主頁 搵樓/成交 放盤 數據公佈 地產新聞 地產博客 置業手冊 背景 / 聲明 / 聯絡我們 繁體簡體English
瀏覽人次 : 23363    回應 : 26
脫苦海‧梁隼
脫苦海‧梁隼
《脫苦海‧梁隼》地產博客,著有多本暢銷地產專書,誠意與讀者分享心得 網誌:notcomment.com
人人都想搬龍門
脫苦海
2015年8月18日

  警方高調拘捕Uber的司機及職員,甚至連辦公室都搜查一翻,相信都和世界其他地方那樣,官司要慢慢打。而同一時間,連一些本地的客貨車App的司機,也被警方放蛇而被捕。

  坊間一些同情的聲音,認為法例都係人定的,以前的法例不一定適合現在,所以政府有責任修例,好令到Uber的車輛可以買到保險,甚至可以獲得法律的認可。

  換一個角度,如果有人認為,網上從事物業和股票經紀,可以豁免牌照,以利創新科技發展,可能嗎?所謂網上世界,仍然是現實世界的一部份,自然要受到現實世界的法例監管。

  事實上,營業車輛可以申請牌照,雖然業界謂很難申請,要符合諸多要求,更要受到遴選委員會的批准。若果申請牌照的要求過份苛刻,遴選制度欠透明度之類,是可以有改善空間的,若Uber能協助屬下的司機申請營業執照,不就解決了業務的合法性疑點嗎?而不是乾脆不承認制度的存在。明明有合法渠道,試也不試,卻又想走法律罅無牌經營去走捷徑,既然暗合香港某些人骨子裡的脾性,自然就有些人出口助威。

  回顧當年當局千辛萬苦,才將地產經紀行業納入監管,真正保護了消費者的權益。現時卻有些人硬要說,的士業內局部害群之馬的行為,只有引入Uber的競爭才會改善。就一如硬要說無牌的經紀,服務比有牌經紀好一樣。

  根據法例,沒有營業執照而載客的話,第三者保險自動失效,乘客只因貪一時方便或車資差矩而冒險,到時又會有人要求,保險業界應該修例,好使坐Uber車也可以獲得保險賠償。大家都按自己的喜好和利益,去搬龍門,最終的結果必然是天下大亂,受害的不只是業界,還包括消費者在內。

 
我要回應
我的稱呼
回應 / 意見
驗証文字
 
1. 引刀一快 2015-08-18 16:40:03
世界潮流不可逆,面對才是最合理嘅態度。

法例係人定嘅,Uber呢類專車,節省能源消耗、環保、加大汽車同路面使用效率,方便,咁多個理由,想用保險一條金錢條件去擋住佢,有點不切實際。

香港的士係咪做得晒所有生意?亦唔係!順應潮流,適當改變妥協,係必須嘅。做多D公衆咨詢,各方做多D磋商就得架喇。

以前打仔合法,點解依傢又話虐兒,要拉要鎖先?世界日日都變緊嘛。
2. 路人甲 2015-08-18 17:13:32

既得利益者出嚟嘈係必然的.
法國也好, 香港也好, 很多地方的的士司機, 的士牌牌主(車主),都係會出來嘈.
淨係講HK, 的士牌最高峰725萬左右, 大概跌到680-690 左近, 話唔損失就係假啦.

不過UBER 長遠嚟講, 可能真係WORKk架.
共享現有資源的概念去經營吧. 世界在變, 自從有了互聯網之後, 
整個地球都出現了劇變了!

怎麼發展下去? WHO KNOWS
是好是壞, 大家拭目以待吧~
3. 脫苦海的讀者 2015-08-18 17:28:38
非常之混淆視聽. 地產經紀要監管, 因為買賣樓動輒百萬計. 硬要同撘一程車相提並論. 唔似之前脫苦海的理性分析. 苦海有的士牌係手?

回顧當年當局千辛萬苦,才將地產經紀行業納入監管,真正保護了消費者的權益。現時卻有些人硬要說,的士業內局部害群之馬的行為,只有引入Uber的競爭才會改善。就一如硬要說無牌的經紀,服務比有牌經紀好一樣。
4. 引刀一快 2015-08-18 17:35:38
以前原油兩蚊筒嘅時代,D車唔係向節油嘅方向設計,油貴咗,咁就造就慳油日本車,唔跟住潮流走嘅底特律,由美國前五變成依傢咁。
香港當然係中國前五無疑,估計亦唔會變底特律,但係我地應該有既定嘅方向,看得遠,正是香港過去嘅優勢。
5. 遺穩 2015-08-18 18:06:53
脫苦海最好還是寫樓市雜務的文章,老實說,他的維穩文字功力很弱,只可縮在一個封閉論壇,不能留言既新聞網和其他思想閉塞的人互相取䁔。
其實係飛機發明之前,地主有權唔比其他人係土地上空飛過,之前發覺唔係辦法,先改為120米。
拿,呢D咪係"搬龍門"
佢都係唔好撘飛機,因為都係搬龍門既結果!
6. 好多事 2015-08-19 01:39:43
香港當年好多人做白牌車,利字當頭治安存在穩患,市面一片混亂,終於政府立法要有出租車許可証先可收錢載客。家下又話創新科技白牌車環保節能方便高效率,多多理由增取合法化咁唔係又回頭行番條舊路,成街白牌。有人話唔同,哩啲係高級尊貴便捷交通工具,科技發展下之必然産物。都啱就發出營運牌照啦,發三千個夠唔夠?咁咪又係的士牌!不過就係用歐洲高级車嘅貴收費電召計程車,睇你的士商投唔投牌做囉。而唔係低成本無牌搶生意,仲話你做得晒咩?正如你啲錢用唔晒,人家搶啲用可以嗎?合法嗎?
7. 加息 2015-08-19 06:54:24
的士不發牌是保護消費者的權益嗎?

營業車輛可以申請牌照很難申請, 保護誰的利益呢?

龍門


8. Alan Pepper 2015-08-19 10:55:58
這是一個只指出問題,不提出解決方案的文章。現在每個人都知道 UBER 是現有法例的灰色地帶。但現實是香港人很需要優質服務寧願俾多啲錢都要多啲享受,是受惠者。而業界分兩種,牌主及從業員。從業員應該是得益者,因為從此唔駛再打一個老闆工(牌主),工作時間也可以更靈活。而牌主是受害者,因為牌價將受到威脅。但這種科技唔理你喜唔喜歡,今日有 UBER,明日亦有 XBER。香港七百萬人區區咁細小的地方係無法阻擋全球性科技發展的。只要我哋好好把握呢一個機會,應該每一位既得利益者都有着數,包括牌主在內。

牌主亦應該積極面對這一個現實,單去示威係冇用的。枱面示威,枱底應該積極同政府商討可持續合作模式。例如的士招車的牌照包括 UBER 在內,只是 UBER 可以用比較靈活的運作模式,牌是跟 USER,唔係跟車。UBER 有 1000 個牌,就只可同時間有1000個司機接單。用一個排籌形式做生意。攞唔籌到嘅就冇得載客。雖然這有可能令到道路上更多車,但我覺得這是荒謬的。有很多人原本搭的士改用 UBER,但亦有很多本來揸車的改用。這些人選擇用的士或者UBER的時候係唔會搭巴士的。道路使用應該唔會惡化。UBER 亦會減少很多空車行駛,呢個唔使我解釋,上網搵下就得。

現在的士牌主的利益又怎樣保障呢?首先,買車牌係一種投資,冇話一定賺嘅,廣告都日日唱喇。政府只係保障買賣雙方同意下交易,沒有欺詐成份,冇包生仔嘅。不過,並不代表冇彎轉。我想問,假設現在有30000個的士牌,而 UBER 參加之後,的士牌可以轉讓或出租給 UBER ,但係唔會增加俾 UBER 又怎樣?的士牌(或者應該叫營運牌)數量不變為 30000。咁樣的士牌的市場價錢及收入來源無變,咁就已經保障到的士牌主。當然法例上及具體上需要調整,但係呢啲技術上嘅問題一定可以解決。

牌主亦應該當作這是商機,不是危機。UBER 在美國已經令到本來揸車的人選擇唔揸車。這些全部都係生意。香港有很多人唔喜歡搭巴士/的士,又唔想請司機。被逼自己揸車的(你估租個車位排隊泊車再行十五分鐘先返到公司好過癮呀?)。只要法例上好好規管,業界整合,係可以做大個餅的。我覺得反而最大受害者係停車場業主先啱!

亦唔使理 UBER 肯唔肯俾牌費,佢要响我地頭做生意,就要 follow our rules. 條數佢自己識計,有錢賺佢一定做。佢想唔俾錢做生意?冇咁易,送埋張大床俾你好唔好。當然唔可以俾佢亂來,一定要規管。不過唔好再好似以前咁樣,買奶粉?坐監!這是不思進取的做法。

我哋亦無須擔心 UBER 出千,明明得1000個牌比1200個司機運作。技術上電腦可以解決。行為上,佢想繼續做生意,就唔會冒呢個險。正正經經有錢搵,點會打爛自己個飯碗咁戇居?

至於保險你唔使同佢擔心,有錢賺嘅生意佢亦一定會做,佢哋自己懂得點計。

如果香港今次可以快過星加坡解決呢個問題,總算威番次。我覺得星加坡政府已經同 UBER 坐低傾緊啦,只係睇下我哋香港點衰,撳住個嘴笑之後再作出決定。香港人,醒下啦!
9. Alan Pepper 2015-08-19 11:22:22
再講,的士牌主亦可買新豪華車或VAN,上 UBER 賺取高消費群的錢。這在 Economics 上叫 Two Part Pricing. 是一種產品上收取兩個價錢。這今天不解釋,我冇時間。

這是商機,不是危機啊!請把握!
10. Alan Pepper 2015-08-19 11:30:56
這是 UBER 在新加坡的新聞,比較香港的。WAKE UP HK PEOPLE!!!

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/life-as-an-uber-driver-a/1979836.html

Life as an Uber driver: A fast road to easy money? 

With private car services like Uber gaining popularity in Singapore, more people are trying their luck at becoming a driver. But what are the realities of life behind the wheel? 938LIVE reporter Lee Gim Siong went on the road to find out.

Behind the wheel of an Uber car. (Photo: Lee Gim Siong)
  •  1827
  •  
  •  22
  •  
  •  20
  •  
  •  Email
  •  More

SINGAPORE: "You shouldn't have taken this exit! I haven't met a driver who would take this route to Pasir Panjang!  It's not about the money, I'm already running late."

My second passenger on my first day as an Uber driver was furious about my lack of route knowledge.

Just an hour into my 12-hour shift and I was already questioning whether doing this full-time would be worth the hassle.

It was the day after last week’s massive MRT disruption, and there were plenty of people trying to book me as an Uber driver rather than risk trying to get to their destination by train.  And with the previous night’s disruption in mind, some people seemed to be on edge.

Uber, a ride-matching app from California, works by having a passenger key in their location and destination. Available drivers then take the booking if they want.

"ALWAYS AVAILABLE"

My day began in relaxed style in the wee hours of the morning in a dimly-lit carpark in Serangoon. I was there to collect the keys to a Nissan Latio sedan from 32-year-old Jay, a fellow Uber driver.

As part of our agreement, I was to be her relief driver for a day and would use her car, which was covered under a commercial insurance scheme.

With that, I found myself cutting my teeth as a chauffeur to a myriad of clients.

My first booking came 15 minutes after I hit the road. Punggol resident San needed a lift to Paya Lebar Air Base.

I tried to get the conversation flowing during the 20-minute journey by asking if she was taking an Uber service because of the MRT disruption. She said that she’s a regular user.

"I stay in Punggol and during rush hours, like 7am to 9am, it's really difficult to get a taxi. My worst experience was when I waited for one hour on the road and there was no taxi. I tried to call but there was no cab. It was a really bad experience," she said.

She added that Uber was "always available", hence her preference for it. 

"CREAMING OFF PROFITS"

While ride-matching apps seem to work for passengers, taxi drivers are unhappy about their popularity.

There have been calls for greater regulation of the industry to prevent such apps from "creaming off profits", as National Taxi Association advisor Ang Hin Kee put it.

Ranking high among their grievances are the cheaper rental rates - daily taxi rents range from S$75 to S$100 a day, whereas a car for Uber use can be had for as little as S$50 per day (although I paid S$150 as this was a one-off experiment rather than a regular arrangement).

There are also concerns that these newcomers are not required to obtain a vocational licence, unlike taxi drivers.

In response, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has said it is studying further measures to ensure commuter interests are preserved when using these services. These include making it compulsory for such drivers to obtain a vocational license, and imposing stricter penalties for the improper use of private cars.

I asked San if she had any concerns over the perceived lower entry barriers for Uber drivers.

"You're on the road (and this) means you're licensed to drive. That's a minimum pre-requisite. Safety wise, I think it's like taking your friend's car. You're leaving your life in the hands of a friend. It's no different. I am still taking his car and I get to my destination," she said. "It doesn't mean that you have a cab license, you drive safely. I've met cab drivers who drive recklessly!"

EASY MONEY?

In Singapore, Uber runs background checks on potential drivers before approving their application. The rest of the process to get started is very easy: all I had to do was register with my identification card and a driving licence. That was the green light for me to get going.

But is life as an Uber driver financially viable?

My basic fare was S$3.50, with an additional S$0.25 per minute and a S$0.50 per kilometre charge.

At those rates, I made a total of $85 from the 7 passengers I picked up during the day: not enough to cover the cost of renting the car plus petrol.

I was a lazy driver, though, and could have made much more. The app was pinging throughout my shift, and I could have easily reached S$200, which other Uber drivers told me is an average day’s taking for those who are willing to work hard.

And those who want to get behind the wheel can work efficiently, and according to their preferences.  Unlike taxi drivers who have to cruise looking for fares, Uber drivers can only take bookings over the app. That means that they need only hit the road when there’s money to be made.

Once a booking is accepted by a driver, it cannot be cancelled – even though destinations will only be made known after the driver has picked up the passenger. This gives predictability about getting a ride, which many of my passengers said gave Uber an advantage over regular taxis.

"It's just more convenient for me. Taxi drivers choose where they want to go: You see a green sign coming, you get so excited, but they don't want to go where you want to go. It can get very frustrating," said David, who was travelling from Sembawang to Pasir Ris.

But while people seem to like the idea of Uber, they can be just as demanding as regular taxi passengers.

Even though I knew where I was going most of the time, and had a GPS for backup, I was hit by a constant barrage of instructions about what route to take by all my passengers. This added to my stress, and meant that I was happy to hand the car back to Jay at the end of the day.

Becoming a full-time Uber driver isn’t for me.  I’ll stick to reporting. But it does have some appeal, as a way of making some extra money on a part-time basis.

For those with more drive though, the combination of Uber’s popularity and the ease right now of getting started means it could be a reasonably attractive full-time job.

- 938LIVE/vc

11. 不平則鳴 2015-08-19 11:37:33
脫兄講的是公道說話, 無牌就是無牌, 犯法就是犯法, 點可以"按自己的喜好和利益,去搬龍門" 支持脫兄!
12. 經濟人 2015-08-19 11:58:53

時窮仍見節,脫苦海不但對地權歷史無知,更加係只愛為利益份子發聲,但與市民同擴大司機為敵既人X。

林行止在《信報》專欄表示,自94年開始,政府未發出一個新的的士牌照,無視人口激增及遊客蜂擁而至的現實,令牌照價最近的成交紀錄為2013年的766萬,比2009年暴增八成。但的士牌照價格飛升,不僅職業的士司機無法分享,司機的收入還相應下降。


Uber 繞過法律,打破壟斷。如果揸Uber收入較高,由於揸的士的技能與揸Uber車類近,的士司機要轉揸Uber車並不困難,自然多人轉行,的士牌主必需減牌租,才有人願意揸的士,最後的士牌租會下降,司機無論揸哪種車種,收入扣除車租油費,都會等於他的邊際勞工產出。

因此,如果市場完全開放,因為不需再付壟斷租金,市民付出的車費應該比現在低,服務比現在好。加入競爭的長遠效果,是增加了司機相對於牌主的議價能力,租貴蠶蝕收入,司機可轉行,結果不是司機收入下跌,而是牌租下降。 

13. Yes 2015-08-19 12:27:36
Yes not only to Uber but also to more of this kind of App.(no monopoly). But needs regulations. 
The discount taxi is a similar app. gaining popularity (although illegal).
Interest of taxi industry? 8/F brother explains well enough. We must ride on the tides of 
modernization.


14. 望東樓 2015-08-19 13:39:16
Consider if Uber is going to win these cases, then the next day, you should expect Aber to Zber are emerging from nowhere to compete for 'business'. Things may be getting out of control very soon. 

At this stage, Uber is charging a premium over regular taxi fare so its more a complement than competition. But when Aber & co. are coming into the market, god knows.
15. 望東樓 2015-08-19 13:54:27
大家都認為他的服務較好、車子的質素較高,但這是必然的,皆因它們不需付的士牌價,這好比一間餐廳不用付租金一樣,當然可以提供更佳的食物和服務。
簡而言之,的士牌照擁有者,是經濟學上的「尋租」,坐地分享不停升值的道路使用權,而Uber則是另外的一種尋租,大家都是更多地使用道路,卻不用額外的收費。只是的士的尋租,是由牌照擁有者獨享了,而Uber的尋租,則由司機和乘客一起「打劫」了政府,如此而已 - 周顯 
16. Alan Pepper 2015-08-19 14:45:56
To. PN

如果只是錢的問題,那就容易解決吧。請參考 8/F. 如同意,請轉貼。希望對化解現有問題有幫助。

科技發展,我們傳統生意是不能抵擋的,只有在新時代下尋找生存空間。全世界有幾個國家睇死我哋香港,坐以待斃不是一個辦法
17. to 6/f 2015-08-19 22:53:31
極端d講成個世界9成9人口極窮,0.1成人多錢到用黎燒既...

甘真係的確係需要分黎比人用架!
世界資源已經被0.1成既人搶左,你覺得個世界重可以和平嗎?唔好天真啦!
18. Alan Pepper 2015-08-20 10:21:03
今早聽電台香蛇節目,9:25分提及 UBER 可用現時出租車法例解決,現在有 1500 個牌,只用了700多個,而這是二十多年前的法例,可檢討及參考。

而現有的士牌主亦應積極發展多元化服務,是可以做大個餅,賺取更多利潤的。買豪華的士或七人車上 UBER TAXI 已經發生。平有平座,貴有貴座,客戶及從業員可選擇自己喜歡的老闆及服務,牌主又可增值賺取更多利潤。三贏啊!

如的士及UBER服務提高,我弟一個唔渣車返工,可以慳返時間車位油費。


19. CD ROM 2015-08-20 16:49:34
將Uber模式放返係的士已經有條件大受歡迎啦!!!  

到時的士佬自己攪個apps飛起埋UBER都仲得, 又合法, 皆大歡喜~~~
20. 好多事 2015-08-21 00:50:52
感謝17樓C兄,未想過會有人忙裡偷閒,都回應小弟一編幼嫩嘅文章,確實係有哟驚喜。
亦明白極端諗法係有極端諗法嘅原因而執著,正如有部份人會堅持一如既往嘅信念,和平,守法,有序咁繼續天真下去,呢點係無用置疑。
好多謝C兄指教。
21. Eve1mann 2015-08-29 15:03:33
經紀的服務在於撮合買賣。在小眾市場、偏門範疇,經紀的價值可以很大,反之,在大眾市場,經紀可以提供的附加價值有限,無甚存在價值。

地產經紀的生存土壤,在於買賣雙方未能作出廣泛且直接的資訊交流。如果有有效的住宅買賣配對平台,大部份地產經紀都會被淘汰。
22. to 20/f 2015-08-29 22:54:17
同意,一個專門既平台,免費既Q&A,同埋同一般市民普反既教育.已經可以取代廢柴地產佬呢個行業!其實地產佬識既野其少無比!吹水吹到上水呀婆都呃唔到.真係唔明點解可以生存!班友轉行做清潔都冇資格啦!
23. 引刀一快 2015-08-30 03:18:35
有本事連網購都ban埋佢吖,好多網商都冇營業執照咯。

我前晚先剛剛坐併車,人家番屋企跑長途,唔爭在坐多個人,我就俾的士四成半車費,兩家便宜三家着,因爲:

1,如果我坐的士,咁即係同時兩部車,三個人去我目的地,去程耗油雙倍,兩個人到家,另一個人(的士司機)可能要空車回原地,實則耗油係三倍!

2,併車坐多個人唔會增加太多負載,一般嚟講,車設計負載範圍內,坐人越多,油耗效率越高。(每人獨立計)

3,夜晚喺大陸坐長途的士,司機經常拒載或講價,依傢唔駛“咁難爲”佢地喇,以後都唔駛呀。
24. 引刀一快 2015-08-30 03:24:48
To 21樓  Eversmann兄

其實經紀有佢地嘅存在價值,佢地

1,可以提高物業轉化效率、配對效率。
2,作爲緩衝,促成買賣。
3,作爲第三者公證,代爲處理交易中一般人不熟悉的部份。
還有很多很多..............

25. Eve1mann 2015-08-30 15:49:18
引刀一快,你好。

做得到你所講的,當然有價值。可惜,現今大部分地產代理還可以生存,只因物業投資者未被教育及未有更簡明的替代品出現。

地產代理被淘汰是必然的:
1. 不專業,在交易過程中沒有不可或缺的地位。
2. 雙邊代理,另一種不專業,完全無視利益衝突。
3. 收費不合理,律師處理幾百萬的物業交易合約,收一萬,地產代理收三萬,而且後者需要對交易作出的承擔比前者少。
4. 暴利,按成交價約1%收費在大部分情況下都是不合理地高,而豐厚的利潤會吸引競爭者加入。

隨住科技啟動更多可能性,我估十年內地產代理會開始被淘汰,就如以前的股票經紀一樣。
27. Marie 2015-09-07 00:48:16
在香港,地產霸權及自由行多年來不斷禍害港人生活。君不見現在滿街金行藥房海味店及所謂"電子免稅店",而且全部都是"服務"內地人的奸商騙子!!! 香港真的需要這麼多游客店嗎? 政府又沒有把關執法,導致現在香港旅游業聲名狼藉。
 
事實上在香港消費真的是貼錢買難受,租金昂貴令餐廳商店地方異常擠迫,服務態度又惡劣,貨品價錢又因租金貴得離譜,滿街都是"服務"內地游容的老千騙徒,市容越來越差,計程車司機態度惡劣,車廂就像垃圾房般;去過日本旅游,回到香港一分錢也不想在此消費!! 商戶為了交租千術百出,貨品價錢每一區都跟游客區一樣高昂,商戶都要謀取暴利來交租,市民用大部分工資供樓房,根本無力再消費!! 
 
這些所有退步墜落跟民不聊生都是地產霸權跟自由行洐生出來的禍害。香港一年到晚只懂吹噓自己是購物天堂,目的只是想賺盡內地人金錢,完全將旅客體驗跟感受置之不理,連旅游業都因此弄得無恥過人。在地產霸權同自由行這些"容易錢"之下,香港人真的已變得又笨又遲鈍……香港過去賺錢太過容易,引致各行各業都落後於人,現在大圍環境逆轉無力轉身,根本完全不值一分可憐!!
 
另一方面,地產商根本沒有當過"本地客"是人,好像尿壺一樣,不需要時嫌我們臭,現在尿急(生意跌)又要爬過來要本地人救他,,真是厚顏無恥。現在香港自立能力已被地產商和自由行徹底毀滅,現在他們是大得不能倒(too big to fail), 依靠他們就比他們吸乾,不靠的話香港人自己現在又已經什麼都不懂。如此下去,香港人只會繼續世世代代做地產商嘅奴隸。
 
所以大家要用實際行動say NO,堅決拒絕在香港消費。 不要縱容劣質服務/產品及地產霸權繼續為害香港。 為了後代,其實身為香港人,無論什麼派別都應槍口一致去殊滅此禍!地產霸權一日還在,香港旅業及民生都系死路一條!衣食住行基本需要消費當然不可拒絕,但我們可以選擇不要一年換一次手機,拒絕一星期一次昂貴自助餐,不要買一堆自己都用不完的衣服同化妝品,盡量在家造飯,刪減一些無謂的衝動消費,這樣子已經足夠。
 
沒有自由行之前香港是否貧窮地區?經濟結構同勞動力足會自動調節,正正香港人就系因為自由行跟地產太過賺錢,造成今日產業單一化跟勞動力流動性低,做老板投資地產坐定定年年超高回報,開金行藥房海味店保證賺大錢,為什麼要做實業慢慢來?人家星加坡產業均衡,互惠互利,他們一樣沒有資源,更加不像香港有中央支持xx通及什麼貿易協定,人家人均GDP早已超越我們香港了,人家沒有地產霸權,也沒有一年幾千萬自由行撐住,看看星加坡,大家就知道根本整個劇本就是發展商、大商家這些既得利益者跟港府編出來的大話: 香港一定"需要"高樓價跟自由行去續命。
 
如對香港有心,請將上文用FB或WhatsApp廣傳出去,利用每分力量救救香港,謝謝!