[Please scroll down for the English version]
8.4.2010
第三期通訊
功能組別答客問
6. 在功能組別選舉內，富商較一般市民擁有較多選舉和被選權，試問如何達致均衡參與？
一個擁有多間公司的老闆，可以在同時在一個或多個功能組別內，直接或間接持有多張選票或相等於選票的影響力。此外，他也能隨意選擇在任何一個有選票的功能組別出選。普通市民沒有這個權利。
7. 功能組別符合普選的定義嗎？
功能組別的基因本來就有歧視性、排他性，祇讓少數享有特權的人享有雙重或多重的投票權，富商透過擁有多間公司，控制的票數甚至更多；而且，功能組別選票份量不一，違背國際公約有關普及而平等選舉 (即是一人一票、所有人均擁有平等的選舉與被選舉權、選票的影響力和份量相等的原則…等等)，根本談不上甚麼均衡參與。要均衡參與，應該取締功能組別，代之以簡單的一人一票形式普選，而2012年的政制改革，就必須以取消功能組別作為大前題。
8. 功能組別是否違反國際公約？
聯合國《世界人權宣言》和《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》第二十五條都規定，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」。
很明顯，功能組別並不符合上述規定，功能組別只讓少數在職人士參與選舉和投票的權利，排除大眾，只讓少數人享有雙重投票甚或是多重投票的政治特權，選舉並非普及而平等。可是，仍有人為保障他們的既得利益，為功能組別的存在尋找藉口。2006年聯合國人權事務委員會審議香港事務，它明確指出，「經選舉產生的立法會一經設立，其選舉便須符合《公約》第二十五條的規定。」換言之，立法會選舉必須按《公約》規定，予公民享有真正的、自由選擇的、普及而平等的選舉權，而保留條文已不合時宜。
(答客問未完待續)
8.4.2010
Newsletter Issue #3
Frequently Asked Questions on Functional Constituencies
6. In the functional constituency election, the wealthy business owners have more voting rights and chances of being elected. Hence, how to achieve the goal of “balanced participation”?
Business owners having shares in more than one company possess, either directly or indirectly, multiple votes or influential power equivalent to votes. They can also choose any functional constituency in which they have the most votes. The general public do not have such rights.
7. Can functional constituencies to be qualify as “universal suffrage”?
The essence of functional constituencies is discriminatory and exclusive in nature. It can only allow the privileged few to have double or even multiple voting rights. Through the ownership of different companies, the rich can control many votes. Also, the differences in the weighting of the votes in the functional constituencies also violate the international conventions on fair and universal electoral principles (including the principles of “one man, one vote”; equal voting rights and rights for being voted; equal weighting in the distribution of powers and privileges for each votes). It cannot be defined as being a form of balanced participation. Should a situation of balanced participation be realized, it should abolish functional constituencies, and replace them by a simple form of universal suffrage of “one man one vote”. The Government should also pledge to the public that the abolition of functional constituencies should be considered as a major element of political reform in 2012.
8. Do the functional constituencies violate relevant international declaration and treaties?
The “Universal Declaration on Human Rights” and the “International Convention on Civil and Political Rights” of the United Nations have stipulated that “the citizens should 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” (Article 25, International Convention on Civil and Political Rights).
Apparently, the functional constituencies do not abide to these regulations. Meanwhile, there are still some individuals who desire to protect their vested interests, and make excuses for the continuation of functional constituencies. Functional constituencies only allow the privileged to participate in the election, and to cast a vote. It blocks the voting rights of others. It merely allows a few to have double voting rights, and even allows some of them to maintain the political privilege of multiple voting – the voting is neither universal nor fair. When assessing Hong Kong affairs in the United Nations Human Rights Commission in 2006, it has explicitly concluded that “Once an elected Legislative Council has been established, it has to follow the provisions of Article 25 of the Convention.” Hence, the election of the Legislative Council has to follow the provisions of the Convention which is that it should provide a genuine, free to choose, universal and fair election. It is not appropriate to maintain the current system of allowing a privileged few to have extra voting rights.
Some would say the existence of functional constituencies is to allow the voices of the professional sectors to be reflected in the Legislative Council, and to improve the quality of governance. Their basic axiom is that they could provide professional advice directly and effectively to the Government’s policy. But judging from the means of formation of the functional constituencies, as well as the past performances of the functional constituency legislators, the argument of “grasping of professional opinions“ is an excuse for the functional constituencies to continue to exist cannot be sustained.
(FAQ to be continued)
Comments are closed.