[Please scroll down for the English version]

21.4.2010

第五期通訊

公共專業聯盟對《二零一二年行政長官及立法會產生辦法建議方案》的 回應

(只有中文)

對於政府所發表的《二零一二年行政長官及立法會產生辦法建議方案》

(以下簡稱 「建議方案」)，公共專業聯盟表示深切遺憾。

較早前，泛民主派和「終極普選大聯盟」協調產生一個循序漸進的方案，從 2012至2020年逐步落實雙普選。但政府今天提出的建議方案只屬對原方案 的小修補，未有為2017年及2020年逐步落實普選提供路線圖，也拒絕承諾在2020年全面廢除功能組別。政府完全不理 會泛民主派的協調方案，對此我們 感到十分失望。

我們呼籲選民在5月16日踴躍投票，以選票表達對全面普選的訴求。

(功能組別答客問)

12. 功 能組別是否達到向政府提供「專業」的意見的功能?

如果設立功能組別的意圖是吸納專業人士和商界的意見，並 向政府提供「專業」的意見，以便順利實施政府的政策，這顯然這並不符合現實，因為功能組別議席已變質，成為一個為保護既得利益的制 度。我們從功能組別選舉見到，候選人為要討好選民，無可避免要把業界的利益作為政綱，而選民亦愈來愈自覺要透過界別的議員爭取利益，例 如爭取政府在預算案中為界別開設更多職位。殊不知這樣強化個別界別的狹隘利益，污染了專業以社會利益為先的道德操守。政治的過程， 透過整合廣泛的、不同的利益以協調資源分配，達致社會和諧，功能組別選舉，和政治整合精神背道而馳。

13. 有些專業界別人士以為，專業界別受惠在功能組別代表。事實又是否如 此？

我們認為，與其說是功能組別是為專業發聲，倒不如說是商業利益凌駕香港市民大眾 的利益。

現時，立法會的一般（政府提出的）議案是由議員簡單多數表決通過，但是，由 立法會議員所提出的議案及動議，卻必須得到分別來自功能組別和地區選區的議員過半數通過，即所謂「分組點票」的機制。換言之，祇 要有其中一個組別的一半議員（即立法會整體的四分之一的議員）反對，議員所提出的議案及動議就無法通過。在立法會2004年至2009年度，來 自商界的功能組別議員，集體向23項由立法會議員提出有利社會民生、而不利於工商界利益的議案予以否決。其中包括以下例 子：

• 最低工資、最高工時，動議日期：
  • 日期：13/10/2004 ；
  • 動議人： 陳婉嫻；
  • 14名商界的功能組別議員投反對或棄權票；
  • 同一議題的動議，在2006年11月1日再度遭13名商界的功能組 別議員投反對或棄權票。

• 全民退休保障：
  • 日期：26/4/2006；
  • 動議人：李卓人；
  • 10名商界的功能組別議員投反對或棄權票。

• 制訂公平競爭法例：
  • 日期：20/10/2004；
  • 動議人：李華明；
  • 11名商界的功能組別議員投反對或棄權票)。

• 成立基金應付人口老化及扶貧需要：
  • 日期：9/1/2008；
  • 動議人：譚香文；
  • 12名商界的功能組別議員投反對或棄權票。

因工商界功能組別議員集體否決該等議案，縱使 在地區選區的議員大多贊成下，那些議案在「分組點票」機制下，仍遭否決。不幸地，作為功能組別一部分的專業界，都因此要承受背負出賣 香港市民利益的污名。

_________________________________________________________________________

Newsletter #5

(FAQ on Functional Constituencies)

12. Could legislators in the functional constituencies serve the functions to provide “professional” advice to the Government?

If the intention of the establishment of functional constituencies is to grasp the opinion from the professionals, as well as from businessmen, and to provide “professional” advice to the Government for a smooth implementation of Government’s policies, this clearly does not reflect the reality, as the functional constituencies seats have been degraded into a system merely serve to protect the interests of the sectoral interests, for example, pressing the Government to open more job positions for their respective sectors in the Budget address. Hence, functional constituencies merely serve the role of strengthen the narrow interests of individual sectors, and failed to prioritize their concerns on common public interests. Through the integration of different and wide level of interests, social harmony could be realized under the political process. The functional constituencies have failed to realize the predetermined goal of political alignments of different interests.

13. Some professional thought that the functional constituencies have been influencing policy outputs through professional inputs, does it reflects the reality?

Some professional sectors thought that, their voices would be better heard through the representation in the functional constituencies. But it is not the case, as the business interests override the interests of the general public through the decisions of the legislators from the functional constituencies.

Currently, the bills (proposed by the Government) would be considered as passed through a simple majority in the LegCo. But, for the bills and motions proposed by the legislators, they have to be passed by more than half of the legislators from the legislators from the functional constituencies and the geographical constituencies respectively, that is the so called “split voting system”. Hence, the motions and debates would not be able to pass, should an objection have been received from merely half of the legislator from either one of the two groups (that means a quarter of the overall number of legislators).

During the LegCo year between 2004 and 2009, the legislators from the business interests in the functional constituencies have objected 23 motions which are not beneficiary towards the businesses, but are of vital importance and bring about significant improvement to the society as a whole. The examples include:

• Minimum Wage, Maximum Working Hours:
  • Date of motion: 13/10/2004,
  • Legislator who tabled the motion: Chan Yuen-han
  • 14 business-based FC legislators has voted against or abstained.
  • A motion of similar wordings has been defeated through a block vote of 13 business based FC legislators who voted against or abstained on 1 November 2006.

• Universal Retirement Protection Scheme:
  • Date of motion: 26/4/2006,
  • Legislator who tabled the motion: Lee Cheuk Yan
  • 10 business based FC legislators voted against or abstained.

• Legislation of a Fair Competition Law:
  • Date of motion: 20/10/2004,
  • Legislator who tabled the motion: Lee Wah Ming
  • 11 business based FC legislators voted against or abstained.

• Establishment of a fund to fulfill the needs of the ageing of the population and alleviation of poverty:
  • Date of motion: 9/1/2008,
  • Legislator who tabled the motion: Mandy Tam
  • 12 business based FC legislators voted against or abstained.

As a result of the collective objection of the legislative proposals from the business based functional constituencies, even though the motions were supported by the majority of the geographical constituencies, they are still being defeated. As the professional sector constitutes part of the functional constituencies, and their opinions are not being reflected in the legislature due to the dominance of the business sector, the professional sectors have been reluctantly bearing the bad name as part of the system that are betraying the interest of Hong Kong’s citizenry.

(FAQ to be continued)