免翻 墙 直连本站 tiny.cc/jinnews
【新唐人2013年11月19日讯】周五发布的中共三中全会关于深化改革决定，虽然将市场地位从过去的〝基础作用〞上升到〝决定性作用〞，但是仍然肯定公有制和国营企业的主体地位。大陆学者分析，这显示改革受到国企强烈抵制。原国家体改委干部曹思源抨击此次三中全会：步子小，思路窄，政治倒退。
三中全会的《决定》虽然提出让市场发挥〝决定性作用〞，但是坚持以〝公有制为主体〞，强调要〝不断增强国有经济活力、控制力、影响力〞 ，令国人大失所望。
北京思源社会科学 研究中心总裁，原国家体改委干部曹思源批评此次的国企改革〝步子小，思路很窄，政治回头倒退。〞
北京思源社会科学研究中心总裁曹思源：〝我觉得不看好。因为它仍然强调国有企业是主体地位，公有制为主体，国有企业要控制市场，控制经济，我是1980年就开始投入改革，我们的基本改革思路是，市场是平等的，没有什么国有企业要控制，没有什么规定谁控制，谁有能力，谁能力强就谁起着较大的影响作用。〞
曹思源认为，在市场上，应该是私有企业充分发挥它的作用，充分竞争，不予补贴。
曹思源：〝国有企业吃什么？吃补贴。政府给他补贴。政府补贴就不平等。私有老板亏了就亏自己的，国有企业亏了是亏财政的，亏纳税人的钱，然后还要给他补贴，这个就不平等。如果还要强调国有企业的特殊地位，就没有什么好改革的了。〞
三中全会的决定声称，将在2020年将国企收益上缴公共财政比例提高到30%。国务院发展研究中心企业研究所副所长张文魁认为，50%的上缴比例更为合理。但是曹思源认为，上缴多少比例的利润并不是国企改革的关键所在，关键在于市场的平等竞争。提高上缴利润的比例，反而会加重政府对国企的照顾和偏袒，进一步破坏市场的平等法则。
曹思源：〝不给它补贴，不给它特殊待遇，不给它提供贷款的优惠，不给它提供购买原材料的优惠，你不要给它特权，那么就平等竞争，它该亏多少就亏多少。你现在要规定它的利润要上缴国家，那么它就有优越性，‘我是上缴国家的’，于是各种照顾就来了。〞
曹思源认为，国有企业的出路不是把它的利润交给国家，成为一个特殊企业。而是把它的所有权交给老百姓，变成私有企业。曹思源是最早提出国企私有化概念的人之一。
曹思源：〝我们五千年 来，我们三百年、五百年、一千年前，有国有企业吗？没有。我们五千年来中国 的发展，世界的发展，我们走的道路就是私有化。所以是人间正道，只有十月革命以后搞了国有企业，是走了邪路。〞
据香港《苹果日报》报导，由人力资源和社会保障部牵头，针对央企和国企高管收入进行调研。调研显示，个别国企高管领取近千万元年薪，国企普通员工收入普遍超过当地人均收入数倍。国资委为央企高管规定平均年薪为70万元，相比之下国务院各部长年薪只有十几万，差距非常大。作为全民所有的国有企业，它们依靠政府种种优惠和低息贷款获得丰厚盈利，但是盈利大部分由国企高管和员工私自享有，却不回馈给国民。
前北京社会经济科学研究所所长陈子明：〝我知道一些大的国企，大学毕业生为了进这种企业，花的代价要高达几十万元才能进去。他进门要这么高的费用，说明他进去以后他是能够收回来的。而且会多少倍的收回来。应该是按照公平正义 的原则来加以限制的。〞
中共为何扶持国有企业？国企改革为何步履维艰？ 1992年流传的一份《太子党纲领》中说，如果要是经济基础都到了民营企业的手里的话，那共产党的统治基础就不稳了。
陈子明表示，所谓的国有企业实际上就是党有企业，它的人事都是中组部决定的。
采访编辑/秦雪 后制/陈建铭
The State-Dominated Economy Is Backpedalling
A work report from the Third Plenum of the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP) claims that a comprehensive
deepening reform is being conducted, with the market
playing a “decisive” role in the dominant public ownership
of the state-owned economy.
Our Chinese scholar suspects that the reform has met with
strong resistance from the state-owned enterprises (SOE).
Former state reform committee member Cao Siyuan
comments that the Third Plenum is self limiting,
narrow minded, and is retrogressing.
The Third Plenary Session concludes that the market
will play a “decisive” role, public ownership will be
a mainstay and yet, disappointedly, it insists that the state
will be enhanced in scope of vitality, capability and influence.
Cao Siyuan, Beijing Siyuan Social Sciences Research Center
president, also former member of the state reform
commission, criticizes this SOE reform as being
“self limiting, narrow minded,” and that it is “retrogressing.”
Cao Siyuan, Beijing Siyuan Social Sciences Research Center
president: “I see no hope.
It still stresses the SOE and public ownership taking control
of the market & the economy.
I have engaged in reform since 1980.
Our reform was based on a fair market, free from
the control of the SOE, the rules, or an individual.
Whoever is capable should play a larger role
in the market.”
Cao Siyuan believes in private businesses function in market
competition, not subsidies.
Cao Siyuan: “What does the SOE depend on?
The governmental subsidies.
It is not fair.
The bosses of private businesses absorb the loss
by themselves.
The state finance and the tax payers absorb the SOE loss.
On top of that, SOEs also receive subsidies.
That is not fair.
(It) Further stresses SOEs want no reform.”
The Plenary also decided that the SOEs will pay 30% interest
earning to the state treasury by year 2020.
Deputy director of the State Council Enterprise Research
Institute, Zhang Wenkui reasons that 50% interest
will be more rational.
However, Cao Siyuan indicates that the key is not
earning interest.
Fair competition is the key.
Raising interest will only increase the burden on the state
and undermine market fairness.
Cao Siyuan: “There should be a fair competition,
with no subsidies, no differential treatment,
no preferential loans, no discount on purchases,
or any other privilege.
A regulated interest paid to the state will give them
the excuse, ‘to be paid,’ to ask for more financial support.”
Cao Siyuan indicates that the only way to resolve issues
related to the SOE is to turn it from a state preferential
property to a privately owned business.
Cao Siyuan was the first to propose privatizing the SOE.
Cao Siyuan: “In our five thousand years of history,
was there any state-owned enterprise? No!
In the five thousand years of China’s development or the
world development, we have taken the road of privatization.
That is the right way for the human world.
The CCP has gone astray engaging in SOE
after the October Revolution.”
Hong Kong based Apple Daily reported a survey on SOE
executive incomes conducted by the Ministry of Human
Resources and Social Security.
Certain individual SOE executives earn as much
as 10 million yuan annually, and standard SOE employees
make several times more than the local average income.
The state asset audit department has regulated the average
SOE executive annual salary of 700,000 yuan.
Compared to the annual salary of hundreds of thousands
at the minister level, it is a big contrast.
The public owned SOE have profited by relying on discounts
and low interest loans through the government.
However, the majority of profits are only enjoyed by
the SOE executives and employee, not the general public.
Chen Ziming, Former Beijing Institute of Socio-Economic
Sciences: “I know it can cost a university graduate hundreds
of thousands to get in the door of some major SOEs.
Such a high cost indicates that it can pay for itself
many times over once you get in.
(The SOE) should be regulated for fairness and justice.”
Why does the CCP support the SOE?
What makes the SOE reform struggle?
In a 1992 “Princeling Platform,” it was stated that if private
business controls the economy, the CCP ruling will be shaky.
Chen Ziming explains that the so-called state-ownership
is in fact party-owned because the Central Organization
Department arranges the personnel of the SOE.
Interview & Edit / Qin Xue
http://www.bannedbook.org/ Email订阅禁闻
本文标签：三中全会, 中共, 中共三中全会, 中组部, 党, 共产党, 国务院, 太子党, 改革, 政府, 政治, 新唐人, 曹思源, 苹果日报, 陈子明, 香港
via 中国禁闻 - 禁书网 » 中国禁闻 http://www.bannedbook.org/bnews/cbnews/20131119/202040.html
没有评论:
发表评论