公仔箱論壇 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: [時事討論] 李柱銘陳太《金融時報》還拖　反駁撐白皮書英智庫 [打印本頁]

作者: felicity2010 時間: 2014-7-29 10:48 PM 標題: 李柱銘陳太《金融時報》還拖　反駁撐白皮書英智庫

本帖最後由 felicity2010 於 2014-7-29 10:51 PM 編輯 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。) D; o# a) c0 ^6 e
. Z* g0 K3 o& \
李柱銘陳太《金融時報》還拖　反駁撐白皮書英智庫 5.39.217.76( A& i5 T. l/ F
公仔箱論壇7 @! L* f3 `; _' A, n% w* F( s

. Q& c0 _$ U4 S; r& f  w

英國《金融時報》今日刊出，民主黨創黨主席李柱銘與香港2020召集人陳方安生，一篇題為「否定對香港白皮書的擔憂是錯誤」的文章（Quite wrong to dismiss apprehensions over HK White Paper），反駁早前剛為香港左報，及部分英國國會議員引用的一篇英國智庫文章。5.39.217.76# |( k: Q% H% H$ T3 G- V
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 J6 j' J# C  I/ K) T
早前，英國皇家國際事務研究所研究員Tim Summers（夏添恩）撰文，以〈白皮書未有轉變香港政策〉（White Paper Does Not Mark Major Shift on Hong Kong）為題。該文其後獲本港親中共報章拿來大造文章，稱「英智庫力挺白皮書」。當時更有左報聲稱，該文章令當時正訪英的李陳二人，在英國下議院的香港民主聽證會，被殺個措手不及。tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb* i: p( p! n1 Y" e6 z! k

今日，李陳二人在文章中反駁夏添恩斷章取義，單憑一國兩制白皮書中文版中用上「治港者」一詞，便否定了「治港者」的實際意思是「行政者」（administrator），而這一點在白皮書中早已被明確點出。另一方面，白皮書指法官是「行政者」的一部分，又要求法官愛國，實際上已明顯違反了《中英聯合聲明》中，中英雙方答允保持香港三權分立的承諾。

因此，李陳二人認為，夏添恩的文章在立論開始已經全錯（fundamentally flawed）。白皮書中，明確地指出法官是「行政者」。1600名法律界人士「一國兩制白皮書」靜默遊行，亦是因這點而起。
最後，李陳二人表示，他們已得到英國皇家國際事務研究所的回覆，表示該文章只代表夏添恩的個人立場，並不代表該機構對白皮書的看法。
: y, X: Y& Q) U3 i
然而，夏添恩的文章對香港的傷害早已造成，左報更不會代為澄清。李陳二人今日的回應，只能說是亡羊補牢而已。
5.39.217.763 I0 B, k8 t4 j: H

) g; X; ~; y' o
FT: Quite wrong to dismiss apprehensions over HK White Paper

From Mrs Anson Chan and Mr Martin Lee QC.

5.39.217.76* _8 ^$ d( X( N) R8 C; j+ L
Sir, Tim Summers, in his letter “Beijing is just reiterating China’s stance on Hong Kong” (July 19), contends that concerns reflected in the Financial Times, in relation to the Chinese government’s recently published White Paper on the practice of “one country,two systems” in Hong Kong, are based on a misinterpretation of the original Chinese version of the White Paper. As two educated Chinese, we are quite capable of understanding the White Paper in both the English and Chinese languages, as are the majority of the 1,600 members of the local legal profession who marched in silent protest at the terms of the White Paper on June 27 2014.

Dr Summers has placed great importance on the Chinese characters, zhì gang, which stand for administer or“administrate” as in the White Paper. These characters also appear in Deng Xiaoping’s promise of “Hong Kong people ruling (or administering) Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy” which is the over-arching policy embodied under“one country, two systems”. By the promise of “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong” we were assured that Beijing would not send their own people to administer Hong Kong.

The White Paper states that “Hong Kong administrators” include “judges of the courts at different levels and other judicial personnel”, who have the responsibility of “safeguarding the country’s sovereignty, security and development interests”. This is in flagrant violation of the principle of separation of powers guaranteed under the Sino-British Joint Declaration and Hong Kong’s constitution.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。" P! ^, |4 R" q. N/ c

It also states that “Hong Kong’s administrators”, including judges, must be loyal to the country and subject to oversight by the central government which has “comprehensive jurisdiction” over the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). The White Paper thus clearly breaches the Joint Declaration which gives “a high degree of autonomy”to the HKSAR, “except in foreign and defence affairs”.

Dr Summers’ letter is fundamentally flawed because his basic premise is that the White Paper does not describe judges as administrators. As set out above, the White Paper clearly describes judges and others as “Hong Kong’s administrators”.

In short, he is quite wrong to dismiss the well-founded apprehension felt by Hong Kong people at both the tone and the wording of the White Paper. We note that he has advanced his views in his capacity as a Senior Consulting Fellow, Asia Programme, Chatham House, Hong Kong. We had the pleasure of addressing Chatham House on July 17; we were informed that Chatham House does not take an institutional position on the views expressed by individual commentators and that Dr Summers’ views reflec this own, personal assessment.
公仔箱論壇/ X2 A7 T9 Z5 s- ~! K

Anson Chan (former head of the Hong Kong Civil Service); Martin Lee, Hong Kong 2020tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb1 [7 f8 v) j1 i/ ?& y

5.39.217.767 Q( E3 A1 G4 _0 b0 e& O) U" Z

作者: felicity2010 時間: 2014-7-29 10:54 PM

本帖最後由 felicity2010 於 2014-7-29 11:02 PM 編輯 " d' d! {& E7 c, F! }; V# D

范析852│林鄭續談「袋住先」再呃港人　無視《基本法》人大兩大條文 5 c8 K$ j5 @- B0 C2 H# e% i2 k
公仔箱論壇$ `$ @' o% T4 [1 c& ^: P, a) r' f

' |# i& F$ V% L: j  U9 [4 o
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb9 @6 [  B; y$ K  C' P! ], O" _, b" N

政改三人組之首的政務司司長林鄭月娥，在「海外勢力」的美國《華爾街日報》撰文，為政改護航同時配合中央的主旋律，打起國際輿論戰。% E5 q; _* ~& [% a3 M" t7 h% a8 p
( s8 @5 r% l4 _/ n2 R$ C9 h
有關文章，標題為〈香港政改的守則〉（The Rules for Hong Kong Electoral Reform），除了老調重彈強調普選並非「中英聯合聲明」賦予，而是《基本法》的承諾外，更寄語立法會議員應拿出「政治勇氣」，指倘若政改只能原地踏步，香港市民將會非常失望。tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb3 l9 e$ \; S$ ?3 T2 z
公仔箱論壇. u/ U" T+ |" H! [9 }
梁家傑斥如預告沒真普選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 ?: R; b. C1 m( b4 F, j0 m- e& S
5.39.217.76' W4 D; D) i( @& {1 J
林鄭月娥寄語立法會議員，卻為何要選擇借國際媒體之平台，固然令人滿腔疑問，而最令人疑惑的，更是林鄭月娥指出，很多人認為2017年的特首選舉方案是「終極方案」，但她認為社會需要著眼未來，相信政改方案亦正循序漸進，未來亦會繼續改善，簡而言之，就是「袋住先」。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 j+ V. d" f0 Q& Q" i  ]( J7 t9 L

如此言論出街，在泛民中間似乎並不討好，最少公民黨黨魁、立法會議員梁家傑就對政改「袋住先」毫不認同，批評林鄭等同預告沒真普選，重申不會接受「袋住先」方案；民主黨主席劉慧卿就指林鄭月娥應更誠實及有膽量地，向國際社會講出真相。
公仔箱論壇% l: U5 O  @* n, O* }' i/ i
「普選」後不存在「循序漸進」空間

! ~4 S7 m& {: ~  w) C
究竟政改是否真的可以「袋住先」？是否仍有循序漸進的空間？回歸基本中的《基本法》，以及被林鄭月娥屢次在談及普選原則時，也掛在口邊指出需要遵守的人大常委會的規定，答案似乎顯而易見！

根據《基本法》第45條，全文是：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。' u' P: i7 r& ?; Z' K

香港特別行政區行政長官在當地通過選舉或協商產生，由中央人民政府任命。公仔箱論壇( [& m% r; O& C& A+ H2 L
行政長官的產生辦法根據香港特別行政區的實際情況和循序漸進的原則而規定，最終達至由一個有廣泛代表性的提名委員會按民主程序提名後普選產生的目標。公仔箱論壇- t6 Z& L: O5 v6 D  o% _6 v; N3 x
行政長官產生的具體辦法由附件一《香港特別行政區行政長官的產生辦法》規定。

其中，在第二段中，雖然載列有「循序漸進」之字眼，惟整個文句，配以最後的「最終達至……」，其實已清楚表明，所謂的「循序漸進」，實是指在「最終達之……」前的階段，也換言之，在「最終達至……普選產生的目標」後，其實並不存在「循序漸進」的空間。

「最終達至……」自然應是普選# Z$ ]. V7 Z6 |+ _( O( x) ]! C

事實上，也正是因為《基本法》第45條中的這個「循序漸進」字眼，香港的普選未能在2012年時出現，因為當時人大常委會，就是以「最終達至……普選」是需要「循序漸進」的過程為由，只讓香港在2012年的特首選舉中，擴大選舉委員會的人數，由800人增加至1200人，以體現所謂的「循序漸進」。
公仔箱論壇5 _  ?) q+ Q& ]7 I% d
當然，「最終達至……普選」後，普選的方法及程序，理應仍是可以修改的，然而這個卻不應違反「最終達至」的原則，即修改不會亦不應影響普選的程度，而如果屆時是令「普選」是「更普選」的話，即仍是「循序漸進」的過程，換言之，實是違反了《基本法》第45條。

更何況，在這個英文為「The ultimate aim」的「最終達至……普選」之條文以外，另一份同樣具效力的文件之條文中，也進一步顯示這個「最終達至……普選」，其實沒有「袋住先」的餘地。
公仔箱論壇$ P6 H& u1 J* C
人大常委決定如同否定林鄭建議tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb& j' L6 C7 e$ s

2007年12月26日第十屆全國人大常委會第31次會議中，人稱「喬老爺」的人大常委會副秘書長喬曉陽，發表了「關於《全國人民代表大會常務委員會關於香港特別行政區2012年行政長官和立法會產生辦法及有關普選問題的決定（草案）的說明》，當中指出根據當時行政長官提交的政改報告，提出「”不遲於2017年先行落實普選行政長官”」這個建議，國務院港澳事務辦公室最後認為，「2017年第五任行政長官可實行普選產生的辦法」，而最終這個也成為人大常委會在3日後通過的《決定》。

而這個，便正成為了令林鄭「袋住先」的說法難以成立的框框。因為如果在2017年時，真的「實行普選產生的辦法」來選出第五任行政長官，連接《基本法》第45條的原則，這個「普選產生的辦法」，便一定是經過「循序漸進的原則」後「最終達至」的「普選」，以林鄭月娥作為「精英中的精英」的多年政務官經驗與訓練，如此顯淺的邏輯與道理，又焉會不明白？

林行止曾斥林鄭弄虛作假# `& m) v  A& J& u& D
公仔箱論壇3 A9 O: `1 r) f6 H$ K+ q2 U
林鄭月娥曾多次呼籲、提醒、警告，指普選行政長官討論須回歸《基本法》，又指普選需要嚴格依照《基本法》辦事，既然「袋住先」明顯不符合基《基本法》，又或最少存在爭議時，林鄭月娥恐怕需要先自行務實起來，回歸到《基本法》去吧！tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb. ~4 n6 Y3 T2 i* l5 ?0 p8 l

對於林鄭月娥，老范就想到《信報》創辦人林行止先生上周的一夕話，直斥林鄭月娥出賣香港，現節錄一反段如下：' e$ p% F$ S) [6 ]7 z
5.39.217.76! m* J" |) l" Z1 n
「民意諮詢於二○一三年十二月啟動，主事者不是京官，不是國內的法律專家，不是港共的頭面人物，亦不是學術界或商業性的民調機構，而是決策層的核心官員，『政改三人組』成員都是生於港、長於港，由港府公務員或專業人士轉為政治任命高官的林鄭月娥、袁國強和譚志源，看其『出身』，他們怎會不是力挺香港一制的精英？可是，他們當眾拿出一份刻意套取以就己（京？）意的報告，明知是弄虛作假卻說是『如實反映』，抬舉誇大『共民黨見』，壓抑很多港人的真實訴求！政務司司長、『三人組』領導林鄭月娥其後還在多份報章發表題為《踏出落實普選第一步》的文章，其巧言令色與她過去的表現並不一致，這種『突變』也許是在政治壓力下不得不變；無論如何，這篇『紅』文的貼切標題，應該是《踏出『兩制』消亡的第一步》。」tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb/ Y& A( K4 t$ N: [$ `

由是觀之，林鄭月娥的這一個「袋住先」，還有丁點值得港人信任嗎？

（撰文：范中流）公仔箱論壇; a, F$ E' l' C; y

WSJ: The Rules for Hong Kong Electoral Reform
. P+ t7 O. ]  @, r9 C
From Carrie Lam
) s0 P  K, E! {7 t
The central government has lived up to its commitments to the territory's people.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb3 @# ~( \5 `5 U0 m( b' N) T
July 27, 2014 tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb7 y; j  \5 c8 H% o

Hong Kong this month took the first step in the procedure for constitutional reform. On July 15, Chief Executive C.Y. Leung submitted a report to the National People's Congress Standing Committee(NPCSC), saying that there is a need to amend the electoral method for the 2017chief executive election with a view to attaining universal suffrage. This took into account the report of a five-month public consultation conducted by the Task Force on Constitutional Development that I chair.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。# V$ ]7 w) P% r; Z2 J! C
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb% R9 Z7 a/ v2 [# m% j" k5 M* G
Within a month or two, the NPCSC will inform the chief executive of its decision as to whether the Basic Law can be amended to implement universal suffrage in selecting the chief executive in 2017. We expect the NPCSC to give us the green light. On this basis, we plan to launch another public consultation on more specific suggestions with a view to forging a consensus for enabling legislation to be drafted and eventually put to legislators for a vote.8 g; C% h7 q+ O
7 T) w4 z' F  f9 b5 I0 e7 u
Looking ahead, I offer a few observations.First, it is worth noting that universal suffrage for the selection of the chief executive was not part of the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed in1984. The declaration refers to the selection of the chief executive by election or through consultations held locally.5.39.217.76- }; U% i$ M9 |  _. m2 W% [
) @9 Z+ W" ^/ i: w7 M
It was only during the drafting of the Basic Law, promulgated in 1990, that the ultimate aim of selecting the chief executive by universal suffrage was included. In 1990, with Hong Kong still under British administration, there was not a single directly elected seat in the Hong Kong legislature.
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。2 p$ q; r, ~7 D+ b9 P6 ?
Since Hong Kong's return to China in 1997,almost every election of the chief executive and Legislative Council has been more democratic. In 2007, the NPCSC decided that the fifth-term chief executive in 2017 could be selected by universal suffrage and that after this milestone was reached, universal suffrage for legislative elections was also possible. It is clear by its actions that the central authorities in Beijing have lived up to its commitments in the Basic Law (which is a national law of China) and are sincerely committed to greater democracy in Hong Kong.

Second, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region was established under the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. Article 12 of the Basic Law states that the Hong Kong shall be a local administrative region of the People's Republic with a high degree of autonomy and directly under the Central People's Government. As such, the central authorities retain the constitutional powers and responsibilities to determine Hong Kong's political system and its pace of development.公仔箱論壇; F1 M, v" {2 l* Z. v% f

The design of our political system, including universal suffrage, relates to the exercise of sovereignty by the state over Hong Kong as well as full implementation of the "One Country, Two Systems" framework. Amendments to the electoral method for selecting the chief executive must be passed by a two-thirds majority of the Legislative Council, receive the chief executive's consent and be approved by the NPCSC.Universal suffrage for the selection of the chief executive is not an internal matter for Hong Kong to decide on its own. It is a matter that relates closely to the relationship between the state and a local administration.8 ]8 O6 W/ k; U
公仔箱論壇2 m! K1 ~4 P+ n! G: {. n1 d
Third, in handling democratic development matters, we must strictly follow the law. This is a core value of Hong Kong.

Article 45 of the Basic Law states that"The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the chief executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures."

Legal experts, locally and in the mainland,have confirmed that the power of the nominating committee is substantive. It cannot be undermined, circumvented or "watered down" by other forms of nomination. Accordingly, the just-concluded public consultation solicited views on the size and composition of the nominating committee, the method for its formation, the procedures for its nomination of chief executive candidates,etc.

Fourth, any amendments to our electoral methods require a two-thirds majority in the Legislative Council. At the moment, no single party or affiliation of parties can deliver the 47 votes required in our 70-seat legislature. Therefore, some form of cross-party support will be necessary, and compromise will be an essential element of this.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。0 x4 G0 m  j$ c) X% z

If our upcoming political package fails to muster the required votes in the legislature, then Hong Kong's democratic development will come to a standstill, as it did in 2005 when we missed an opportunity to change the electoral methods for the 2007 chief executive and 2008 Legislative Council elections.
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。( x6 b- u% @5 m0 E8 r
Such an outcome will seriously disappoint Hong Kong people and adversely affect government operations. We hope that our legislative councilors will display political courage and pragmatism to bring about change and provide our five million eligible voters with the opportunity to select the chief executive by one-person, one-vote in 2017. If change does not happen, then we have to retain the current system of selecting the chief executive through a 1,200-person Election Committee. In this regard the choice is very clear.

Fifth, let's cast an eye on the future. Many skeptics say or believe that the 2017 electoral arrangements are final. They have therefore adopted a "now or never" or "all or nothing"approach.0 R9 m; F& n3 R; h
7 [; n  m6 i3 v( i( F
In line with the stated Basic Law principles of gradual and orderly progress, as well as taking stock of the actual situation in Hong Kong, it should be possible to further amend electoral arrangements in the future—for example, by improving broad representativeness of the nominating committee or the "democratic procedures" to nominate chief executive candidates for selection by universal suffrage.

At this critical juncture in Hong Kong's history, cool heads, pragmatism and the spirit of compromise must prevail.Otherwise we won't be able to take the bold first step of universal suffrage that will advance Hong Kong's democratic development. I remain wholeheartedly committed to working with our legislature and the community to devise a system for the 2017 chief executive election that is legally sound, stands a reasonable chance of gaining public and Legislative Council support, and is practical, practicable and easy to understand.6 X! ?4 P0 u4 k% ?, A
4 w- m* ]# ^! a4 A. U3 p
5.39.217.768 r* }: U  F4 p2 `- [% d/ ^
Mrs. Lam is the chief secretary for administration of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.1 y$ `6 b" {5 R0 ^; x! n8 C, B4 R3 T
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。. z3 h* ^8 e2 ^" {5 Q

歡迎光臨公仔箱論壇 (http://5.39.217.76/)