公仔箱論壇 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: [時事討論] 陳文敏《香港家書》全文 [打印本頁]

作者: felicity2010 時間: 2014-7-21 07:30 AM 標題: 陳文敏《香港家書》全文

陳文敏《香港家書》全文5.39.217.76/ M. h0 L) g) D, ^8 K

: ~3 C0 P* X: S
立彬：tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb5 m& f1 i9 }0 _( [
5.39.217.766 h# j. ^* y; P9 H2 U* P$ `

日前和你午飯，發覺已很久沒有機會和你靜靜地傾談，香港的生活有時便是這樣，每天生活營營役役，各有各忙，老朋友相聚想輕輕鬆鬆地互道近況，結果也要在我退下院長一位後才有時間，湊巧不經不覺我們大家均走到人生的另一階段。在這裏亦祝你一切順利。5.39.217.76* B: O4 U0 y) u4 F) s
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb$ A$ X. l: U3 ^1 B  L% `- c
談到香港的政局，大家都難免有點唏噓。近年香港社會愈來愈兩極化，泛民和建制兩大政治板塊都各走極端，溫和理性的討論空間已經愈來愈少。當然，每一個年代總會有一些較激進的人士，曾幾何時我們自己也是過來人，但在以前的年代，激進很多時是為了爭取理想，但今天我有時看到的是一些只是為激進而激進。他們似乎享受過程多於追求理想，甚至追求的目的是什麼已經不再重要了。但是這是激進行為的背後，其實又隱藏了多少對貧富懸殊、政府政策傾斜，和對社會不公的一些不滿情緒呢？) g' q; E. {; {% u$ q

經過幾個月的諮詢，政府日前公布了政改諮詢的報告，特首同時亦向人大常委會提交報告，提請人大常委會就2016年立法會產生辦法及2017年行政長官選舉是否作出修改作出決定，亦正式啟動了政改的機制。一如所料，政改三人組的報告，基本上羅列出諮詢的結果，政府自己沒提出任何方案。報告裏指出，政府共收到124,700份來自不同團體和個人的意見書，而當中有83,000屬問卷式意見和34,100範本式意見書，報告書沒有進一步量化這些意見，但在用詞方面，尤其是所謂「主流意見」，「大多數人意見」和「不少人士的意見」這些籠統的量化詞彙裏，明顯地為政府的取態留下伏線。

9 s, q6 l, }( {: m
就政改建議分析欠奉

雖然報告書基本上都反映了各方面的意見，但對不同建議的分析完全欠奉，亦沒有提到5月3日諮詢期完結後的發展。特首的報告亦只是輕輕帶過在諮詢期完結後仍有不少市民支持公民提名，很明顯政府是刻意將6．22投票和7．1遊行所反映的民意作低調處理，但低調處理會化解民怨還是只會增加民憤呢？TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。( c" s3 I9 o4 [4 c

兩份報告書均指出，由於坊間的注意力都集中於行政長官的選舉安排上，所以建議毋須修改2016年的立法會產生辦法。這點是令人失望的。社會上仍然有不少意見指出分組點票或功能團體與直選的比例應該作出修改，為2020年立法會全面直選作準備。但是，即使不修改立法會的組成辦法，2016年的立法會仍然有不少改進的空間。第一，廢除公司票仍然可行，而在這方面其實已有不少共識。第二，即使功能團體和直選的比例不變，政府仍然可以增加超級區議會的議席和減少傳統功能團體的議席，亦同時可以擴大功能團體的選民基礎，這些並不違背目前立法會產生辦法，而減少傳統功能團體的數目和廢除公司票，正是邁向立法會全面直選的一步。公仔箱論壇1 W( \# ~4 z, B5 _

至於特首選舉，雖然報告沒有明確否定公民提名，但結論已是昭然若揭。特首報告書裏指出「提名委員會擁有實質提名權，其提名權不可被直接或間接地削弱或繞過」，接着提出「要成功落實普選，必須以《基本法》和人大常委會的相關解釋及決定制訂具體方案。」最後，借助法律專業團體和其他社會人士的意見指公民提名不符合《基本法》的規定，至此，人大常委會幾乎肯定會認同公民提名不符合《基本法》。5.39.217.761 W' o8 x4 W, W/ `
; h; @3 L6 C. i! |6 h% E4 L

倘再收窄框架必掀抗爭; i. d& o& j! `$ r
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb3 q$ w& K' g' R! W: K3 L* ]
報告書亦重申提委會應由四大界別組成，人數不應超過1600人，候選人數目則在兩至三名左右，提名門檻仍然可以商榷，但強調候選人必須「愛國愛港」，這些環節基本上在預料之中，其實民間已經有不少人士正是循這些方向設計一些所謂溫和的方案，我希望下一步大家可以就這些不同方案作較完整的分析和討論，而非如報告書中以斬件形式羅列不同部分的意見。目前的關鍵是人大常委會會否進一步收窄框架，例如要求全票制或提高提名的門檻等。如果人大常委會不作進一步收緊，則香港仍然有一些討論的空間，目前的框架甚至是仍未排除公民推薦或在提委會內增加較大比例的民選成分，但如果人大常委會進一步收窄框架的話，勢必引發大型的抗爭，而政改的出路相信會令人很擔憂。
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。5 V, c3 v7 Z( d: C+ u

敢言特首有利中港發展公仔箱論壇! h5 v4 o9 q- F3 M# I  M# y! f

我相信大部分市民希望在2017年可以普選特首，大部分市民亦對以前選舉委員會這種組成和程序沒有信心，大家不願意淪為舉手機器，沒有真正的選擇。選舉是沒有百分之一百的安全系數，如果要設計一個有百分百安全系數的選舉，那只會是任命而不是選舉。任何選舉制度在一定程度上是建基於對選民的信心，而過往香港亦多次證明了香港的選民是理性地作出選擇。如果擔心500多萬名合資格選民一人一票仍然會選出一個和中央對着幹的特首，那麼問題已不再在特首選舉而是在更嚴重的中央與香港的關係了。另一方面，所謂「對着幹」，可能只是指一些會向中央極力爭取甚至會說真話的特首。由管治的角度來看，一個敢言進取和得到人民支持的特首，不是比一個只懂逢迎，唯唯諾諾和不得民心的下屬，對香港和中國的發展更好嗎？
5 N2 H2 V+ h, P' D. w! a
中央政府會不會願意接受一個沒有百分百安全系數的選舉呢？要設計一套能夠符合中央政府經已設下的限制但是仍然可以給不同政見的人士可以有一個合理的機會參選的制度並非太難，困難的反而是各方是否願意接受這種一方面沒有公民提名，但另一方面又容許一些不同政見的人士都有機會參選的制度。在目前越趨兩極化的政治環境下，對能達成這種協議的前景我實在不敢樂觀。  U) _! }6 H! p% ?5 q0 S- M* C
公仔箱論壇2 t% K) P' p5 n) L
在中環48樓的餐廳向下望，維港是很平靜，很美麗，香港有今天的成就其實得來不易，我只能夠希望明天會更好。
5.39.217.76  B8 {3 F# ~3 P  e4 i3 e. L
$ w+ r1 b% W! |) \1 G4 c
祝
身體健康公仔箱論壇6 ^- @" C: u# A) X* G1 ?) R
5.39.217.764 S! `& g$ c/ z0 p0 L3 G
4 H. ]- K' N; ]) P5 A3 C& R; H. i
文敏
2014年7月19日tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb& n( j: Z8 _. q- ~

作者: felicity2010 時間: 2014-7-21 07:32 AM

本帖最後由 felicity2010 於 2014-7-21 07:36 AM 編輯
公仔箱論壇- e- Y. E9 D/ u( E& c0 ]* m9 z$ V
The Economist: No panderers,please: this issue’s black and white
公仔箱論壇% `+ |( u( Q0 i+ g- _ R
公仔箱論壇; e4 J' w9 F/ v3 `: n# d/ G% a
Time for Britain to rediscover its moral compass and confront China over Hong Kong

公仔箱論壇; [3 {" J7 ~& {6 P! t3 M8 W' a
ON JULY 15th Hong Kong’s leader, Leung Chun-ying, presented a report to China’s leaders in Beijing on how to reform the territory’s electoral system. In it he suggested that most Hong Kongers were perfectly happy with a system under which a rigged committee of worthies weeds out anyone the mainland does not like, and did not want greater political freedom. The report angered many in the former British colony, who complain that China no longer respects the unique formula of “one country, two systems”under which Hong Kong is supposed to be governed and believe its actions so far suggest it will not keep its promise to allow universal suffrage in the election of the territory’s leader by 2017. Amid the uproar, however, one voice has been notably silent: that of Britain.TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。9 p' |! J+ ~3 x4 s. L

In 1984 Margaret Thatcher signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration with a Chinese leader, Zhao Ziyang. The document laid the groundwork for Hong Kong’s Basic Law, its post-handover constitution.For several years after Britain handed over power in 1997, China adhered scrupulously to the Basic Law. This week, amid growing concerns for Hong Kong’s autonomy, two senior Hong Kong politicians, Martin Lee Chu-ming and Anson Chan Fang On-sang, visited London hoping to meet David Cameron. They succeeded only in seeing Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, who told them that Britain “will not shy away from defending the principle of one country, two systems”. Yet that is precisely what Britain is doing.

As China has become more powerful, it has exerted increasing influence in Hong Kong—over the electoral process, by leaning on editors to tone down criticism of China (see article),and through its pressure on religious groups, such as Falun Gong, that are banned on the mainland. A white paper written by the central government and published in June declared that Hong Kong’s autonomy was in the gift of Beijing. It also called on the territory’s judiciary to recognise that it has a duty to “be patriotic”—i.e., mindful of China’s national interests—a contradiction of Hong Kong’s common-law English system and a threat to judicial independence.

( Z# Q5 p- S8 |: _
A right royal welcome
5.39.217.763 C) \3 V# m( G a
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。6 A7 S/ ?$ D6 I2 T
The week after the white paper was issued,China’s prime minister, Li Keqiang, was being feted on a state visit to Britain.He got an audience with the queen—a privilege normally reserved for heads of state. The trip was billed as a rapprochement after a period in which China had kept Britain in the cold. Two years ago, Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, met the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s exiled spiritual leader, whom Beijing labels a “splittist”. As a result, China shunned British leaders andbusinessmen. Signalling that China was willing to put the past behind it, Mr Li signed deals worth £14 billion ($24 billion). Nobody needed to spell out what from now on would be the terms of the relationship:deals would flow, but only for as long as Britain kept its nose out of Chinese affairs.

The consequences of that pact are now becoming clear. This month the British foreign secretary issued the latest of his twice-yearly reports on Hong Kong. He noted that some in Hong Kong had said that the white paper threatened the city’s autonomy. But it did not contain a word of criticism for the document itself, nor for the government in Beijing.5.39.217.768 {. ?$ S. p0 k

That is bad for Hong Kong. Its role as a global financial centre is based upon the freedom of its press, the independence of its judiciary and the rule of law. Hong Kong’s citizens risk seeing the autonomy guaranteed by the Basic Law eroded.

For British firms, the price of confronting China could be high. But in terms of the country’s broader interests, failing to do so would be costlier. Countries that renege on treaty commitments lose credibility. Moreover, Britain’s outsize diplomatic clout derives from its values as a democracy and its ability as a permanent member of the Security Council to galvanise coalitions. Its behaviour over Hong Kong suggests that either or both of those sources of strength are failing, for it seems unwilling to use its clout to defend its values.

Britain alone might not curb China’s behaviour. But other countries, including America, are alarmed at Chinese bullying in neighbouring seas and distant continents. If Britain were willing to stand by Hong Kong’s liberties, they would be prepared to do so too. If Britain kow-tows to China, why should they bother?

歡迎光臨公仔箱論壇 (http://5.39.217.76/)