自欺欺人民主黨

民主黨主席何俊仁蠢蠢欲動，圖參選2012特首選舉，目的為增加曝光，收集聚焦，為2017年「可能」有的普選行政長官鋪路。社民連認為在現行制度下參與行政長官選舉是助長小圈子選舉。筆者不讚同這消極的想法，反之，泛民的參與理論上可造成思緒衝擊，令人對選舉制度和自身的選舉權利提出質疑，引發議論，這並非壞事。故此，2007年公民黨所耗之力並非白費。本來，若非經政改一役，如今筆者也未必會對民主黨參選抱持負面態度，畢竟透過選舉競爭來製造話題對於增強香港人整體的政治參與來說是一件事好事。

可惜的是，如今即使筆者手執神聖一票，也不會投予民主黨。抱歉，民主黨沒資格接受這一票。

慶幸的是，如今筆者並沒有手執一票，縱使持有一票亦不過是三百多萬份之一，筆者知道民主黨不會稀罕。2010年5月16日民主黨就已經用行動表明他們不稀罕選民的一票，反正少了一票，他們還有千千萬萬票；多失去一票，也不乏千千萬萬票；再流走一票，他們也仍覺得那千千萬萬票是可以永恆承傳，失的那一票不過是碎石流沙吧。

2010年，民主黨與民協做的「好事」相信有留意的人並不會感到陌生。他們拒絕以黨名義參與五區公投運動以圖與中方對話；他們以行動證明和認同了中聯辦擁有決定香港政制的權利。他們在立法會上通過了2012政改方案，應允了1200人的小圈子特首選舉，確立了功能組別再添五席。他們胡亂解讀一人兩票，又用「增加民主成分」這措詞製造虛假的「階段性成果」，產生誤導的目的僅為吹噓自身的努力。這樣的行動令香港民主發展的道路出現更大隱憂，他們卻沾沾自喜，絲毫不覺愧悔。

上述所言，也就是筆者不會支持民主黨的最大理由。那邊廂以「爭取」到所謂「一人兩票」為賣點的民主黨，這邊廂還真敢說要以廢除功能組別作為特首選舉競選政綱。

自欺欺人民主黨

民主黨沒有「投共」，這是筆者的觀點。筆者這樣說可能會令讀者混亂起來，為甚麼筆者口中所講如此十惡不赦、罪大惡極的民主黨所做的事並不是「投共」？「投共」，亦即不少人口中所講的出賣香港，這句筆者認為是言過其實。縱使他們的所做的事有出賣香港之嫌，而造成的結果又與出賣香港無異，筆者仍然本著最樂觀的思考方式來相信他們只是蒙在鼓裡、自欺欺人、冥頑不靈，從而走上一條錯路而不自知，而非掛「民主」之名行「假民主」之實。不過，他們仍難辭其咎，即使沒有出賣香港，也絕對是出賣了香港人對民主黨的信任。

那裡自欺欺人？就如上文所說，他們明知一人兩票的真正意義，卻首當其衝錯誤解讀一人兩票。所謂一人兩票，如應用在香港上，其中一個方針就是立法會內分開兩種民選選舉制度來平衡不同人士的機會以成為議員，其中一半議席為比例代表制，即現行制度下的分區直選議員那部份所實行的選舉制度；另一半議席為多議席單票制。當然，這個一人兩票方針未經廣泛討論，所以說不準將來會不會實行一人兩票和如何實行。但是，真正的一人兩票絕不是民主黨現時所吹噓的，其中一票是投予其中七分之一的功能組別。高度限制參選權的功能組別，縱使能讓全民得到投票權，也絕不可稱該議席是經普選產生。

功能界別的存廢問題在政府的誘導下出現「仍在爭議當中」的說法，但讀者應知道，政府在民生問題上經常議而不決、決而不行，除了因政府的怠慢，其最大原因就是功能組別的影響力，一方面誘使政府利用功能組別在立法會的權力箇固行政主導的政治方針，另一方面卻令政府變得依存而無法自行決議一些議題，失去決策主導權。

泛民主派一向表明要廢除功能組別，當然泛民亦包括過去和現在的民主黨。去年，民主黨卻去「爭取」增加功能組別來換取不存在的「民主成分」，實在是啼笑皆非，他們的矛盾程度叫人目瞪口呆。筆者也不是不顧現實，其實有兩種情況筆者會樂見民主黨取得全民直選區議會功能組別，其一是這能令泛民能有機會取得過半數功能組別議席；其二是這能令泛民能有機會取得議會內三分之二議席。若非發生上述兩種情況，他們做的事對現今香港根本有害無利，誰想要那虛無縹緲的「民主成分」？

以爭取「2012雙普選」為目標的民主黨，毅然背言棄義，離棄支持者信任，「協助」政府通過「2012政改方案」。我不知道在民主黨內部，他們的黨員想法如何，但既然他們在會員大會上通過了所謂改良政改方案，亦即大部份黨員是支持民主黨的處理方針和公開說法。面對過去支持者的氣憤、傷感及其逆耳忠言和其他泛民黨派的唾罵，民主黨擺出一副「眾人皆醉我獨醒」的態度向選民表示「我們是用心良苦，你們今天不認同我，早晚也會認同我。」無須懷疑，這正是自欺欺人。

回頭是岸，為時未晚。希望未來兩年間經區議會、立法會選舉後，民主黨能知錯而悔改，走回正路。不然民主黨就只會永遠剔除在筆者的投票名單外，儘管民主黨可能真的不關心筆者那區區一票。


Avalon Li
2011年10月4日

Beijing behind security lockdown for Li's trip, Legco president says

Beijing behind security lockdown for Li's trip, Legco president says
South China Morning Post - AUGEST 29, 2011
By Peter So

Legco president Tsang Yok-sing said he believed the Hong Kong government and police were under pressure from mainland officials to keep the city in "complete quiet and total security" during Vice-Premier Li Keqiang's visit earlier this month.

Speaking on ATV's current affairs programme Newsline, broadcast last night, Tsang said it was obvious that mainland officials, who were responsible for arranging the visit, would expect their Hong Kong counterparts to keep protesters away from the vice-premier.

The police's heavy-handed security surrounding Li's visit has been much criticised, especially the handling of student protesters on the University of Hong Kong campus.

"I believe the police would have been under pressure to ensure the VIP did not see or hear anything he did not want to see or hear," Tsang said. "Whenever an important official from Beijing visits Hong Kong, those [mainland officials] in charge of the arrangements always require complete peace and total security."

Tsang said this reflected on a value gap between Hong Kong people and the central government.

He said it was unfortunate that the officials did not want state leaders to have a chance to see "another side of Hong Kong" - referring to the protests held during Li's visit.

However, Tsang refused to comment on whether the police went overboard during the visit, because the Legco security panel would meet today to discuss the matter.

But writing on his blog yesterday, Home Affairs Bureau chief Tsang Tak-sing, the Legco president's younger brother, said Hongkongers should focus discussions on what benefits would come from the economic measures Li offered, rather than being distracted by other issues.

Li announced more than 30 economic and financial measures to enhance links between Hong Kong and the mainland during his three-day visit. "[The measures] will improve livelihoods substantially and facilitate continuous social improvement; this is the big issue related to the people's well-being," Tsang wrote.

"Some issues are more important and some are less important. It would show the wisdom of the public if they could distinguish the importance and priority of those issues. We should not be distracted."

Emily Lau Wai-hing, vice-chairwoman of the Democratic Party, said Tsang's views reflected how out of touch the home affairs chief was with what Hongkongers were most concerned about.

Copied from SCMP.com

Declaration
Please DON'T use this article for commercial purposes if you are not copyright holders.

My blog would use this article for academic reference only.
If articles posted here create any problem, please contact me and I will stop publishing for public.

Police may face legal test over Li Keqiang visit

Police may face legal test over Li Keqiang visit
South China Morning Post - AUGEST 26, 2011
By Tanna Chong

Police could face legal challenges over security arrangements for Vice-Premier Li Keqiang's visit that amounted to "serious interference with human rights", says a legislator and former Bar Association chairman.

A day after the association issued a strongly-worded statement challenging the legal basis for the designation of core security zones from which the public were barred, Alan Leong Kah-kit said such arbitrary decisions could breach the Basic Law and were open to judicial review.

"The designation of such a zone causes serious interference with human rights which are perpetuated in the Basic Law, so it needs strong justification," said Leong, a senior counsel and leader of the Civic Party.

He was referring to the mini-constitution's article 27, which upholds freedom of speech and demonstration; and article 28, which protects freedom of the person.

During Li's visit last week, a man wearing a June 4 protest T-shirt at Laguna City was taken away by the police as the vice-premier was visiting the Lam Tin residential estate.

Later, three protesting students were locked up in the back stairs of the University of Hong Kong's K.K. Leung building when they tried to reach Loke Yew Hall, where Li was attending HKU's centenary celebration. Police Commissioner Andy Tsang Wai-hung said the man and the students had stepped into the "core security area".

Echoing the Bar Association's stance, Leong said no relevant legislation could be found justifying such zones, so Laguna City and part of the university campus could not have been so designated.

Both cited the farmers' protests at the World Trade Organisation's conference in Hong Kong in 2005, saying the area where activities were heavily restricted needed to be gazetted or ordered by the chief executive.

"But the two places could not be such zones, as other activities were ongoing [there] ... and Laguna City is a residential property," Leong said.

He expected Tsang to be grilled on the issue at a special meeting of the Legislative Council security panel on Monday. Students who were detained are also considering taking the police to court in a civil case or a judicial review.

The Bar Association also demanded a public explanation from the police of the legal authority for the security arrangements.

Law Society President Junius Ho Kwan-yiu was on the side of the police, however, saying there was a legal basis for such "core zones".

Citing section six of the Public Order Ordinance, Ho said the police chief had the discretion to decide on the extent of restrictions he considered necessary for national security or public safety. "The police would be unable to do anything if they had to gazette every single time before they took an action," Ho said.

The chief of the independent police watchdog said such zones should not be set up without notifying the public. "Police could put up a visible cordon line if it has to ban activities in certain zones due to security reasons," Jat Sew-tong, chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Council, said.

The IPCC has received eight complaints about policing during Li's visit, many involving the public interest which needed serious handling, Jat said. They include one from a television station. The council will discuss the complaints with police at a regular meeting on Thursday.

Police would not disclose the number of officers deployed during each of the events that Li attended, but said 2,000 to 3,000 officers were involved on each of the three days.

University of Hong Kong vice-chancellor Professor Tsui Lap-chee - who has offered multiple apologies about security on the campus - will discuss the issue with students in an open forum tonight.

Copied from SCMP.com

Declaration
Please DON'T use this article for commercial purposes if you are not copyright holders.

My blog would use this article for academic reference only.
If articles posted here create any problem, please contact me and I will stop publishing for public.

Taking Beijing to Hong Kong

Taking Beijing to Hong Kong
Li Keqiang brings mainland political culture to the city.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL - AUGUST 23, 2011

Chinese Vice Premier Li Keqiang's visit to Hong Kong last week was a success in some respects. He came bearing benefits from the central government such as measures to promote offshore use of the yuan, which should bolster the city's position as a financial center. However, Mr. Li failed to establish the same kind of rapport with ordinary Hong Kong people achieved by Premier Wen Jiabao, the man he is set to replace in next year's leadership transition.

Much of the blame must go to his security detail and the Hong Kong police. On his first day in the territory last Tuesday, Mr. Li visited a housing estate to express his sympathy with residents over inflation and high property prices. But the good will dissipated when one resident made the mistake of coming out of his apartment wearing a T-shirt commemorating the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.

Wong King was promptly bundled away by men in dark suits, who told his daughter that wearing such a shirt was "rude." To add insult to injury, the police later justified his detention by accusing him of not paying an old jay-walking fine.

The following day officials turned away legislator Leung Kwok-heung from a dinner with local politicians because he was not wearing a tie. Putting on a jacket was already a big step for Mr. Leung, who usually wears a Che Guevera T-shirt and is known as a rabble-rouser. He protested that his invitation specified "business attire" and that he attended previous banquets with national leaders in similar outfits.

On Thursday, Mr. Li gave a speech at Hong Kong University and won kudos for making a few remarks in English. But the police marred the occasion by scuffling with student protesters, pushing some of them to the ground and keeping all of them outside the hall for the duration of the event. Vice Chancellor Tsui Lap-chee later apologized for the treatment of his students.

Journalists are also upset that throughout the three-day visit security arrangements were designed to prevent them from doing their jobs properly. In at least one case, they were not even allowed into the room where Mr. Li was speaking at a public event. The Hong Kong Journalists Association marched on police headquarters this weekend to express their anger.

These incidents taken together suggest that the police were acting not to protect Mr. Li from bodily harm, but to shield him from the embarrassment of being photographed with a protester. Perhaps it is a reflection of Beijing's paranoia after the Arab Spring, but Mr. Li brought the mainland's intolerance of free expression with him to a city that claims to have the rule of law and civil liberties. Mr. Wong, the T-shirt wearer, put it best when he asked, "Are they just coming to Hong Kong to see people clapping their hands?"

Copied from WSJ.com

Declaration
Please DON'T use this article for commercial purposes if you are not copyright holders.

My blog would use this article for academic reference only.
If articles posted here create any problem, please contact me and I will stop publishing for public.

「到位」從不「到位」

拒用「到位」。不知何時開始，「到位」經常出現在報章等讀物上，但「到位」又是否用起來適得其所，即所謂「到位」呢？這需要認真檢視。

其實「到位」是一種蠶食中文的字詞，中文會因這詞而變得「失去」其他詞語，例如「達標」、「準時」、「準確」、「充足」及或「（如期）完成」等，甚至乎「（效果）良好」、「妥當」等都莫名其妙地被「取代」。這長遠必然對中國語文的文化帶來負面影響。

辦報者、編輯作為「文人」，卻毫無這種意識，濫用「到位」一詞，讓人有感無奈與失望。況且，連政府的官方新聞稿也肆無忌憚地用起此詞，實在難以接受。

我想呼籲報章、政府以至各位香港人，請別胡用「到位」一詞了。

牢騷絮語：談「到位」

Hong Kong Foreign Labor Law Challenged

Hong Kong Foreign Labor Law Challenged
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL - AUGUST 21, 2011
By ISABELLA STEGER And LAM THUY VO

HONG KONG—A landmark labor suit, filed by a Filipina domestic helper seeking permanent residency in Hong Kong, has struck at the core of the territory's often fraught relationship with its guest workers, and raised fundamental questions about its judicial independence from Beijing.

Evangeline Banao Vallejos has worked in Hong Kong since 1986, most of that time for the same family. If she were any other foreign worker, such as a banker, lawyer or teacher, she would automatically win the right to permanent residency after seven years. But a separate ordinance in the law states that domestic helpers are excluded from this right. She filed for residency in 2008, and is challenging the law in court.

A Filipina domestic worker is fighting for the right for permanent residency in Hong Kong's High Court. But the case strikes at the core of much more than just the right to abode. WSJ's Lam Thuy Vo and Isabella Steger report.

Lawyers will argue the case in the territory's High Court on Monday. Ms. Vallejos's lawyer says the immigration statute discriminates against her and violates the territory's Basic Law, the legal foundation Hong Kong inherited from the British before the colony came back under Chinese rule in 1997. Basic Law is the foundation for Hong Kong's separate status under China's "one-country, two systems" policy.

Permanent residency in Hong Kong means a person can remain in the territory indefinitely, and they cannot be deported, according to the Basic Law. They also win the right to vote and to stand in elections.

Human-rights advocates say a ruling in favor of Ms. Vallejos would represent a significant step toward dismantling the system that treats domestic workers as second-tier residents.

"Basically, the work that domestic helpers are doing—looking after the children, looking after the elderly, doing the cooking and cleaning, allowing the Hong Kong people to be able to work full-time—is a very significant contribution to Hong Kong's economy," said Danilo Brolado, a pastor at the New Beginnings Christian Fellowship.

Hong Kong's current labor laws exclude the more than 270,000 domestic workers living in the territory. Foreign laborers are widely seen as integral to the territory's way of life, with middle- to upper-class residents hiring helpers—typically women from the Philippines and Indonesia— to handle household duties and help with child care.

Working conditions for domestic helpers can vary greatly, with little to no oversight by the government. Most live with their employers, who are required to give their helpers at least one day off each week, though advocacy groups say the time-off requirement isn't always honored. The government-mandated minimum wage for domestic helpers is 3,740 Hong Kong dollars (about US$480) a month, including rudimentary room and board.

Opponents of the effort to amend the labor law say prospect of allowing domestic workers to stay permanently would lead to an influx of migrants and their families, straining Hong Kong's resources.
"All this will pose a lot of effects on Hong Kong society as a whole—on the job market, public housing, welfare and education," says Starry Lee, a lawmaker in the pro-Beijing party Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong.

Ms. Lee says 100,000 workers would qualify for permanent residency, a figure that couldn't be confirmed and which worker advocates dispute. Hong Kong's Immigration Department refused to disclose the number, citing the ongoing litigation.

"What's at stake is the credibility of Hong Kong, of treating all residents of Hong Kong equally," says Holly Allan, manager of the nonprofit organization Helpers for Domestic Helpers. She says the current system makes domestic workers vulnerable to abuse from employers, as well as predatory employment agencies, because losing a job means possible deportation.

In a legal twist that is worrying some experts, politicians in the territory are calling for the court to refer the case to Beijing authorities under a rarely used provision of the Basic Law. Skeptics say such referrals undermine the Hong Kong judiciary's independence.

Regina Ip, a pro-Beijing lawmaker who says she would prefer to send the case to the mainland, dismisses concerns over Hong Kong's legal system, saying that the provision about consulting Beijing is part of the Basic Law.

Others see a referral to Beijing as an abdication of responsibility and a troubling sign that Hong Kong's courts will more and more turn to Beijing rather than rule on potentially unpopular decisions.

"If they are not going to uphold and respect the courts and they are going to Beijing for a reinterpretation...you can effectively then take the Basic Law and rip it up," says Mark Daly, the lawyer representing Ms. Vallejos.

Benita Gebaya, 45 years old, worked for more than seven years in Hong Kongbefore returning to the Philippines in 2002 to start a family. She has been back in Hong Kong for nearly the past two years and recently parted ways with her employer. Despite her previous tenure, she has only two weeks from her last day of work to find a new job before she loses her right to stay.

"If the government will push through this right to abode, it's good for us," she says. "We could have freedom and we could work not only as a domestic worker." Ms. Gebaya has her sights set on moving to Canada, where she can become a citizen after three years and bring her family there.

Juliet, 46, a domestic helper from the Philippines who declined to give her last name, says the current law is "quite discriminatory." Her employers, French fashion executives, qualify for permanent residency after seven years, while she never can.

Hong Kong is "looking down on us," she said. "Without us, most of our employers couldn't work," she added.

Copied from WSJ.com

Declaration
Please DON'T use this article for commercial purposes if you are not copyright holders.

My blog would use this article for academic reference only.
If articles posted here create any problem, please contact me and I will stop publishing for public.

Beijing's Hong Kong Problem

Beijing's Hong Kong Problem
An unaccountable government stokes public anger.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL - AUGUST 15, 2011

Chinese Vice Premier Li Keqiang's official visit to Hong Kong this week strongly suggests that he is set to succeed Wen Jiabao next year as the country's premier. As Willy Lam writes nearby, Beijing often uses state visits to announce ascendant leaders. When he was vice president, Hu Jintao took a coming-out trip to the U.S. in April 2002, just a few months before becoming Party Secretary.

But the choice of Hong Kong for Mr. Li's debut as the lead contender indicates how seriously Beijing is taking the present tense state of politics within the special administrative region. Despite the territory's continuing economic prosperity, the local political scene looks increasingly unstable amid rising public anger.

It seems that Hong Kong's government of mostly Beijing-appointed officials can make no decision—on dealing with stratospheric property prices, on carrying out big infrastructure projects, on letting go of some of its budget surplus—without stoking public ire. Polls show local residents giving leaders record-low approval ratings. Public protests, a fixture of political life in the territory, are becoming less peaceful; demonstrators at one rally this year dubbed it a "Bauhinia Revolution," a nod to people power movements in the Arab world. Hong Kong's leaders are starting to look more like hapless small-town councilmen than the administrators of a global city. This has Beijing nervous.

What's behind the mess? Wang Guangya, Beijing's top diplomat in the SAR, blames Britain. He told a group of Hong Kong students last month that as a result of colonial rule, the territory's civil servants "don't know how to be their own bosses and masters." Fourteen years after the handover to China, Mr. Wang said, Hong Kong's bureaucrats are stuck in an "I'll do what you tell me what to do" mentality. "Hong Kong was made and marred by Britain," Mr. Wang said.

The remarks touched a nerve. Chief Executive Donald Tsang, himself a former bureaucrat, declared that Hong Kong's civil service was "one of the finest in the world." Others, mostly in the pro-Beijing faction of local politicians, cheered Mr. Wang's forthrightness in decrying the incompetence of Hong Kong's many civil-servants-turned-ministers.

But to blame Hong Kong's governance woes on colonial aftereffects is wrong. Britain did much to transfer power to local bodies over the course of the colonial period. After 1913, London made no attempts to disallow locally enacted ordinances despite constitutional arrangements that gave it clear power to do so. From 1958 on, Hong Kong's annual budget was not referred to London; Britain managed only the territory's foreign policy. Advisory committees for making policy on certain issues made colonial governance consultative, if still far from democratic.

Colonial administrators took initiative on broad policy direction, too—which suggests the opposite of Mr. Wang's charge that Hong Kong's civil servants don't know how to think long-term. On many issues, the local administration governed in open defiance of trends in London. In the 1960s, as Finance Secretary John Cowperthwaite was refashioning Hong Kong as a laboratory for laissez-faire economic policies, planners in both Labour and Tory governments were busy trying to pick winners in British industry.

The real problem is that Hong Kong's society has developed while its rulers remain undemocratic and unaccountable. SAR residents' dissatisfaction will only increase until their territory has a system of government that can win and keep public trust because that government is fully accountable to the public.

Beijing worries about unrest in Hong Kong, but here as elsewhere its hands-on approach can at best buy short-term stability, and then only at the expense of longer-term legitimacy. Mr. Li has a reputation as a reformer, as Willy Lam writes. Hong Kong's people will be watching to see if he is willing to trust them with a bigger role in government—the only way to repair the deficiencies truly at the heart of the territory's unhappiness.

Copied from WSJ.com

Declaration
Please DON'T use this article for commercial purposes if you are not copyright holders.

My blog would use this article for academic reference only.
If articles posted here create any problem, please contact me and I will stop publishing for public.

立法會替補機制與邏輯背道而馳

根據基本法第二十六條，香港特別行政區永久性居民依法享有選舉權和被選舉權。

根據基本法第三十九條，《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》、《經濟、社會與文化權利的國際公約》和國際勞工公約適用於香港的有關規定繼續有效，通過香港特別行政區的法律予以實施。

根據基本法第六十八條，香港特別行政區立法會由選舉產生。

在2010年5月16日，香港舉行了一場全民公投運動。當時，五位立法會議員[1]透過辭職，使香港五個地方選區[2]出現立法會議席空缺。五位立法會議員運用補選機制令全港三百五十萬選民出現一人持有一票的機會。由於香港並沒有公投法，香港市民沒有機會為一件牽涉重大公眾利益的事進行公投，而五位立法會議員希望藉此補選讓全港選民能夠為「爭取2012雙普選」「爭取真普選、不要偽政改方案」投下支持及反對票。基本原則是，若支持則投票給原議員，若反對則投票給其他候選人（但親建制派最後卻不參與選舉，令是次議題公投變得模糊）。

此次五區公投運動最後在政府、行政長官曾蔭權、各司局長、中國中聯辨（中華人民共和國中央人民政府駐香港特別行政區聯絡辨公室）、港區中國人大代表、中國全國政協委員、各親建制派政黨、民主黨及民協多方扭曲、杯葛、抹黑及劃清界線下最終以記錄最低投票率17%，五位立法會議員以記錄最高比數勝出的情況下終結。

政府及親建制派政黨一直致力於將五區公投定性為浪費公帑與多餘的選舉，目的讓市民拒絕運用他們的選舉權，並且打擊公民黨及社民連士氣。

在2011年5月17日，政府以上述理由向立法會提出取締補選的方案。據政府說法，取締補選改以替補機制目的是為了防止議員辭職再補選浪費公帑、堵塞補選機制的漏洞。

政府表面說法是要堵塞所謂補選漏洞，但政府無法阻止辭職議員再參選。這是因為根據基本法第二十六條，香港永久性居民擁有被選舉權，因此政府假若提出禁止辭職議員參選，很大程度上會與基本法有直接衝突。

最後，政府利用表面說法，取締補選改以替補形式去填補立法會議席空缺。

這做法的邏輯不通之處就是一政黨議席空缺很大機會會由另一政黨填補。此根本不乎合選舉原則，本理應多票當選，少票落敗，由多數選民選擇代表他們的議員。現方案最大得票名單在喪失議席時，竟然有機會由最小得票的落選名單取得，而落選名單得票率更可能與入選名單相差一大截[3]。假若最高得票落選候選人在立法會議席空缺時已因不同理由而無法補上，那就變成更低得票的候選人進行填補，其得票率，即代表性可能低得難以想像。

政府所引用外國替補機制也是以同一名單[4]候選人補上。倘若無法不更改空缺填補機制，也應該同一名單補上才附合原來選民意願。

不過，即使替補以同一名單補上，與補選機制相比，依然是一個遜色的填補形式。因為議席出現空缺時，選民意願可能已經有所變更，更甚在香港政制這段風雲莫測的時期，補選就更加能配合香港整體利益。但是，由同一名單其他候選人填補空缺議席的替補機制在某程度上也是附合比例代表制[4]的原意，也仍可算是合邏輯的。

可是，政府現在就要將議席填補機制改成不合邏輯、史無前例的新形式。

假若要端測箇中原因，其實政府、親建制派在新方案下是相當有利的。親建制派一直以來為政府護航，這點無容置疑，因此親建制派在立法會的比率越高，對政府的單向統治越有幫助。由於泛民主派的香港的支持比率比親建制派高，因此在過去補選，無論出缺者原為任何派別，補選後都由泛民主派取得議席。政府為了堵塞這種不利，因此需要取締補選。適逢五區公投後一年，政府終於找到原因取締補選。政府之所以不進行咨詢，很大程度上是希望此方案在反對聲音並強烈前就通過。

事實上，以同一名單進行替補的替補機制反而對建制比較有利（見附錄）。因此政府堅持用現時那不合邏輯的替補機制，並不理智。可見政府未經深入研究便倉猝行事。

參考第二十六條、第三十九條及第六十八條，若此方案通過，相信很快就會被提出司法覆核。因為取締補選可被判斷成褫奪香港人透過投票選出理想候選人的權利。況且現時政府所提出的替補方案存在極大漏洞，又不乎邏輯。未來可能真的有機會產生替補者認受性低，甚至沒有替補者等情況出現。

[1]社民連：黃毓民、梁國雄、陳偉業，公民黨：陳淑莊、梁家傑
[2]香港島、九龍西、九龍東、新界西、新界東
[3]如香港港落選名單，最高得票落選候選人所得票數只有最低得票入選候選人的66%，並僅佔該區6.5%得票率。
[4]可參考維基百科：比例代表制：最大餘額法

附錄

假若你有留意新聞、時事，相信以上的內容也不算新鮮，現在我們利用2008年立法會選舉來預測替補機制下的得益派別。

香港島，建制:泛民=2:4，泛民補上
九龍西，建制:泛民=2:3，泛民補上
九龍東，建制:泛民=2:2，泛民補上
新界西，建制:泛民=3:5，泛民補上
新界東，建制:泛民=2:5，建制補上

在政府提出的方案下，

建制11人中其中9人假若因任何理由使議席出現空缺，將由泛民候選人填補議席；
泛民19人中其中5人假若因任何理由使議席出現空缺，將由建制候選人填補議席。

在補選機制下，假設泛民因６：４比例而必然取得一席，則

建制11人中其中11人假若因任何理由使議席出現空缺，將由泛民候選人填補議席；
泛民19人即使因任何理由使議席出現空缺，在上述假設都不會由建制候選人填補議席。

若以同一名單進行替補，

建制與泛民議員假若因任何理由使議席出現空缺，除非名單上沒有其他人接替，否則都不會令議席轉到另一派別，以至其他黨派。


最後附上吳藹儀議員立法會會議發言
吳藹儀議員：哀莫大於心死！


2011年6月18日
Avalon Li
多一份聲音，多一人知道

2011年5月35日

今天是二◯一一年六月四日，中華人民共和國的二◯一一年五月三十五日。二十二年前，中國共產黨將愛國民主運動抹黑成反革命動亂，指使軍隊殺害學生、民眾。二十二年來，中共操控媒體、教育、互聯網，試圖改寫血染歷史、隱瞞惡行，且令中國失去了一九八九年，每年亦再不見六月四日。今天，是悲劇發生後剛好第二十二年，無奈世界佈局如何改變、中國經濟如何發展、中國民生如何改善，中國的民主和人權狀況仍依舊沒有好轉。中國人民每天都要畏懼明天將會失去甚麼，失去的是一個人？一種花？還是連明天都失去了？無人知曉。今夜，我只能祈願明年不用再到維園去。

香港實行國民教育的潛在深遠影響

雖然「國民教育」毫無必要，但我倒希望「華夏(中國)文化」和「香港法律及法制導論」列為初中必修課程。前者是因為我覺得生活在華夏文明地域中的一份子，應該多去認識華夏文化傳統思想與各方面的文化發展；後者是因為香港人有必要認識法律去保障自己基本人身權利，特別在這個時勢。以上是我近一年多以來的想法。

本文：
老實說，我實在無法理解「公民教育」為何要刻意變成露骨的「國民教育」，政府簡接承認了香港公民不等同中國國民。固然，這思維無疑是現實上很多香港人有的想法，不然就不會每年都有民意調查分別詢問「香港人」身份認同、「中國人」身份認同、對「中國政府」的認同等等。

縱使現實不存在具絕對性的兩極，並不會因為Ａ的發生就令Ｂ完全消失；但當一種新元素加入，亦即表示另一種元素所佔比率降低，這是無可置疑的。所謂提升「國民身份認同」亦即要讓香港人減低自身身份的「香港成分」，最後可觀望會達至香港後代視中國為大，香港為小；中國為先，香港為後；中國為主（主要），香港為副（次要）的目標。

我們需要知道，中（初中）小教育是灌輸思想這點是無可避免。無論老師如何「讓孩子去討論」，孩子得出的結論始終由書本教材和老師口中的結論而確立。孩子不會在課堂結束後質疑那些結論，除非孩子從權衡相若的兩個源頭（如老師與家長）吸收到兩個正反對立的結論，否則那些被灌輸的價值觀和思想很容易會被潛移默化，從而影響日後的思考模式。即使一個學「懂」思考判斷的成年人，亦難免被傳媒灌輸林林種種的意識，更別說未習慣進行判斷的孩子。

這世界上，不存在一個絕對客觀的人。人類會輕易地朝著他們認為是正確的方向去思考，縱使思考到反方角度，人類始終會偏向思考能支撐自已觀點的論點，原因是他們從結論去思考，而不是思考得出結論。大家不難發現，現在的所謂「愛國」是透過宣揚中國及中國政府美好的一面，從而使人產生一種「身為中國人的優越感」。利用這種意識上的傾斜，使香港後代輕待香港的獨立性質，思想融合了所謂「國民」意識，讓中國更易於主權移交五十年後合法合理合國情港情合人民意識地接管香港。

以上只是簡單推論一種可能性。任何事物的改變、發生必然會產生新的結果，在中小學中加入「國民教育」，不管影響是大是小、是好是壞，也必然會影響我們的香港後代的思維，必然會令「國民」、「國家」、「國情」等詞匯更深刻地被輸入到香港人的腦中，令香港人在判斷上對有關中國的事有了結構性的影響。無論這是不是具策劃性，你都不應去忽略這種思維輸入到香港人腦內後，對香港日後的必然影響，甚至將會帶來的轉變。


德育及國民教育科 課程指引 (小一至中六) 諮詢稿


以下引出幾項國家範疇的學習目標，作些許回應。

小一至小三：
從了解及尊重國家的象徵，例如：國慶、國旗、國徽、國歌等，建立國民身份認同。
＞從小一就開始灌輸國民身份認同，讓孩子傾向看待自己是中國人，而非香港人。

追溯中國傳統習俗和自己的祖籍及家鄉，萌發對國家、家鄉的歸屬感。
＞有時真難搞懂「國家」一詞的意思。

小四至小六：
認同國家與香港發展的緊密聯繫，主動向祖國同胞表達關懷之情，體現中華民族血濃於水、同根同心之情。
＞「認同」與「認識」是兩個相距甚遠的詞，我無法理解編者為何要用「認同」。

從歷史發展加深對國情的掌握，擴闊視野，鞏固對國民身份認同。
＞「國情」是指現有情況吧，還是我理解錯誤？為何用歷史去理解現時的形勢呢？所指的歷史是中國共產黨執政的歷史？中國改革開放後的歷史？到底掌握了甚麼而鞏固身份認同？

中一至中三：
探討國家憲法和重要機構的職能及與香港特區的關係，提高國家觀念及深化對一國兩制的理解。
＞恕我執著於書寫次序和字眼。編者將「國家觀念」放於「一國兩制」之前，並且用了「提高觀念」，而對「一國兩制」卻描述成「深化理解」。

了解國家於自然資源保育所付出的努力及取得的成就，培養關心國家未來可持續發展的方向。
＞「所付出的努力及取得的成就」，可見教育局只會思考如何向學生灌輸中國好的一面。

學習欣賞中華文化，體會當中蘊藏的意趣及精神，提高國民素質。
＞何謂「國民素質」？既然是「中華文化」，就應當連繫成「民族素質」吧。

以歷史視野了解國情，並承擔個人作為國民應盡的責任。
＞只能說前言不對後語。而且小四至小六那裡用了「鞏固國民身份認同」，今次就來「承擔國民責任」。

中四至中六：
探究資源運用與國家發展的關係，明白個人對於國家可持續發展所肩負的責任，進一步培養對國家自然資源的珍惜和關注之情。
＞承上，驅使香港人對中國負上責任。

認識國家當代發展的重要成就，例如：經濟、外交、科技等，並發掘自己在國家當代發展可以擔當的角色，願意為國家及民眾謀求福祉，加強和諧團結、關愛家國的情懷。
＞「願意」一詞就最為用得不妥。一樣是驅使香港人負上責任。

從燦爛的中華文化，例如：建築、文學、音樂、藝術等，進一步體會當中展現的文化精神，如重人、融合、和平等，並以身為中華兒女而感到自豪，提升國民素養。
＞同上，「國民素養」而不是「民族素養」。

以宏觀及中外比較視域，探討中國歷史重大事件；以客觀的角度去理解國家由內外交窘邁向改革開放的奮鬥歷程，體會當中的憂患、掙扎、進步及成果。
＞優化中國。

認同世界公民身份的同時，亦能從國家國情的角度理解世界議題，作出理性判斷。
＞這並不是在國家範疇內的目標，而是出現在世界範疇內。這句「終極」來說就是香港人要從中國利益觀點出發去判斷才算是理性。


固然，一個熱愛中華人民共和國的人未必會認為這種「國民教育」有不妥之處；但我，作為香港人，生活在一個不只司法、政治、經濟獨立於中國，連教育、文化、生活模式等都不同於中國的香港，實在無法接受香港「大陸化」。

縱使，我理解到廣大老師們會為我們搭建一道堅穩的防線，讓學生真正明白中國的優與劣，給學生思考與批判的空間；但我仍擔心長此下去，學生會被文字所同化，會因中國被歌頌而忽略自已作為香港人的身份。

附上個人近年的立場：我對中國人身份是接受但不認同。從文化角度看，我會認同自己是中國人；但從政治角度看，我只能夠從現實約束上接受自己是中國人，但無法認同。

2011年5月6日

2009「3 Idiots」

時輕時重猶如過山車，最後卻出乎意料地感人。

這部是以回想方式，講述三個（男）大學生在印度最好的大學－帝國理工學院的故事。第一男主角是一個很特別的人，他不愛受形式所限，不愛死記硬背，熱愛學習，熱愛機械（工程學），卻又因為這股熱愛令他成績標榜。他進入這所大學，一直做著別人看起來是不守規和反叛的行為，令老師們和教授都對他沒好感。但是，在這四年間他改變了兩個好友和原本相當討厭他的教授的思想，令他們不再把成績、把學歷放在第一位。第一男主角告訴了我們，要有信心，不要畏懼，做自己想做的事。這也是整部電影要帶出的信息。

這是一部喜劇，好笑的部份超好笑，但除了笑，這部電影也帶給我們一些思維上的刺激。究竟我們是為了甚麼而拼命溫習？你愛你的現在所讀的科目嗎？你是因為壓力而翻開書本，還是因為一股熱情而翻開書本呢？你有為你的學習時間感到興奮、感到雀躍、感到快樂、感到滿足嗎？當然，提出這些問題不是要你後悔抑或猶疑你以前所作的決定，但這些問題將可以為你的未來帶來衝擊、轉變。

輕鬆的除了一堆笑話，還是猶如歌劇的兩段映像，雖然我並沒有太喜歡那些歌，但這種輕鬆形式的表現也是不錯獨特的電影手法。輕鬆和沉重的轉捩點往往來得很突然，就例如一開始第一男主角為一位同學製造那同學未製成的直升機，想造給他看為他帶來希望，卻在帶去給他的時候發現他已經自殺了。大學生自殺，這不算是新課題，無論在那裡都一樣，壓力越大的地方就越容易逼人進入死胡同。另一個例子，三個男主角飲醉酒走去教授家搗蛋，第一男主角向女主角告白，這些都是滿有趣好笑的，但不久後卻演變成其中一個男主角因被那位教授勒令退學，教授還逼他在背叛朋友和退學間作選擇，最後逼使他從陽台跳下，釀成慘劇，幸而最後這男主角都大難不死。也因此，令這男主角對人生變得積極，改變了已往對沒信心的事總是求神問卜的習慣。

講到最感動當然是說回想結局，這個結局讓人感受到一條生命的重要，你看整個學系的學生為了一條生命而奔波，場面緊張但又不誇張，最後拯救了一個新生命，又改寫了教授的思想，可喜可賀。

這部的我唯一一部看過中國語、英語、日語以外語言的電影－印地語，對於看慣字幕的我，也沒甚麼不自然。我敢斷言，這部是一部好電影，無論是他輕鬆的一面、寫實的一面，還是深層的一面也發揮得很好。

2010年10月30日