[Please scroll down for the English version]

13.5.2010

第七期通訊

功能組別答客問

18.政府所提出的2012「區議會方案」政改建議： 是否會帶來更多民主成份?!

目前政府的建議，在2012年立法會 選舉400名區議員互選產生所 屬的5個功能組別議席 ， 不是政府和其他「建制派」人士所指，是一個“增加民主成份”的方案”。顯然，這不是一個「向前走」的政改方案：通過允許僅400人，選出 六個 席位（原區議會功能界別議席，和從400名當選區議員互選產生的五席）， 這造就了這400名區議員成為無論投票權或由被選舉權都比一般選民多的一個一個特權階級，違反了有關國際公約中「普及和平等」原則， 這個方案因而不會如政府所指，會帶來更多「民主成份」。讓全數民選區議員擁有更多功能組別議席和權力，也不符合基本法第97條對「區 域組 織」(即區議會) 屬非政權性組織的定位。

再者，從次一級的議政機構 (區議會) 選出上一 級的議政機構代表 (立法會) 的建議，是倒模自內地人 民代表大會選舉的做法，即是次一級人民代表大會代表選舉高一級的人大代表。這顯然不符合普選「普及而平等」之定義，也可能 反映了本港選舉制度「內地化」的先兆。

總括而言，這個由政府提出的方案，變相增加功能組 別議席，絕不能令政改「向前 走」。 繼續保留功能組別，這顯然不符合基本法在制定過程時，為選舉所定下對「普及和平等」之定義，和達致全面取消功能組別的目的。
19. 取消功能組別，是否會如某些建制派人士所言，導致議會上民粹主義冒起嗎?

取消功能組別，和導致議會上民粹主義，沒有必然關 係。從過往議會投票記錄顯示，功 能界別只是反映了有利於個別工商界利益，專業團體和人士的意見，往往被忽略。而且全球其他地方的議會也實施以地區選舉制度為選舉制 度，而不會實行功能組別形式的選舉制度，也不見得其他地方的議會有民粹主義冒起的出現。
正如前述功能組別議員否決有利民生的議案的例子所 指，不取消功能組別，反而會繼 續功能組別偏重小圈子利益。
(答客問 未完待續)

Newsletter Issue #7

Frequently Asked Questions on Constitutional Reform

18.       The “District Council proposal” proposed by the Government: Does it bring more “Democratic Elements”?

The current proposal by the Government, in which 400 elected District Council members would mutually elect five seats among each other in the newly added functional constituencies, is not what the Government and other “pro-establishment” individuals have stated, namely an attempt to “increase democratic elements”. Clearly, this is not a political reform package which “makes a step forward”. Through the election of six seats in the Legislative Council from merely 400 people (the original seat in the District Council, and through the five seats from the mutual election of 400 elected District Council members), this has effectively created a privileged class in which the 400 elected District Council members would have far more voting rights than the other ordinary voters do. This clearly violates the “universal and fair” principle of elections. The proposal would not bring about more “democratic elements”, as the Government suggests. Allowing all elected members of the District Council to have more seats in the functional constituencies and therefore more “political” power, has clearly violated Article 97 of the Basic Law, which states that the District Councils are not the “organs of power”.

Additionally, the recommendation for the election from a lower level of legislative body (District Councils) in electing the members for a higher level legislative body (the Legislative Council), is modelled from the practice of the election of the National People’s Congress, that is, the election of the lower level of the National People’s Congress to a higher level one. Not only is in violation of the “equal and fair” principle of universal suffrage, but also reflected the situation in which the electoral system in Hong Kong will be more in line with that of the electoral system in the Mainland.

The Government’s proposal, as reflected by its conspicuous intention to increase the seats in the functional constituencies, cannot lead to “paving the way forward” on the issue regarding political reform. Should the functional constituencies continue to exist, it clearly does not abide by the “universal and fair” definitions of the election, as well as fulfil the objective leading to the complete abolition of functional constituencies.

19.       Would the abolition of functional constituencies result in the rise of “populism” in the legislative bodies, as some pro-establishment individuals have suggested?

No direct link exists between functional constituencies, and the emergence of “populism” in the legislature. Previous voting records indicate that the functional constituencies merely reflect the views from the business sectors, while that from professional bodies and individuals within the functional constituencies have often been neglected. Legislative bodies in other parts of the world  also adopt  electoral systems based upon on a geographical constituencies, and they have not implemented the electoral method similar to those of the functional constituencies. We do not see the rise of “populism” in the legislative body in other countries which adopt solely the electoral method based upon geographical constituencies.

(FAQs to be continued)