[Please scroll down for the English version]
25.3.2010
第一期通訊
公共專業聯盟回應政府《二零一二年行政長官及立法會產生辦法》諮詢文件，可從以下網頁下載 (只有英文版)：
功能組別答客問
功能組別選舉：均衡參與的謬誤
- 1. 廢除功能組別：為何要癡癡地等？
在1985年，當時的政務司司長鐘逸傑爵士明確指出，在立法會內設立功能組別應該是一項過渡安排，讓一個沒有 直選制度的議會，過渡至完全由直接選舉產生的議會的選舉制度。功能組別設立時的目的是要安撫商界及專業利益，為他們提供額外的投票權，保障他們在立法會中 的聲音。
香港人在過去30年中，一直在等待真正的普選到臨，讓每個人都有平等的投票權和被選舉權，但為什 麼功能組別這種「過渡」措施持續運行到現在？為什麼我們仍然在討論功能組別是否應該繼續存在？
有人說功能組別的存在，提供均衡的參與機會，讓各界別的聲音能在立法會得到反映。但甚麼是均 衡參與，他們卻沒有論證，因為觸及普及和平等的概念時，所謂均衡參與的謬誤便無所遁形。
- 2. 被撇除在功能組別外的選民，試問如何均衡參 與？
聯合國《世界人權宣言》和《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》都規定，公民應具有的權利「在真正的定期的選舉中，選 舉權和被選舉權應依據普及和平等的並應以無記名投票方式，保證自由表達的意願的選民」。功能組別選舉制度顯然不合乎原則，因為無論是投票權和被選舉權，並 不是以普及和平等的形式進行，功能組別制度 的選民基礎非常狹窄，在香港有337萬地方選區的登記選民，但功能組別的登記選民僅22.6萬，但卻能獨享投出一半立法會議員的權利。
功能組別制度亦不是一個公平的制度，它不給予平等的投票權予每一個選民，功能組別的選民是有額外的特權， 每張選票所佔的比重， 比地方選區的為大。
(待續)
___________________________________________
25.3.2010
Newsletter Issue #1
The full version of the responses from The Professional Commons Regarding the “Methods for Selecting the Chief Executive and for Forming the Legislative Council in 2012” Consultation Document is available at the following link:
Frequently Asked Questions on Functional Constituencies
The Election on Functional Constituencies: The Fallacies on “Balanced Participation”
- 1. Abolition of FCs – Why the eternal wait?
In 1985, the then Chief Secretary David Akers-Jones explicitly stated that the setting up of functional constituencies was merely a transitional measure: that is to facilitate the transformation of an appointed legislative body into a directly elected one. The intention of the establishment of the functional constituencies was to appease the business and professional interests, so as to provide them with extra temporary voting rights, and to ensure that their voices will be heard in LegCo.
The general public has been waiting for 30 years for genuine universal suffrage. Everyone should have the equal right to vote and to be elected. But why should the “transitional measure” of functional constituencies be allowed to continue up until now? Why are some still defending the continued existence of this out dated system?
Some would say the existence of functional constituencies is to provide opportunities for balanced participation, so that the voices of different sectors could be heard in the LegCo. But they could not explain what exactly is “balanced participation”. Does “balanced participation” mean we must do so at the costs of the universal values of fairness and equality?
2. Those who are excluded to vote in functional constituencies. How to achieve “balanced participation”?
The “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and Article 25 of the “International Convention on Civil and Political Rights” of the United Nations declared that “every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors”. The system of functional constituencies is clearly in violation of this principle, no matter how the system is reformed it will not be able to comply with the principles of fairness and equality. The electoral base for the functional constituencies is extremely narrow when compare to the overall size of the population. There are 3.37 million registered voters, while there are only 226,000 registered voters in the functional constituencies, but they occupy half of the seats in the Legislative Council.
The functional constituency system is not a fair system. It does not afford equal voting right to every voter. The voters in the functional constituencies have extra privileges, the weighting of each of vote in functional constituencies is hugely disproportionate to each vote cast by the general public in the geographical constituencies.
(to be continued)
Comments are closed.