[Please scroll down for the English version]
31.3.2010
第二期通訊
功能組別答客問
- 3. 在不少功能組別內，被公司票制度剝奪選舉權的 從業員，試問如何均衡參與？
某些功能組別的從業員是完全被剝奪登記為該組別選民的權利，因為他們所屬的功能組別，只允許公司選民名義登記的選民。在那些 行業工作的人士和該功能組別的選民數目，有著一個巨大的差距，請看看以下事實：
- 為什麼從事房地產行業的人員（例如，房地產經 紀）沒有資格在地產及建造界投票？
- 在2009年9月，保險業有12,940名從業員，但保險界功能界別的認可選民僅僅是141間保險公名司代表（只佔全部從業員總數的1%）；
- 在2009年9月，金融服務業有118,337名從業員，但金融服務業功能界別的認可選民僅僅是578間金融服務業公司的代表（只佔0.49%）。
- 4. 功能組別的席位分佈，能反映均衡參與嗎？
功能界別在立法會的席位分佈亦有問題，例如，教育界有接近89,000選民、衛生服務界超過36,000選民、會計界有超過22,000選民，在議會各得一席；但法律界祇有約6,000選民、漁農界更祇有160選民，在議會亦各得一席。試問，功能組別間是 否有均衡的參與？
- 5. 在不少功能組別內，較小的界別被漠視或歧視，試問如何均衡參與?
有些功能組別的分組方法，根本是漠視業內的較小的界別，又或者沒有法則可循。
為什麼中醫被排除在醫療界功能組別外？
為什麼要把體育，文化，出版界別集中在一起， 成為一個功能組別?事實是，從來都沒有文化界及出版界的代表能透過此功能 組別成功晉身立法會。自回歸以來，該體育，文化，出版界功能組別席位一直是由代表體育界的霍震霆擔任。
(答客問待續)
31.3.2010
Newsletter Issue #2
Newsletter on Political Reform #2
FAQ on Functional Constituencies
- 3. How to achieve “balanced participation” if the voting rights of the employees are being violated by the corporate vote system in a number of functional constituencies?
Some of the individuals working in particular sectors in certain functional constituencies have been totally dismissed from being the registered voter of a particular functional constituency. As only registration of voters by company vote is allowed in some of the functional constituency. There is a huge gap between the number of voters and the number of workers. Please refer to the following facts and figures:
Why executives in the real estate industry (for example, real estate agents) have no right to vote in the real estate and construction sector?
There are 12,940 persons engage in the insurance sector by September 2009, but merely 141 representatives from different insurance companies are the authorized electorate of the insurance sector (merely constituting 1% of the total number of practioners in the insurance sector)
There are 118,337 persons engage in the financial service sector by September 2009, but merely 578 representatives from the financial services company are the authorized electorate of the financial sector (merely constituting 0.49% of the total number of practioners in the financial services sector).
- 4. Could the distributions of the seats in the functional constituencies reflect balanced participation?
The distribution of the votes in the functional constituency seats among different functional constituencies is also problematic. For example, there are nearly 89,000 voters in the education sector, 36,000 voters in the health services sector, over 22,000 voters in the accountancy sector; while there are only 6,000 voters in the legal sector, and merely 160 voters in the agricultural and fisheries sector. Hence, we would like to ask: Is there any “balanced participation” between different functional constituencies?
- 5. Is it “balanced participation” if some of the smaller sector are often being neglected or discriminated in the functional constituencies?
The current methods of classification of some functional constituencies are ignoring the smaller divisions in the sectors in essence, or that there are no specific rules to follow on which sector to be included.
- Why traditional Chinese medicine practioners be excluded out of the functional constituencies?
- Why the sports, culture, and the publishing sector be grouped together as one functional constituency? The fact is, there has never been a representative from the cultural and publishing sectors to enter the Legislative Council under this functional constituency. Since the handover, the seat of sports, culture and publishing sector functional constituency has been occupied by Timothy Fok from the sports sector.
(FAQ to be continued)
Comments are closed.