niches by developing better products and production processes, thereby boosting production and productivity. In contrast, when governments throw money at the economy, they divert resources away from their most efficient and effective uses, undermining innovation and growth."Finally, the report concludes that: "The best way to stimulate the economies of the world would be to reduce the number of overbearing taxes and regulations that currently inhibit the development and delivery of all manner of products and services.
"FULL REPORT: How Not to Solve a Crisis, published by Lion Rock Institute and International Policy Network, in association with other think-tanks and civil society groups around the world:
http://www.policynetwork.net/uploaded/pdf/HowNottoSolveaCrisis.pdf
CONTACT: Nicole Alpert & Bill Stacey, The Lion Rock Institute (Hong Kong) ,Tel: +852 6239 8930
E-mail: nicole.alpert@lionrockinstitute.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)