立場新聞 Stand News

假普選方案 一定唔袋得

2015/4/22 — 12:05

法政匯思就政府建議的2017年行政長官選舉辦法之聲明
Statement of the Progressive Lawyers Group in relation to Government’s proposal for the method for selecting the Chief Executive in 2017 (Please scroll down for English)

1. 就2017年行政長官的選舉辦法,政府於今日發表了其將向立法會提交的方案(「此方案」)。此方案內容依循全國人民代表大會常務委員會於2014年8月31日作出的決定(「831決定」):

(a) 提名委員會(「提委會」 )將由1,200人組成。這1,200人將由一小撮香港人(基於立法設計,絕大部分都是親建制的)及不同類型的實體選擇出來;他們與其隸屬的提委會界別其實未必有任何關連。

廣告

(b) 最多10個而每個能夠取得至少120名提委會委員支持的人會獲提委會考慮是否能成為行政長官候選人。

(c) 惟每一位(最多2至3 位)給予香港人進行投票的行政長官候選人必需首先取得超過600名提委會委員支持。從香港人手上獲得最多票數的行政長官候選人將被提交予中央政府任命為行政長官。

廣告

2. 《法政匯思》於2015年1月27日發表的意見書中提到:

(a) 831決定中嘗試強加行政長官選舉辦法的具體框架並不具有法律約束力。

(b) 任何依循831決定框架的方案都不是普選。

(c) 若這樣的建議被接納為「普選」,這會製造一個假象,就是根據《基本法》下行政長官要由「普選」產生這個「最終目標」已經實現。這亦會讓當權者將來有機可乘,爭辯說在法律上再沒有需要去修改行政長官的選舉辦法(當然,我們認為這觀點是錯的)。

3. 鑒於上述背景,我們就此方案提出以下要點:

(a) 提委會的組成顯然不代表整體香港市民。

(b) 客許取得120名提委會委員支持的人士被考慮為行政長官候選人只是製造煙幕。不論「入閘門檻」是取得120名,12名甚至只是1名提委會委員的提名,要出閘成為行政長官候選人還需半數,即600名提委的支持,換句話說,可供香港市民選擇的兩至三位特首候選人最終還是來自同一政治陣營。

(c) 當香港市民在此機制下被剝奪一個真正選擇特首的權利,廣大市民投票的機制是如何已不重要。任何通過這投票機制被選出的候選人仍不是從普選產生。

4. 就當權者為求達到別有用心的政治目的而扭曲明確的法律及憲法觀念,《法政匯思》對於這份對法治的不敬感到失望。我們就此要求:
(a) 此方案應被拒絕並收回;及

(b) 政府應立刻履行其憲制責任,就2017年及其後的特首選舉模式提出在香港及國際法下均被認可的普選方案。

法政匯思

2015年4月22日

1. The Government has today released its proposal for the Legislative Council’s consideration on the method for selecting the Chief Executive (“CE”) in2017 (“Proposal”). The Proposal adheres to the Standing Committee of the National People Congress’s decision of 31 August 2014 (“831 Decision”):

(a) The Nominating Committee (“NC”) will consist of 1,200 people. They will be selected by a small minority of(mostly pro-establishment by legislative design) Hong Kongers, as well as by an assortment of entities which may or may not in fact have any connection with their designated NC sector.

(b) Up to 10 persons who each have the support of at least 120 NC members will be put to the NC to consider whether such a person can become a CE candidate.

(c) However, a person can only be presented as a CE candidate to Hong Kongers for voting if he or she is amongst 2 to 3 persons who can garner more than 600 NC members’ support. The person who obtains the most votes will then be presented to the Central Government for appointment as CE.

2. In submissions dated 27 January 2015, the Progressive Lawyers Group noted that:

(a) To the extent that the 831 Decision sought to impose a specific framework for the method for selecting the CE in 2017, it is not legally binding.

(b) Any proposal which adhere to the 831 Decision’s framework is NOT universal suffrage.

(c) If any such proposal is adopted as “universal suffrage”, it would give the false impression that the “ultimate aim” of selecting the CE by “universal suffrage” as stipulated under the Basic Law has been met. It would then be open to those in power to argue (wrongly, in our view) that there is no legal requirement to amend the method for selecting the CE in the future.

3. Against this background, we note the following in relation to the Proposal:

(a) The composition of the NC is clearly unrepresentative of Hong Kongers overall.

(b) The allowing of anyone with 120 NC members’ support to be considered as a potential CE candidate is a smokescreen. Regardless of whether this “entry” threshold is 120 NC members, 12 NC members or even 1 NC member, a person requires support from more than half of all NC members, namely 600 members to become a CE candidate. In other words, Hong Kongers will ultimately only get to choose between 2 to 3 CE candidates from the same political camp.

(c) Once Hong Kongers have been denied a genuine choice for CE in this way, in matters not how the voting by the populace takes place. Whoever is elected by purported popular vote would still not be elected by way of universal suffrage.
4. The Progressive Lawyers Group is disappointed by the disrespect paid by those in power to the rule of law in twisting clear legal and constitutional concepts for their own ulterior political ends. We therefore ask that:

(a) the Proposal be rejected and withdrawn; and

(b) the Government acts swiftly on its constitutional obligation to present a proposal on the method for selecting the CE in 2017 and beyond that does in fact constitute universal suffrage as a matter of domestic and international law.
Progressive Lawyers Group

22 April 2015

(文章標題為編輯所擬)

發表意見