立場新聞 Stand News

學術及專業界簽名運動:否決假普選 慎防真專制

2015/5/11 — 14:07

(編按:一群學者發起聯署行動,望與各界專業人士「連成一線」,呼籲立法會議員否決假普選方案。下為聯署聲明全文,英文全文刊於發起人名單之後。)

學術及專業界簽名運動

《 維護香港核心價值 否決假普選 慎防真專制 》

廣告

十一年前我們當中不少人共同發表了《維護香港核心價值宣言》,表示對香港前景憂心忡忡。十一年後的今天,我們驚覺每況愈下,核心價值備受全面侵蝕,警鐘必須再次響起:除非市民警覺危機迫近,恐怕香港人無法保住固有的生活方式。

我們提出的八項香港核心價值中包括自由民主和人權法治,但近年中央政府對港干預日深,特區政府不斷破壞規章制度,動員羣眾鬥爭加劇社會撕裂。這些毒液一點一滴侵蝕核心價值,從全球新聞自由排名和國際人權組織調查的各種指標,可清晣看到特區管治急劇惡化。

廣告

中央政府近年不斷扭曲對「一國兩制、港人治港」的解釋,從國務院白皮書到人大常委8.31決定,不僅收緊對港管治權,更令香港的公民權利自由全面倒退。一旦立法會通過政改決議,未來特首可挾「一人一票」的偽冒正當性,加速破壞兩制的步伐,把社會推向謊言當道是非不辨的深淵,令香港核心價值的優勢蕩然無存。

2017距2047只有三十年,一旦通過假普選方案 ,香港人便喪失按法理爭取普選的依據,連爭取2047年後原有生活方式不變的重要籌碼也一併丟失。試問當下一代發覺人權自由逐步萎縮,劉曉波、高瑜和李旺陽等案件相繼在港出現時,我們豈不愧對子孫?

有鑑於此,我們謹此宣言,與各界專業人士和學者互勵互勉,連成一線向專制陷阱說不。我們呼籲立法會議員否決假普選方案,以及香港市民認清「袋住先」謊言,用行動捍衛核心價值,保住香港人的尊嚴和香港的未來。

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

附錄:《「袋住先」的五大惡果》

Ø 政制停滯
特區政府聲稱政改方案已滿足了《基本法》第45條最終達至普選行政長官的要求,所以「袋住先」等於同意指鹿為馬的假普選,政制停滯不前。相反,否決假普選方案後, 中央政府仍有憲制責任提出真普選方案, 否則便是失職。

Ø 權貴壟斷
中央及特區官員表明即使通過政改方案,立法會功能組別仍有保留價值,所以假普選行政長官後必然是假普選立法會;政策向少數權貴傾斜,利益輸送的格局難以改變。由於權力更集中於行政機關,資源分配不公,貧富懸殊的現象更會惡化。

Ø 自由萎縮
未來特首表面上擁有數百萬市民的民意授權,在北京的操控下,會有巨大誘惑推行23條或比23條更嚴厲的惡法,箝制港人自由,破壞法治, 公民權利倒退,從而激化中港矛盾, 令下一代的發展空間越縮越少。

Ø 經濟動盪
通過假普選方案,會使社會撕裂更甚。政府不但無法提升管治威信,更會因推行箝制自由人權的措施而令市場失去信心。當中港融合因政治需要而加速推行時,經濟動盪的風險更大。

Ø 振英連任
誰能出閘完全由中央掌握。若通過政改,梁振英「立下大功」,誰說中央一定讓有實力的建制派跟梁振英競爭!對中央來說,梁振英連任是首屆普選安全系數最高的選擇。


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
發起人 Initiators
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
陳效能  Annie Chan (嶺南大學副教授, Associate Professor, LingnanU)
陳清僑  Ching Kiu S Chan (嶺南大學教授, Professor, LingnanU)
陳允中  Chen Yun Chung (嶺南大學副教授, Associate Professor, LingnanU)
程 翔  Cheong Ching (資深記者, Veteran Journalist)
戴大為  Michael Davis (香港大學教授, Professor, HKU)
馮偉華  Fung Wai Wah (香港城市大學高級講師, Senior Lecturer, CityU)
何芝君  Ho Chi Kwan (明愛專上學院客座教授, Visiting Professor, Caritas Higher Inst. of Edu.)
許天福  David Hui (法律界選委, Election Committee Member, Legal Sub-sector)
葉劍青  Ip Kim Ching (臨床心理學家, Clinical Psychologist)
黎廣德  Albert Lai (工程界選委, Election Committee Member, Engineering Sub-sector)
賴仁彪  Bill Lay (社福界選委, Election Committee Member, Social Welfare Sub-sector)
李智明  C M Lee (資深工程師, Engineer)
梁兆昌  SC Leung (資訊科技界選委, Election Committee Member, IT Sub-sector)
梁小琴  SK Leung (資深社工, Veteran Social Worker)
李耀文  Li Yiu Man (工程界選委, Election Committee Member, Engineering Sub-sector)
陸潔玲  Luk Kit Ling (理工大學香港專上學院講師, Lecturer, HKCC, PolyU)
吳其彥  Joseph K.Y. Ng (浸會大學教授, Professor, HKBU)
舒 琪  Shu Kei (演藝學院電影電視學院院長, Chair, School of Film and Television, HKAPA)
成 名  Sing Ming (科技大學副教授, Associate Professor, HKUST)
蘇耀昌  Alvin So (科技大學講座教授, Chair Professor, HKUST)
丁 偉  Ting Wai (浸會大學教授, Professor, HKBU)
丁南僑  Tsing Nam Kiu (香港大學榮譽副教授, Honorary Associate Professor, HKU)
韋志堅  Victor Wai (會計界選委, Election Committee Member, Accountancy Sub-sector)
黃 洪  Wong Hung (中文大學副教授, Associate Professor, CUHK)
黃偉國  Wong Wai Kwok (浸會大學助理教授, Assistant Professor, HKBU)
邱祖淇  Joe C.K. Yau (浸會大學講師, Lecturer, HKBU)
楊區麗潔 Rikkie Yeung (香港大學講師, Lecturer, HKU)

 

英文全文:
 

Standing Firm on Hong Kong’s Core Values — Veto Sham Universal Suffrage, Vigilant Against Authoritarian Rule

Signature Campaign by Scholars and Professionals

In 2004, many of us co-signed Standing Firm on Hong Kong’s Core Values to express our deep concerns about the future of Hong Kong. After eleven years, we feel shocked at the erosion of our core values on all fronts. We must be resolute in raising the alarm again. Unless the Hong Kong citizens are on high alert of the crisis we are facing, we cannot preserve the Hong Kong way of living.

We identified in 2004 eight core values of Hong Kong, including liberty, democracy, human rights and rule of law. In recent years, the Central People’s Government has been increasingly intervening in Hong Kong affairs. The Hong Kong SAR Government has been constantly destroying governance rules and conventions. Provocation of in-fighting among the people has aggravated social divisions. These are venomous to Hong Kong’s core values. No doubt, the Hong Kong governance has rapidly worsened as shown by international indicators, including world-wide rankings of freedom of press and surveys conducted by international human rights groups.

In recent years, the Central People’s Government has kept twisting the interpretation of “One Country, Two Systems” and “Hong Kong People Ruling Hong Kong.” The White Paper published by the State Council and the Decision of National People’s Congress on 31 August 2014 not only undermines Hong Kong’s autonomy in governance, but also endangers our civil liberties and freedoms. Once the Legislative Council passes the Government’s constitutional package, the Chief Executive in future, feels empowered by a sham “one-person, one-vote’ election, may trample further on the “Two Systems.” Hong Kong may go further downhill into an abyss of lies. The Hong Kong advantage underpinned by our core values will be lost.

There will only be thirty years from 2017 to 2047. Once the SAR Government’s sham universal suffrage package is passed, Hong Kong people will lose the legal justification to fight for universal suffrage and, hence, give up a major bargaining chip for preserving the Hong Kong way of life beyond 2047. Our next generation would suffer from serious rollback of human rights and liberties. Tragedies similar to the cases of Liu Xiao Bao, Gao Yu and Li Wangyang might happen in Hong Kong. How can we have a clear conscience and explain to our children and grandchildren?

We, therefore, solemnly declare that scholars and professionals from different sectors will resolutely say no to the trap into authoritarian rule. We seriously call for all Legislative Councillors to veto the sham universal suffrage proposal. We appeal to all Hong Kong citizens to recognize the lies behind “pocketing”. We urge every Hong Kong resident or supporter to take actions to stand firm on Hong Kong people’s core values, preserve Hong Kong people’s dignity and defend Hong Kong’s future.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Appendix: Five Disastrous Consequences of “Pocketing” HKSAR Government’s Constitutional Reform Package

Ø End of Constitutional Reform
The HKSAR Government claims that its constitutional reform proposal satisfies the requirements in Article 45 of the Basic Law that the ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. Therefore, “pocketing” would in effect endorse a sham universal suffrage and stop further constitutional reform. On the contrary, if the sham universal suffrage package is vetoed, the Central People’s Government (CPG) will still have the constitutional duty to introduce new proposals to implement universal suffrage in Hong Kong. A failure to do so will be dereliction of duty on the part of the CPG.

Ø Serious Hegemony and Cronyism
Both the CPG and SAR Government officials have stated that functional constituencies should be preserved after the constitutional package is passed. Hence a sham universal suffrage of the Legislative Council will naturally follow a sham universal suffrage for the Chief Executive. As such, there will be no change to hegemony and cronyism among elites. Indeed, powers will be further centralized in the chief executive, leading to deterioration of unfair resource allocation and the rich-poor gap.

Ø Taking Away Our Freedom
Superficially, the Chief Executive to be elected under the “pocketing” proposal is empowered by millions of voters. In reality, under Beijing’s control, the Chief Executive would be immensely tempted to put forward Article 23 or more draconian laws to take away our freedoms, harm the rule of law and roll back civil liberties. Therefore, tensions between the Mainland and Hong Kong will likely intensify, narrowing down possibilities for our next generation.

Ø Undermining Our Market Economy
Social divisions and tensions will be aggravated if the sham universal suffrage is passed. The government will in no way be able to improve its authority in governance. Markets will lose confidence in Hong Kong when further measures against freedoms and human rights are taken. The risk of economic turmoil will increase with acceleration of Mainland-Hong Kong integration driven by political demands.

Ø C Y Getting Re-elected
The CPG has full control over nominations for the CE election. If the proposal is passed, that means CY Leung would have achieved an important mission. So, how can anyone be sure that the CPG would allow real competitors from the pro-establishment camp to run against CY Leung! In fact, C Y Leung is likely Beijing’s safest choice as the first CE under the sham “universal suffrage”.

發表意見