[Please scroll down for the English version]
28.4.2010
第六期通訊
14. 什麼才是真正的普選？
真正的普選應該符合普及和平等原則。每個選民都有相同數目的選票，而每一票具有相同的權重。
在行政長官選舉，
1. 不應有任何先決篩選機制。任何取得的最低提名數目的候選人，應可自動成為候選人。
2. 不應該有任何預設篩選機制，例如不應該增加附加條件，要求候選人在提名委員會中 的不同界別，取得一個最低數目的提名。
3. 提名委員會的選舉模式應盡符合民主原則，並確保每個選民擁有同樣的投票權。
立法會功能界別議席，應予取消。在立法會所有的席位，要盡快按照平等的投票權和每票平等比重的原則選出。
15. 功能組別選舉的設計公平嗎?
功能組別的設計並不公平，因為一般市民無法在自己選擇的功能組別成為候選人。因此，雖然有人建議，在立法會選舉，把現時的功能組別開放給每個登記的 選民也是普選的一種形式。但因為功能組別的參選權有限制，令市民不能隨意選擇在任何一個功能組別參選，故此仍然違反了普選的定義。
另外，我們不理解的是，既然每個人都可以通過一個簡單的「地方選區」的選舉機制投票，為何仍有人提出設立一個「一席地區直選、加一席由功能組別化妝 成「普選」的「假普選」的議席」 的複雜的選舉過程 ？這簡直是在欺騙選民。
16. 基本法初定稿時怎樣界定什麼是「直接選舉」？
而在基本法諮詢委員會政制專責小組1987年年底發表的《直接選舉方法方案歸納報告》亦明確指出，「本文所列舉的直接選舉方法方案，就是以普及和平 等的原則，用一人一票方式，由選民直接地選出行政長官以及立法機關議席的方案。」 報告亦列明：
1. 「普及和平等」的定義為: 大致上每位選民有相同的投票權利，而每張選票的價值亦平等，
2. 「直選」的定義為：選民直接地決定誰入當選行政長官以及立法機關成員，
3. 「開放性」的定義為: 選民的資格無特別限制，投票過程公開。1
功能組別選舉，違反基本法諮委會政制專責小組在報告所訂下之「大致上每位選民有相同的投票權利，而每張選票的價值亦平等」的原則：成為功能組別的選 民和參選的資格亦有許多特別限制。讓功能組別繼續存在，顯然不符合《直接選舉方法方案歸納報告》中指出「以普及和平等的原則，用一人一票方式，由選民直接 地選出行政長官以及立法機關議席的方案」。
在後來的基本法草擬委員會上，原草擬的條文是 “ 立法機關全部議員最終要由普選產生 ” ，雖然有委員提出要刪除 “ 立法機關全部議員最終要由普選產生 ” 這個目標，但最終這項條文最終獲保留，並反映在現時基本法第68條內，即是「立法會的產生辦法根據香港特別行政區的實際情況和循序漸進的原則而規定，最終 達至全部議員由普選產生的目標」。因此，功能組別繼續存在的則違背了中英聯合聲明所定下的對 “ 選舉 ” 或 “普選產生”的定義。
(未完待續)
____________________________________________________________
Newsletter #6
(FAQ on Functional Constituencies)
13. What factors constitute “genuine universal suffrage”?
Genuine universal suffrage should be universal and equal. Every voter should have the same number of votes, and each vote the same weight.
In the Chief Executive election:
1. There should not be any pre-screening mechanism in the selection of the Chief Executive. Any candidate who has obtained the minimum number of nominations should be automatically nominated as the candidate in the Chief Executive election.
2. There should not be any pre-set screening mechanism for standing as a candidate in the Chief Executive election. For example, there should not be an additional condition for standing through the setting of proportion on the nominations from the Nomination Committee members for different sectors.
3. The selection process of the members of the Nomination Committee for the election of the Chief Executive should adhere to democratic principle as possible, and ensure that every voter has the same voting rights.
Functional constituency seats should be abolished. All seats in the Legislative Council should be voted in accordance with the equal vote and equal weighting principle as soon as possible.
14. Is the design of the functional constituencies fair?
The design of the functional constituencies is not fair, as the general public cannot choose which functional constituency they could be contested as a candidate. Hence, although some have suggested that the existing form of functional constituencies could be opened to every registered voter in the Legislative Council, it should not be considered as a form of universal suffrage. It also violates the definition of universal suffrage in international conventions and treaties, as there are still certain levels of limitations for an individual to be nominated in the functional constituencies. They cannot choose freely which functional constituencies they are able to run.
Also, we cannot understand why every voter can vote under a simple voting mechanism through casting a single vote in one “geographical constituency”, and why some individuals and organizations are still proposing a complicated electoral process of “one vote in geographical constituency, and one “pseudo” vote in a functional constituency. They disguise this as universal suffrage, when it is basically a remodelling of the functional constituency system” This is clearly deceiving the voters.
15. When the Basic Law was first drafted, how was “direct election” defined?
In the “Consolidated Report of the Methods of the Direct Election Proposal” by the Political System Sub-committee of the Basic Law Drafting Committee published in 1987, it states that “the direct election method proposal listed under this document shall become the proposals of the voting of the Chief Executive and the legislature.” The Report also specified:
1. The definition of “universal and fair”: Every single voter should essentially have the same voting rights, and the value of each of the votes is essentially the same;
2. The definition of “direct election”: There is no specific limitation regarding the qualifications of the voters, the voting process is open;
3. The definition of “openness”: There is no specific limitation on the qualifications of the voters, the electoral process should be fair.2
Functional constituency elections violate the principle of “equal voting rights for each voters in essence, and the value of each vote should also be the same”. This was proposed by the political system sub-committee of the Basic Law Drafting Committee. As far as the election is concerned, there are still many special limitations regarding the qualification to be a voter and that to run in those elections. Allowing the functional constituencies to continue would clearly violate the principle of “using one man one vote system for the direct election of the Chief Executive and members of the legislative chamber, under the equal and universal principles.”
During the subsequent Basic Law drafting committee meetings, the clause for the method of selection of the legislature stated that “the legislature should be eventually running under direct election”. Although some committee members proposed to delete such an objective, it still remains as an official clause in the Basic Law. Hence, the continued existence of functional constituencies violates the definitions of “election” and “election through universal suffrage,” as stipulated under the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
[1] 《中華人民共和國香港特別行政區基本法諮詢委員會 政制專責小組 直接選舉方法方案歸納報告》(1987年11月23日經執行委員會通過)
[2] 《中華人民共和國香港特別行政區基本法諮詢委員會 政制專責小組 直接選舉方法方案歸納報告》(1987年11月23日經執行委員會通過) ““Consolidated Report of the Methods of the Direct Election Proposal” by the Political System Sub-committee of the Basic Law Drafting Committee (passed by the Execution Committee on 23 November 1987).
Comments are closed.