【明報專訊】IT HAD BEEN widely hoped that, in Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying's third policy address scheduled for publication in the wake of the Occupy movement, there would be sensible policies intended to resolve the political disagreements and lift Hong Kong out of its political impasse. However, yesterday's policy address has failed to lower political temperature. It has, instead, aroused more controversy by touching on the official magazine of the Hong Kong University Students' Union (HKUSU), one issue of which suggested that Hong Kong should find a way to "self-reliance and self-determination" and featured articles exploring the topic of Hong Kong independence.
In the Occupy movement, the central issue was the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. Large numbers of young people participated in the protests, which were largely led by students. In terms of methods and strategies, they are very different from the older generation, who have also been fighting for democracy for more than 30 years. Leung failed to show that he had kept up with the times when commenting on these new circumstances through his policy address. For one thing, the policy address reiterates that the arrangements for the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage must be handled in accordance with the decisions and interpretations made by the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC). But the pan-democrats, who wield veto power in the Legislative Council, have declared many times that they will veto any constitutional reform proposal based on the August 31 resolution. The message of the policy address is that unless things take a dramatic turn, the constitutional reform proposal will be vetoed by the Legislative Council, and our political system will in all probability remain as it is.
The policy address mentions only briefly the relationship between young people and the Occupy movement, saying, "We fully recognise the aspirations of our young students for democracy and their concerns about political reforms." It fails to show proper regard for the new circumstances surrounding young people's fight for democracy and universal suffrage. It, instead, singles out the HKUSU's official magazine, one issue of which featured a cover story entitled "Hong Kong people deciding their own fate" and advocated that "Hong Kong should find a way to self-reliance and self-determination". The policy address claims that the magazine (which is named Undergrad) and other students, including student leaders of the Occupy movement, "have misstated some facts" and that "we must stay alert". The Occupy movement ended just recently, so it has surprised many people that Leung should touch on the sensitive issue of "Hong Kong independence" in his policy address.
Over the past two years, amid the controversy over constitutional reform, China's official news agencies, former officials of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, and mainland experts and scholars have often in their media coverage or analyses sought to link the Occupy movement and some social phenomena with "separation", "division" and even attempts to gain independence. Indeed, the Undergrad essays that Leung commented on yesterday had been mentioned by Hong Kong's pro-Beijing newspapers before. But the SAR government in the past never referred to terms like "separation" or "Hong Kong independence" when commenting on constitutional reform or the Occupy movement. Leung's break with this tradition may be interpreted as an attempt to clarify the constitutional relationship between China and Hong Kong "so that the discussion on constitutional development would not be fruitless". True, in the discussion about constitutional reform, there have been views that show a disregard for the related regulations in the Basic Law or the decisions (or interpretations) made by the NPCSC, one example being the demand for popular nomination. However, what Leung said has the effect of accusing the HKUSU's official magazine and other students of inclining towards or promoting Hong Kong independence. His comments have complicated matters.
明報社評2015.01.15﹕佔領後未見緩解方針 港獨議題對峙更繃緊
特首梁振英第三份《施政報告》，在「後佔領」時期頒布，許多人都期望會有善法良方，尋求破解政治爭議與管治困局。不過，昨日的施政報告並未為政治熱度降溫，反而就港大學生會刊物提出主張香港「自立自決」和討論港獨的文章引發議論。
佔領運動核心議題是特首普選，而運動有大量年輕人參與，學生基本上主導了運動，他們的做法和手段與過去30多年爭取民主的一代十分不同。梁振英透過施政報告回應新形勢，未見有隨時勢不同而調整。首先，施政報告重申2017年特首普選安排，須按全國人大常委會的決定和相關解釋處理，而在立法會擁有否決權的泛民議員，一再聲稱政改方案若按8．31決定的框架設計，他們將會否決。因此，施政報告釋出的信息，實際上就是除非未來有戲劇性變化，否則政改方案將在立法會被否決，政制原地踏步的可能性很大。
施政報告就青年人與佔領運動的關係，僅以「青年學生嚮往民主，關心政制發展，值得肯定」，輕輕帶過。施政報告未正視青年人爭取民主普選的新形勢，卻提出港大學生會官方刊物有關「香港民族 命運自決」、「主張香港『尋找一條自立自決的出路』」等論調，又說「對《學苑》和其他學生，包括佔中的學生領袖的錯誤主張，我們不能不警惕」，云云。佔領運動結束不久，梁振英在施政報告碰觸「港獨」這個敏感議題，出乎很多人意料。
過去兩年圍繞政改的爭議，內地官方媒體、前度港澳辦官員、專家學者等，在報道或討論佔領和一些現象，許多時候的描述都聯繫到分離、分裂甚至走向港獨等；梁振英提及的學苑文章，本港親北京報章也曾提及。儘管如此，特區政府一貫談及政改和佔領諸般事態，並無觸及什麼分裂、港獨情事。梁振英在施政報告提出此事，或許目的在講清楚國家與香港之間的憲制關係，「使政制發展的討論，不致緣木求魚」。在政改討論中，確有不理會《基本法》相關規定與全國人大常委會的決定和解釋的情况，例如要求公民提名，就是一例。不過，梁振英此語一出，客觀效果是指港大學生會的刊物和其他學生涉及趨向港獨甚或鼓吹港獨。事態就顯得十分嚴重了。
■Glossary
impasse﹕a situation in which it is impossible to continue with a discussion or plan because the people involved cannot agree
keep up with the times﹕to change when other things in society, business etc change
沒有留言:
發佈留言