【明報專訊】THE SECOND ROUND of consultation on constitutional reform is about to begin. However, in the wake of the Occupy movement, which lasted over two months, many are pessimistic about electing the Chief Executive (CE) by universal suffrage in 2017.
The storm over constitutional reform started brewing醞釀 in early 2013, when society began to discuss the issue. It has now brought turbulence to our city. In retrospect(仔細檢視), the political storm actually arose from interactions between the radicals and the moderates. It is neither advisable nor proper for the government to speculate how the various camps will fare relative to one another. It should bear two things in mind regarding the second round of consultation: (1) that it is its bounden(義不容辭)duty to put forward a constitutional reform proposal and see that it will go through the Legislative Council so that the CE will be elected by universal suffrage; and (2) that it has a duty to guide citizens through the discussion of maximising democracy within the framework of the August 31 decision. As long as it has done its part, the government will not be to blame even if its constitutional reform proposal is rejected.
in retrospect /ˈret.rəʊ.spekt/ thinking now about something in the past
Then comes the question of what should be consulted about. Commenting on arrangements for electing the CE by universal suffrage, Zhang Xiaoming, director of the central government's liaison office in Hong Kong, raised the "double approval" idea, saying they must meet with the approval of both the central government and the Hong Kong people. No doubt the National People's Congress Standing Committee's August 31 decision meets with the approval of the central government. The question that remains is what arrangements will meet with the approval of the Hong Kong people. It follows that Hong Kong people's approval can be won if proper arrangements are made regarding the composition and operation of the nominating committee and the functions of citizens' votes.The August 31 decision may not bring about the most democratic possible method of electing the CE by universal suffrage. However, through in-depth discussion of the matter, it is still possible to have a second-best method that allows a choice and a high level of competition. The pan-democrats' position is at odds(落差) with the findings of many surveys, which show citizens who think the August 31 framework should be adopted outnumber those who think it should be rejected. The government may, in the second round of consultation, suggests ways of increasing democracy and explores the possibility of introducing an electoral method by which pro-establishment and pro-democracy politicians are "bundled" together or one by which citizens can "keep the last gate". If the government does so but the pan-democrats insist on boycotting the consultation and rejecting the government's constitutional reform proposal, they cannot but face the question of citizens' impression of them.
There are other questions the pan-democrats have to consider. Should a proposal be rejected wholesale(全盤) just because it does not directly lead to their goal? If the August 31 decision is adopted, the number of the enfranchised(選舉權) will increase from 1,200 to over 5 million. Will such a sharp increase in the number of voters not lead to a qualitative change? Who can determine the outcome of such an election? Furthermore, will the pan-democrats fare better if they, instead of playing the role of street protesters, play the political game permissible under the August 31 decision, become part of the establishment, gain power and actually take part in the administration of the city? Will they then be better able to promote the cause of democracy? These are questions the pan-democrats ought to consider.
明報社評2015.01.02﹕政府推政改勿放軟手腳 泛民應再思考原則立場
政改第二輪諮詢即將展開，可是歷經兩個多月的佔領行動，現有較多人對2017年落實特首普選不表樂觀。
今次政改，由2013年初醞釀討論到現在的風風雨雨，仔細檢視一下，會發現實際上是激進與溫和力量相互激盪。政府對各個陣營的力量消長，不宜也不應該猜測。就第二輪諮詢，政府須認識清楚兩點：一是政府義不容辭的責任，是提出政改方案，爭取立法會通過，落實特首普選；二是政府有責任在8‧31決定的框架，引導市民討論最大程度民主安排，爭取在社會上取得最大共識。只要政府做好這兩點，善盡責任，屆時政制方案被否決，責不在政府。
至於第二點則是諮詢什麼的問題。就普選安排，中聯辦主任張曉明說過要「雙認可」，就是中央認可和港人認可；全國人大常委會8‧31的決定肯定得到中央認可，現在剩下來的問題，就是普選安排要獲得港人認可。按這樣的邏輯理路，提委會的組成、運作和港人選票作用等環節，透過恰當安排，就有望和可能達至港人認可。
8‧31決定就普選特首安排，或許未能達至一個民主程度最高的選舉，不過若肯深入探討，則次佳方案，還有望達至程度較高的有競爭和有選擇的普選安排。泛民現在的取態，與民調結果存在落差。衆多民調數字顯示，市民對8‧31決定框架認為應該「袋住先」，都高過否決的比率；若政府在第二輪諮詢是按8‧31框架提出增加民主成分、探討綑綁名單制甚或守尾門等可能性，可是泛民陣營仍然堅持杯葛和否決方案，那麼他們就不能忽視市民的觀感。
泛民還要檢視一些問題，包括：未能一步到位，是否就要全盤推翻？即使按8‧31決定普選特首，合資格選民由1200人增至500多萬，選民的海量增幅，這量變會否帶來質變？屆時的選舉結果，誰可以控制？還有，泛民參與8‧31決定的政治遊戲，進入體制分享權力，具體實質參與管治，較之長期在體制外玩街頭抗爭，哪一方面更有利於泛民以至民主運動的發展？如此種種，都是泛民陣營需要思考的問題。
■Glossary
bounden﹕a responsibility that cannot be ignored
be to blame﹕be responsible for something bad
wholesale﹕completely
Example written:
In retrospect, I should take the major of Accounting instead of the major of Economics as with the accounting degree, I can have a wider career path.
The storm over the education reform started brewing after 2000.
It brought turbulence to our teenagers if no other methods are used.
in the wake of advancement in technology, we can download the music everywhere without any curbs.
The storm over constitutional reform started brewing醞釀 in early 2013, when society began to discuss the issue. It has now brought turbulence to our city. In retrospect(仔細檢視), the political storm actually arose from interactions between the radicals and the moderates. It is neither advisable nor proper for the government to speculate how the various camps will fare relative to one another. It should bear two things in mind regarding the second round of consultation: (1) that it is its bounden(義不容辭)duty to put forward a constitutional reform proposal and see that it will go through the Legislative Council so that the CE will be elected by universal suffrage; and (2) that it has a duty to guide citizens through the discussion of maximising democracy within the framework of the August 31 decision. As long as it has done its part, the government will not be to blame even if its constitutional reform proposal is rejected.
in retrospect /ˈret.rəʊ.spekt/ thinking now about something in the past
Then comes the question of what should be consulted about. Commenting on arrangements for electing the CE by universal suffrage, Zhang Xiaoming, director of the central government's liaison office in Hong Kong, raised the "double approval" idea, saying they must meet with the approval of both the central government and the Hong Kong people. No doubt the National People's Congress Standing Committee's August 31 decision meets with the approval of the central government. The question that remains is what arrangements will meet with the approval of the Hong Kong people. It follows that Hong Kong people's approval can be won if proper arrangements are made regarding the composition and operation of the nominating committee and the functions of citizens' votes.The August 31 decision may not bring about the most democratic possible method of electing the CE by universal suffrage. However, through in-depth discussion of the matter, it is still possible to have a second-best method that allows a choice and a high level of competition. The pan-democrats' position is at odds(落差) with the findings of many surveys, which show citizens who think the August 31 framework should be adopted outnumber those who think it should be rejected. The government may, in the second round of consultation, suggests ways of increasing democracy and explores the possibility of introducing an electoral method by which pro-establishment and pro-democracy politicians are "bundled" together or one by which citizens can "keep the last gate". If the government does so but the pan-democrats insist on boycotting the consultation and rejecting the government's constitutional reform proposal, they cannot but face the question of citizens' impression of them.
There are other questions the pan-democrats have to consider. Should a proposal be rejected wholesale(全盤) just because it does not directly lead to their goal? If the August 31 decision is adopted, the number of the enfranchised(選舉權) will increase from 1,200 to over 5 million. Will such a sharp increase in the number of voters not lead to a qualitative change? Who can determine the outcome of such an election? Furthermore, will the pan-democrats fare better if they, instead of playing the role of street protesters, play the political game permissible under the August 31 decision, become part of the establishment, gain power and actually take part in the administration of the city? Will they then be better able to promote the cause of democracy? These are questions the pan-democrats ought to consider.
明報社評2015.01.02﹕政府推政改勿放軟手腳 泛民應再思考原則立場
政改第二輪諮詢即將展開，可是歷經兩個多月的佔領行動，現有較多人對2017年落實特首普選不表樂觀。
今次政改，由2013年初醞釀討論到現在的風風雨雨，仔細檢視一下，會發現實際上是激進與溫和力量相互激盪。政府對各個陣營的力量消長，不宜也不應該猜測。就第二輪諮詢，政府須認識清楚兩點：一是政府義不容辭的責任，是提出政改方案，爭取立法會通過，落實特首普選；二是政府有責任在8‧31決定的框架，引導市民討論最大程度民主安排，爭取在社會上取得最大共識。只要政府做好這兩點，善盡責任，屆時政制方案被否決，責不在政府。
至於第二點則是諮詢什麼的問題。就普選安排，中聯辦主任張曉明說過要「雙認可」，就是中央認可和港人認可；全國人大常委會8‧31的決定肯定得到中央認可，現在剩下來的問題，就是普選安排要獲得港人認可。按這樣的邏輯理路，提委會的組成、運作和港人選票作用等環節，透過恰當安排，就有望和可能達至港人認可。
8‧31決定就普選特首安排，或許未能達至一個民主程度最高的選舉，不過若肯深入探討，則次佳方案，還有望達至程度較高的有競爭和有選擇的普選安排。泛民現在的取態，與民調結果存在落差。衆多民調數字顯示，市民對8‧31決定框架認為應該「袋住先」，都高過否決的比率；若政府在第二輪諮詢是按8‧31框架提出增加民主成分、探討綑綁名單制甚或守尾門等可能性，可是泛民陣營仍然堅持杯葛和否決方案，那麼他們就不能忽視市民的觀感。
泛民還要檢視一些問題，包括：未能一步到位，是否就要全盤推翻？即使按8‧31決定普選特首，合資格選民由1200人增至500多萬，選民的海量增幅，這量變會否帶來質變？屆時的選舉結果，誰可以控制？還有，泛民參與8‧31決定的政治遊戲，進入體制分享權力，具體實質參與管治，較之長期在體制外玩街頭抗爭，哪一方面更有利於泛民以至民主運動的發展？如此種種，都是泛民陣營需要思考的問題。
■Glossary
bounden﹕a responsibility that cannot be ignored
be to blame﹕be responsible for something bad
wholesale﹕completely
Example written:
In retrospect, I should take the major of Accounting instead of the major of Economics as with the accounting degree, I can have a wider career path.
The storm over the education reform started brewing after 2000.
It brought turbulence to our teenagers if no other methods are used.
in the wake of advancement in technology, we can download the music everywhere without any curbs.
沒有留言:
發佈留言