【明報專訊】THE GOVERNMENT is to publish its public sentiment report today (Jan 6), and launch the second round of public consultation on constitutional reform tomorrow (Jan 7). The political temperature, having gone down for a while after the Occupy movement, is again rising to fever pitch(白熱化). The pan-democratic camp has vowed to boycott any consultation based on the August 31 resolution of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, and to veto(否決) the constitutional reform proposal. If they do not change their stance, it will be quite pointless to carry out any further consultation. And if the electoral system remains unchanged, the prospects for further democratic development will get even bleaker(暗淡).
The August 31 resolution is a political reality which at present cannot be transcended(go further). The central government is not budging(change your opinion) from its position even after the more than two-month-long Occupy movement. The public is thus left with only two choices: not to accept the resolution and urge the pan-democratic lawmakers to veto the constitutional reform proposal, or to comply with the resolution and see if by local legislation the electoral system can be made more democratic.
While the pan-democratic lawmakers have long made it clear that they do not accept the August 31 resolution and will veto the reform proposal, the majority of the people think that this is ill-advised. Opinion polls conducted by many organisations before the Occupy movement showed that, while there were those in favour of vetoing the proposed reform and keeping the present electoral system unchanged, there were more who believe that some reform is better than none at all. And after the Occupy movement, there are as many as 60 percent of people who share this belief, an increase of about 10 percent. Although this 60 percent of people cannot be regarded as an overwhelming majority, the pan-democrats should not disregard their wish to vote in the Chief Executive election. It should be noted that, if in the second round of consultation the government puts forward some concrete proposals that would make the electoral system more democratic and inject some choice and competition into the Chief Executive election, the pan-democrats may incur public censure(strong criticism) if they boycott the public consultation and veto the reform proposal.
Over the past few months, some academics and political moderates have come up with proposals such as having the nominating committee vote on lists of candidates rather than on individual candidates, and allowing the public to render(to cause someone or something to be in a particular state) the Chief Executive election invalid by casting(to vote) blank votes. As these proposals do not deviate from the framework set by the August 31 resolution, they should be explored further. What is more, the operation of the nominating committee, a most important feature of the August 31 resolution, has so far been little discussed. If the committee's operation can be so devised( invent a plan,) as to make the nomination procedure more transparent, a pan-democrat or candidate supported by the pan-democrats may still be nominated to stand for election.
Therefore the pan-democrats should not be so hasty in declaring that they will boycott the consultation and veto the reform proposal. It should be noted that, if election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage is not implemented in 2017, election of all members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage will not be implemented in 2020. Clearly, to promote democracy, there is something better the pan-democrats can do. It is irresponsible of them to cling to ideals they can never hope to achieve by chanting slogans(to repeat or sing a word or phrase continuously). They must not abstain(to not do something) from the electoral reform exercise, and must act realistically. Participating in the second round of public consultation is the first step they should take.
明報社評 2015.01.06﹕泛民應該落場踢波 勿抵制第二輪諮詢
政府今日公布民情報告，明日開展政改第二輪諮詢，政治熱度隨着佔領運動清場而沉寂一段時間後，又再熱熾起來。泛民陣營聲言抵制全國人大常委會8．31決定的諮詢，並要否決有關的政改方案；若泛民不改變立場，那諮詢還有什麼意義？若政制原地踏步，民主進程將更悲觀。
8．31決定是政治現實，現階段無法踰越，即使發生了兩個多月佔領行動，未見中央的原則立場有任何鬆動。在這個情况下，市民只有兩個選擇：一是絕對不接受8．31決定，要求泛民議員否決政府據之提出來的方案；另一個則是按8．31決定，在本地立法部分能否達至較高民主程度的普選安排。
泛民議員雖然早已聲言不接受8．31決定並會否決方案，但是大多數市民有不同想法。佔領運動爆發之前，多方民意調查顯示：認為應該「袋住先」的市民，往往多過認為應該否決方案、寧願政制原地踏步的市民。佔領運動之後，有更多市民同意袋住先（達60%以上），較之前多了約10個百分點。六成市民認同袋住先，雖然不能解讀為壓倒性差距，但是多數市民期望投票選舉特首的意願，則是泛民不宜忽視的，特別是第二輪諮詢，若政府提出討論具體安排增加民主成分，達至有一定程度競爭和選擇的特首普選，屆時泛民若抵制討論和否決方案，會否引發市民反彈，值得注意。
過去幾個月以至近期，學者與中間溫和力量提出的綑綁名單提名、白票守尾門等方案，由於並未偏離8．31決定的框架，因此應該深化討論下去；至於提名委員會的運作，過去較少討論。其實，提委會在8．31決定的重要性，不言而喻。在提委會運作設計方面，若能做到提名程序透明化，或許仍有機會讓泛民成員或泛民支持的人士成為特首候選人。
可以說，現在泛民揚言抵制諮詢、否決方案，未免太早了！還有，若2017年未能落實特首普選，2020年立法會也未能普選產生全部議席。因此，採取哪一種取態才算爭取民主、推動民主向前發展？泛民停留在理念口號並非負責任做法，應該落場踢波，實際踐行。參與第二輪諮詢，只是第一步。
Glossary
bleak﹕without anything to make you feel cheerful or hopeful
ill-advised﹕not sensible, wise, or prudent
censure﹕the act of expressing strong disapproval and criticism
The August 31 resolution is a political reality which at present cannot be transcended(go further). The central government is not budging(change your opinion) from its position even after the more than two-month-long Occupy movement. The public is thus left with only two choices: not to accept the resolution and urge the pan-democratic lawmakers to veto the constitutional reform proposal, or to comply with the resolution and see if by local legislation the electoral system can be made more democratic.
While the pan-democratic lawmakers have long made it clear that they do not accept the August 31 resolution and will veto the reform proposal, the majority of the people think that this is ill-advised. Opinion polls conducted by many organisations before the Occupy movement showed that, while there were those in favour of vetoing the proposed reform and keeping the present electoral system unchanged, there were more who believe that some reform is better than none at all. And after the Occupy movement, there are as many as 60 percent of people who share this belief, an increase of about 10 percent. Although this 60 percent of people cannot be regarded as an overwhelming majority, the pan-democrats should not disregard their wish to vote in the Chief Executive election. It should be noted that, if in the second round of consultation the government puts forward some concrete proposals that would make the electoral system more democratic and inject some choice and competition into the Chief Executive election, the pan-democrats may incur public censure(strong criticism) if they boycott the public consultation and veto the reform proposal.
Over the past few months, some academics and political moderates have come up with proposals such as having the nominating committee vote on lists of candidates rather than on individual candidates, and allowing the public to render(to cause someone or something to be in a particular state) the Chief Executive election invalid by casting(to vote) blank votes. As these proposals do not deviate from the framework set by the August 31 resolution, they should be explored further. What is more, the operation of the nominating committee, a most important feature of the August 31 resolution, has so far been little discussed. If the committee's operation can be so devised( invent a plan,) as to make the nomination procedure more transparent, a pan-democrat or candidate supported by the pan-democrats may still be nominated to stand for election.
Therefore the pan-democrats should not be so hasty in declaring that they will boycott the consultation and veto the reform proposal. It should be noted that, if election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage is not implemented in 2017, election of all members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage will not be implemented in 2020. Clearly, to promote democracy, there is something better the pan-democrats can do. It is irresponsible of them to cling to ideals they can never hope to achieve by chanting slogans(to repeat or sing a word or phrase continuously). They must not abstain(to not do something) from the electoral reform exercise, and must act realistically. Participating in the second round of public consultation is the first step they should take.
明報社評 2015.01.06﹕泛民應該落場踢波 勿抵制第二輪諮詢
政府今日公布民情報告，明日開展政改第二輪諮詢，政治熱度隨着佔領運動清場而沉寂一段時間後，又再熱熾起來。泛民陣營聲言抵制全國人大常委會8．31決定的諮詢，並要否決有關的政改方案；若泛民不改變立場，那諮詢還有什麼意義？若政制原地踏步，民主進程將更悲觀。
8．31決定是政治現實，現階段無法踰越，即使發生了兩個多月佔領行動，未見中央的原則立場有任何鬆動。在這個情况下，市民只有兩個選擇：一是絕對不接受8．31決定，要求泛民議員否決政府據之提出來的方案；另一個則是按8．31決定，在本地立法部分能否達至較高民主程度的普選安排。
泛民議員雖然早已聲言不接受8．31決定並會否決方案，但是大多數市民有不同想法。佔領運動爆發之前，多方民意調查顯示：認為應該「袋住先」的市民，往往多過認為應該否決方案、寧願政制原地踏步的市民。佔領運動之後，有更多市民同意袋住先（達60%以上），較之前多了約10個百分點。六成市民認同袋住先，雖然不能解讀為壓倒性差距，但是多數市民期望投票選舉特首的意願，則是泛民不宜忽視的，特別是第二輪諮詢，若政府提出討論具體安排增加民主成分，達至有一定程度競爭和選擇的特首普選，屆時泛民若抵制討論和否決方案，會否引發市民反彈，值得注意。
過去幾個月以至近期，學者與中間溫和力量提出的綑綁名單提名、白票守尾門等方案，由於並未偏離8．31決定的框架，因此應該深化討論下去；至於提名委員會的運作，過去較少討論。其實，提委會在8．31決定的重要性，不言而喻。在提委會運作設計方面，若能做到提名程序透明化，或許仍有機會讓泛民成員或泛民支持的人士成為特首候選人。
可以說，現在泛民揚言抵制諮詢、否決方案，未免太早了！還有，若2017年未能落實特首普選，2020年立法會也未能普選產生全部議席。因此，採取哪一種取態才算爭取民主、推動民主向前發展？泛民停留在理念口號並非負責任做法，應該落場踢波，實際踐行。參與第二輪諮詢，只是第一步。
Glossary
bleak﹕without anything to make you feel cheerful or hopeful
ill-advised﹕not sensible, wise, or prudent
censure﹕the act of expressing strong disapproval and criticism
沒有留言:
發佈留言