Tuesday, October 29, 2013

我已成立一專注政改的網頁,請各方朋友點擊以下聯線加入討論: https://www.facebook.com/pages/如何落實普選特首政制研討/443275309116388


同根生

不要跟我說中港 融合矛盾難解,我這方面的感受比任何人也更深刻!年幼時住在灣仔春園街一間板間房,一天聽到樓下有人高叫: 「樓上有姓湯的嗎? 有包裹到!」那「包裹」卻原來是我的二哥!我躲在板間房門布簾後偷看他,他比我高兩個頭,皮膚黝黑,以陌生的目光看着我。他衣著奇怪,說的話我聽不懂,我 只知道我們是親兄弟。不到一年,我家再收到兩個「包裹」,她們是我的三姐和四姐。一家人總算團聚了,但卻也是另一問題的開始。

也許是命運使然,二哥到港後不久,父親便失業了,也從此找不到工作。不知是否這個原因,父母對這三兄姐的態度跟我們其他兄弟截然不同。也許因為這樣,他們一生的際遇也與我有天壤之別。直至今天,我仍覺得我們之間還殘留着一點莫名其妙的隔膜、一點萬般無奈的惆悵。

特 區近年有一種排斥內地人的心態。我雖然了解這份心態,但最近看到一些人高調地說要「源頭減人」,我實在感到憤怒了!把人比喻為廢物已是一種侮辱,更何况他 們是自己的同胞!自二千年以來,我接觸了不少中港兩地家庭被分拆的申訴,每次那些內地媽媽均滿眶熱淚地訴說一家人不能團聚的痛苦;每次我心也想,便是團聚 了也還需要一段很長的時間修補這家庭裂痕,為什麼我們不能多做一些?

沒錯,內地個別省市有很多的貪污例子,但這是 被分拆家庭的錯嗎?《基本 法》賦予內地審批權,正正是為了阻止來港人數失控。這些歷史背景和問題,倡議「源頭減人」的人清楚了解嗎?血濃於水,但在這物質主義的社會裡,卻濃不過經 濟利益!我們本身已活在悲劇裡,為什麼還要加深雙方的痛苦?

Friday, October 18, 2013

傷口上灑鹽

特首梁振英試圖利用菲律賓人質事件抽一點政治油水,挽回一些聲望,卻不料反被阿基諾三世玩弄於指掌之上,引出「喪權辱港」之說,可算不單止碰了一鼻 子灰,還賠了夫人又折兵!可能這便是小圈子選舉和民選領袖分別之處。經過民選洗禮的人,其一言一行皆着重於選民之看法和感受,維護政治形象是最大的考慮。 這不是被欽點上位之人能明白的。

小圈子「選」出來的領袖,在政治上始終有點弱智。試想想,人質事件發生之時,梁振英 也是行政會議召集人,應當知道阿基諾三世是一個傲慢無恥之政客。曾蔭權當年也碰了釘,梁振英憑甚麼認為與君一席話便可化解危機?要真正解決問題為甚麼不先 做好準備工夫?整件事突顯了安排會面只是即興之作,並沒有做過甚麼事前評估。手上沒有任何政治籌碼,便貿然求見,這種盲目政治行為肯定未打先輸,最愚蠢不 過!

從電視機所見,明顯地由座位安排、先後到場,以至會後新聞發放,皆任人擺佈,全無章法,遇上了阿基諾這狡滑狐狸,能不令人感到喪權辱港?對香港人而言,更是在傷口上灑鹽!真是丟臉!

會 面過後不但取不到任何政治回報,反而被阿基諾左一巴右一巴,摑得招架不住,出多少道「嚴正聲明」也難以重奪上風,更被立法會的一些政客藉此進一步削弱自己 的公信力,突顯自己的無能!到了這地步,梁振英若不拿出確實之政治回應,恐怕永無翻身之日。有人說,任何制裁皆會損害菲律賓人民之利益。持這種看法的人忽 略了一點,對一些不可一世的政客,唯一可令他就範的,只有選民的壓力。可惜小圈子出身的梁振英可能永遠也不能明白這基本道理!

Monday, October 14, 2013

A Devil’s Pact or A Necessary Understanding? (Letter to Hong Kong 13-9-13)

Tom Clancy, the internationally renowned spy thriller writer died lastweek at the age of 66.  In one of his books, he said this through themouth of one of his characters, “The main requirement to enter the politicalprofession was nothing more or less than the ability to be pleasant to peoplewhom you despised, and then to do business with them as if they were bosomfriends.”

While I can never claimto be able to master such an art, the philosophy behind this graphic quote isclear: in politics, you must not let your personal likes and dislikes come intoplay.  But it seems some of the PanDemocrats are doing exactly that.  Manydislike the Basic Law, especially Article 45, where it stipulates that beforethe Chief Executive of the Hong Kong SAR could be universally elected, thereshall be a Nomination Committee in charge of nomination of candidates for thepost of Chief Executive.  Still moredislike the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’sCongress where it “offered” its “opinion” that the make –up of such NominationCommittee “may refer to” the make-up of the current Election Committee.

The current ElectionCommittee, of course, is a small circle committee, where a Pan Democrat justfinds it hard to barge in.  If one simplychanges the name of the small circle committee and call it a NominationCommittee, what hope does a Pan Democrat have in getting the necessarynomination to run for Chief Executive? So let’s rewrite the rules of nomination and let the common peoplenominate a candidate.  In a perfectworld, this is of course the ideal thing to do; and any one with true Democracyat heart can never deny this is perhaps the only right thing to do.  But this is not a perfect world.

First, the Basic Lawmentions not a hint of civil nomination. In fact, the very fact that aNomination Committee was stipulated suggests that there should be no othermeans of nomination.  Otherwise, whybother to set up a Nominating Committee?  The Pan Democrats argued that the civilnomination can be put to the Nomination Committee which can then endorse thenomination in its own name.  Yes, ofcourse it can do that and it would not be unconstitutional.  But if so, the Nomination Committee maysimply be a rubber stamp and lose the very meaning of its existence. Thatclearly was not what Beijing had in mind when it promulgated the Basic Law.

Others argued that the civilnomination can be “recommended” to the Nomination Committee and let it decidewhat to do with it. That suggestion is even more pretentious.  If the Nomination Committee simply adopts thenomination then we are back to the original argument above.  If the Nomination Committee were to deny thenomination then we will definitely have a constitutional crisis on ourhands.  Just imagine what the reaction ofthe public would be like when a small circle committee with little or nocredibility ignores the view of the public, especially in the midst of aterritory wide election for Chief Executive? The truth is, civil nominationdoes not pose a constitutional or legal problem.  It is a political problem.

You may ask, but is civil nomination the only way out?  Few Democrats dare say no.  The entire focus and all the deployableresources of the Pan Democrats have been put on the issue of civil nominationever since the topic of universal suffrage has re-emerged from last year’sLegCo election.  Any suggestion for analternative model would be viewed as “betraying” the Democratic Movement, or aDevils’ Pact.  So even though manymoderates are seriously worrying that the entire Political Reform may bederailed on the single issue of civil nomination, few dare to speak out.

But Devil’s Pact aside, is there any real alternative?  I think there is.  The reason why civil nomination was raised inthe first place is the immense distrust of the Election Committee.  For many years, “election” of the ChiefExecutive, especially the rise of C. Y. Leung, was put down as the result of a“small circle election” in the form of the Election Committee.  A small circle nomination of a candidate for ChiefExecutive is even worse because it deceives the people into thinking there isgenuine democracy when in truth there is not.

So the vice is really in the make-up of the Nomination Committee whichseriously impairs its credibility.  If wecan somehow build up the credibility of the Nomination Committee then we arehalf way there.  How?  We must remember the NPCSC merely spoke of“may refer” to the make-up of the Election Committee.  They must know it simply will not work if onewere simply to change the name tag of the Election Committee.  There must be genuine change to therepresentativeness of the Election Committee before it can qualify to becomethe Nomination Committee.  This must bethe necessary common understanding between both Beijing and the PanDemocrats.  After all, the art ofpolitics is not about defining the differences of the two sides; but the earlyidentification of the area of agreement, no matter how small that may be.  Rather than to allow the gap between Beijingand the Pan Democrats to widen the argument over civil nomination, should wenot at least devote part of our energy towards agreeing on how to reform theElection Committee?  At the very least,we owe it to Hong Kong to give it a try.

Sunday, October 06, 2013

不是窮人的窮人

有誰願意被社會標籤為窮人?窮人的定義又是什麼?小時候,我們一家八口住在一間不足一百呎的板間 房,但我從不覺得自己是窮小孩。我讀官校,要從車費和零食或日用錢中作一抉擇,但我也不覺得自己是窮。這是觀感問題;但個人觀感改變不了現實社會需求。

相 信不少人會認同窮的定義是入不敷支,更沒能力應付日常必需品以外的支出。那麼特區政府最近訂下之貧窮線是否符合這實際上的標準?我們便拿政府訂下之一家四口貧窮線應 為一萬四千元來看看。假設四人家庭是父母皆需工作賺取最低工資,一間最低要求的劏房月租不會少於四千元;父母上班車費與飯盒以二十六天計應為大約二千六百 元;子女學費,包括所有教育支出算是三千元罷,一家四口每月食用假設是三千元,餘下的只有千多元為每月其他日常支出,談不上甚麼儲蓄,購買日用品、出外用 膳或應急之用。這便是貧窮

以入息中位數來界定貧窮合理嗎?這要視乎社會之生活指數和環境,在生活水平較高之香港而言,最重要之指標可能不是收入,而是支出之水平。例如美國以購買「基本食品」價格的開支三倍,作為三人家庭之貧窮門檻;台灣以人均可支配所得的中位數六成為貧窮指標。這些準則皆是以支出為制定貧窮線之合理指標。


當然,社會爭取訂立貧窮線已有十多年之久,今天終於爭取得到實是令人欣慰的。林鄭月娥聲稱政府扶貧政策目標並不只限於貧窮線下之家庭,也是比較令人安心之說法。但正如特首所言,貧窮線是扶貧政策之重要指標之一,劃得太低是漠視貧窮線以上的窮人所面對的經濟困難。他們可能覺得自己並非貧窮,但他們面對之經濟困境是現實的一部分,甚麼角度來看也改變不了。他們同樣需要社會流動力,以助他們改善生活質素。我是過來人,我深深感受到社會流動力之重要性。與其為貧窮線作不現實之爭拗,為何我們的焦點不放在如何改善社會流動力?這不是更切合實際嗎?

Friday, October 04, 2013

公民提名:理想與現實


行政會議成員鄭 耀棠在電視機前斬釘截鐵地說:「公民提名絕對不會發生,也不會出現在特區政府的諮詢文件內!」對香港政治不熟悉的人可能會誤會他是為特首梁振英,甚或中央 政府發言,但無可否認,公民提名之爭拗已把政改討論推至一個零和遊戲的死胡同。對一些極為關心香港民主進程的人來說,這是最令人失望的政改序幕。

民主派指符合「民主程序」

公 民提名最早是由現今工黨成員於○九年一個民主派「武林大會」席上提出的。當時第二次政改諮詢還沒開始,對於一個絕對符合民主原則的建議,民主派當然沒有理 由反對。但隨即五區公投把所有政改討論拋至幕後;至五區公投完結,離開第二次政改投票不足三星期,更沒有時間討論任何公民提名之方案。

○七 年十二月二十九日人大常委會「建議」提名委員會「可參照」選舉委員會之組成。這「建議」令民主派不寒而慄,亦給予民主派一個否定提名委員會最理直氣壯的根 本理由。公民提名的建議便如星星之火,燎起了整個民主山頭。可惜的是,建制派和民主派均不願意從一個務實理性的角度去研究公民提名和提名委員會可否共存之 問題。

在民主派眼中,《基本法》第四十五條既然談及提名委員會應跟從「民主程序」提名特首候選人,那麼有甚麼比公民提名更能符合「民主程 序」?只要提名委員會願意接受公民提名,那麼後者便可成為提名委員會的既定提名程序,也絕對不會違反《基本法》之規定。從這角度出發,民主派當然不會理會 這建議若得以落實,實際上是廢掉了提名委員會的大部分功能。在北京政府眼中,這是不能接受的政治後果。雖然也有建制派的學者倡議「公民推薦」,但明顯這不 是解決方法。因為若提委會無條件接受推薦,那麼其功能只會淪如橡皮圖章,實在失去了存在的意義。若提委會否決數萬香港人之提名,其政治後果實在不下於北京 拒絕委任成功當選之特首候選人。在特首競選期間出現如斯之憲制危機,絕對不是任何人願意看到的後果。

各執一詞爭拗無果

同樣 重要的是,就算把公民提名門檻提升至八或十萬,一些民望高企的立法會議員肯定可以輕而易舉地獲得提名。試想想,任何一位地區直選之立法會議員要當選也須得 到四、五萬選票。對一些高民望之議員而言,在全香港五大選區中取得八至十萬提名,有何困難!有民主派人士堅稱具名提名可能比不具名投票更為困難,這說法實 在令人難以信服。對一般小市民而言,怎會怕自己名字在這八至十萬提名群體中被人發現?發現又如何?相反,提名比投票是一比較輕鬆簡易之政治決定,又何懼之 有?

明顯地,公民提名所面對之困難並非憲制上或法律上之問題,而是政治上是否可行之問題。當然,若北京願意接受,這可以說是一個最理想不過 之提名程序。但香港人如何,及能否說服北京?我們應否將所有寶貴的時間耗於唯一一個令雙方立場拉遠的政治爭拗,還是把最少一部分政改討論放回如何在《基本 法》下組成一個有廣泛代表性又符合民主原則之提名委員會?這是一個嚴肅的政治判斷;也是任何一位從政者所須面對之嚴峻考驗,更不是一個容易的抉擇。以特區民主命懸一綫來形容現今之形勢,可說一點也不誇張!