「我離港前到過一間精神科醫院。當時有位病人禮貌地問,一個以作為世上最悠久民主政體而自傲的國家,如何能夠將此地交給一個政治制度非常不同的國家,且既沒諮詢當地公民,又沒給予他們民主的前景,好讓他們捍衞自己的將來。一個隨行同事說,奇怪,香港提出最理智問題的人,竟在精神科醫院。」彭定康 金融時報

“During a visit to a mental hospital before I left Hong Kong, a patient politely asked me how a country that prided itself on being the oldest democracy in the world had come to be handing over his city to another country with a very different system of government, without either consulting the citizens or giving them the prospect of democracy to safeguard their future. Strange, said one of my aides, that the man with the sanest question in Hong Kong is in a mental hospital.”Chris Patten Financial Times

Non Chinese literate friends, please simply switch to English Version provided by LOUSY Google Translation

Please participate in the unregistered demography survey of visitors at the right hand side bar. You are: ?

敬請參與在右下方的不記名訪客分佈調查問卷,你是: ?

Monday, September 08, 2014

存檔 Archive:肥彭 vs 懵董 談香港政改

存檔 Archive: 肥彭 vs 懵董 談香港政改



近日關于香港政改引來很多人 “討論”!


肥彭 has something to say 。。。。。
(please refer to my header)

Patten criticises UK over failure to act on Hong Kong reforms


【FT】Britain is honour bound to speak up for differences in Hong Kong By Chris Patten

When Beijing attacks MPs for commenting on the territory, it forgets the UK has treaty obligations, writes Chris Patten

The former British colony of Hong Kong has all the attributes of a liberal society except one: its people lack the ability to choose who governs them. The latest political convulsion in the territory has been caused by electoral arrangements proposed by the National People’s Congress, which would prevent democrats and others of whom China might disapprove from seeking election as chief executive in a vote of Hong Kong’s citizens.

Such vetting is more or less what happens in Iran. Sooner or later this plan, or a modification of it, will have to be voted on by Hong Kong’s legislature, and I hope a compromise can be found. The territory’s citizens remain remarkably moderate and responsible. It is not democracy that produces the sort of mass demonstrations we have recently witnessed but its denial.

I have expressed my agreement with Andrew Li Kwok-nang, the distinguished former Chief Justice, who has written that Beijing’s views on the status of the Hong Kong judiciary raise concerns about judicial independence and therefore the integrity of the rule of law. But in the 17 years since I left the territory at the end of my term as the last British governor, I have tried to avoid being drawn into the debate about democracy there, lest my intervention complicate matters.

On this occasion my comments are not directed principally to Beijing or Hong Kong’s democrats. What a former Hong Kong governor can more legitimately do is to invite an interrogation of Britain’s sense of honour. It may not be welcome to ministers, at a time when so many appallingly difficult international issues crowd their agenda, to remind them that we have moral responsibilities for what happens in Hong Kong.

The Joint Declaration under which the territory passed from British to Chinese rule guaranteed Hong Kong’s way of life for 50 years after 1997. Deng Xiaoping’s “one country, two systems” pledge is backed by an international treaty, lodged at the UN. As successive British governments have accepted, the UK has a continuing “moral and political obligation” to ensure that China respects its commitments.

When Chinese officials attack British MPs and others for commenting on developments in Hong Kong, they ignore the fact that Britain too has treaty obligations for 50 years, which reflect what our country has said and promised in the past. Failure to do as we pledged would clearly be dishonourable.

In the 1980s and 1990s, parliament was told that the development of democratic structures underpin the territory’s stability, prosperity and limited autonomy. No one envisaged that, 30 years after the Joint Declaration, a fair electoral system would still be beyond the horizon.

Sooner or later, I assume, the British government will comment on Beijing’s plan. This would not be a provocation but a duty. No one can seriously believe that this would have commercial consequences, or that such consequences should be an overriding concern when our honour is on the line. We have a huge stake in the wellbeing of Hong Kong, with a political system in balance with its economic freedom. I hope these questions will be resolved in a way that does not jeopardise the city’s future.

China’s ascent has been a bonus for the world. It is not a threat. Surprisingly, however, it has not yet been accompanied by an accretion of China’s soft power. The way in which Beijing handles Hong Kong’s aspirations will clearly affect that.

Yet my main appeal is to Westminster not China. During a visit to a mental hospital before I left Hong Kong, a patient politely asked me how a country that prided itself on being the oldest democracy in the world had come to be handing over his city to another country with a very different system of government, without either consulting the citizens or giving them the prospect of democracy to safeguard their future. Strange, said one of my aides, that the man with the sanest question in Hong Kong is in a mental hospital.

But we did promise him democracy. We should go on making that point, ever so diplomatically. If not us, then who?

The writer was governor of Hong Kong between 1992 and 1997




明報翻譯成中文 。。。。。。。



【明報專訊】對於英國未能譴責北京計劃在香港推行的政改框架,彭定康在今日英國《金融時報》撰文,質疑英國的「榮譽感」。

他表示,中國提出的改革方案將導致伊朗那種受指揮的民主。他表示,部長級官員們對於香港的情況負有「道義責任」,暗示英國因為顧慮商業領域的報復而不敢開口。

文章標題為「香港困局考問英國道義責任」,以下為文章中譯版﹕

前英國殖民地香港具有一個自由社會的所有性質,唯一的例外是香港市民缺乏選擇由誰管治自己的能力。這個特別行政區最新的政治痙攣是由全國人大提議的選舉安排引起的,這一安排將阻止民主派和中國可能不認同的其他派別人士競選行政長官,參加一場全體市民投票的選舉。

這種審核在一定程度上與伊朗的制度相同。這個計劃(或其修改後的版本)遲早將提交香港立法會投票表決,我希望各方能夠找到一個妥協方案。香港市民仍然是非常溫和、負責任的。釀成我們近期見證的那種大規模示威的,並不是民主,而恰恰是對民主的拒絕。

我已經表達了我認同香港終審法院前首席法官李國能(Andrew Li Kwok-nang)的看法。他寫道,北京方面對於香港司法體系地位的觀點,令人擔憂司法獨立,進而擔憂法治的完好性。但在我結束自己末任香港總督任期、離開香港以來的17年裏,我一直試圖避免捲入有關香港民主的辯論,以免我的介入使問題復雜化。

這一次,我的意見主要不是針對北京,也不是針對香港的民主派。一名前香港總督可以更合理地做的事,是邀請各方拷問英國的榮譽感。在部長級官員們的議程上有那麼多困難得令人震驚的國際問題之際,提醒他們英國對香港的情況負有道義責任,可能不受這些官員們的歡迎。

《中英聯合聲明》保證了香港在1997年回歸中國後的50年生活方式不變;英國據此將香港主權移交給中國。鄧小平的一國兩制承諾被列入一份在聯合國備案的國際條約。正如歷屆英國政府都認可的,英國在確保中國尊重其承諾方面負有持續的「道德和政治義務」。

當中國官員抨擊英國議員和其他人就香港事態發表評論時,他們忽略了這樣一個事實:英國也負有50年的條約義務,反映出我國在過去說過的話、作出過的承諾。未能履行我方的承諾顯然將是不光彩的。

20世紀80和90年代,英國議會被告知,民主架構的發展支撐著香港的穩定、繁榮和有限自治。沒有人預料到,在《中英聯合聲明》簽署30年後的今天,一個公平的選舉制度仍然是不可企及的。

我假定,英國政府遲早將對北京的計劃發表評論。這將不是一種挑釁,而是一種責任。沒有人能真的相信,這將產生商業方面的後果,或者說,在我們的榮譽命懸一線的情況下,這樣的後果應該是壓倒一切的考慮因素。

香港的福祉,香港擁有與經濟自由相稱的政治體制——這些對我們事關重大。我希望這些問題將在不危及香港未來的情況下得到解決。

中國的崛起迄今對世界是一大利好。中國不是一個威脅。但令人驚訝的是,這種崛起尚未伴隨中國軟實力的增強。北京方面把握香港抱負的方式顯然將影響這一點。

然而,我的主要訴求是針對英國議會,而不是中國的。在我離開香港之前,我曾走訪香港一間精神病院,一個病人禮貌地問我,一個號稱是世界上最古老民主國家的國家,怎麼能在既不徵求市民意見、又不給他們留下民主前景以捍衛自己未來的情況下,把他所在的城市交給政府體制非常不同的另一個國家?當時我的一個助手說,怪事,住在精神病院的一個男子居然提出了香港最清醒的問題。

但是,我們確實向他作出了民主承諾。我們應該繼續以高超的外交手腕強調這一點。如果我們不這麼做,又有誰會這麼做呢?



結果英國外交部也作出回應 。。。。。


【明報專訊】英國外交及聯邦事務部發言人回應本港政改方案,稱歡迎中國確認普選為目標,但承認沒有完美的普選模式。

回應稱,英國的立場一向認為,政改方案的細節是香港和中國政府並香港市民各方按照基本法來決定。

回應又稱,雖然英國承認,沒有完美的模式,最重要的是,香港市民有真正的選擇和對結果存在真正的持份關係,英方知悉到,全國人大已為2017年選舉作出的詳細條文,將令那些主張要有更開放提名程序的人士失望。

發言人希望下一階段的諮詢,會達至一些安排,能夠令香港的民主有個具意義的推進,同時鼓勵各方建設性地討論以達成這個目的。



英國回應的英文原文如下:

Foreign Office responds to Hong Kong reform plans

【UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office】An FCO spokesperson said:
We welcome the confirmation that China’s objective is for the election of Hong Kong’s Chief Executive through universal suffrage.

The UK’s position has always been that the detail of the constitutional package is for the Governments of Hong Kong and China and the people of Hong Kong to decide in line with the Basic Law.

While we recognise that there is no perfect model, the important thing is that the people of Hong Kong have a genuine choice and a real stake in the outcome.

We recognise that the detailed terms that the National People’s Congress has set for the 2017 election will disappoint those who are arguing for a more open nomination process.

We hope that the next period of consultation will produce arrangements which allow a meaningful advance for democracy in Hong Kong, and we encourage all parties to engage constructively in discussion to that end.




連 董建華 都不甘寂寞出來 has to say something 。。。。!
(please refer to my header again)

Full text of former Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa’s speech on Hong Kong’s political reform


【SCMP】The decision by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee a few days ago on the framework for the election of the chief executive has confirmed that from 2017 onward the people of Hong Kong will elect our chief executive by universal suffrage, fulfilling the collective aspiration of the people of Hong Kong. I fully support this decision, just as large numbers of Hong Kong people do.

At the same time, I observed many friends in the pan-democratic camp have reacted with anger and disappointment to the NPC decision. I understand how they feel. I understand how deeply and strongly felt those emotions are. This is why what I am going to say now also comes from deep within me.

In 1997, I was chosen chief executive by a selection committee composed of only 400 people. Subsequently, the committee was expanded from 400 to 800, and later from 800 to 1200. Each time, we took a significant step towards democracy.

By 2017, we will no longer be taking just another incremental step; we will be ushering Hong Kong into a new chapter in history, a grand chapter to be written collectively by the people of Hong Kong. This is because by then, some five million voters in Hong Kong will have a chance to cast their ballots. Come to think of it: of the 2.4 million families in Hong Kong, each will have at least one member eligible to vote.

Between 1997 and 2017, a short span of just 20 years, we have moved from having Britain parachute a governor into Hong Kong to having five million voters choosing their own leader. In the grand sweep of history, this is a glittering achievement. It represents the well-deserved fruits of our desire for democracy. It is also concrete proof of our nation’s positive response to our aspiration.

Today, on the eve of Hong Kong’s crucial development in our long history, on the verge of our going for the biggest political leap, how can we possibly choose to stand still? How can we let our march towards democracy stop and stall?

Five million voters personally picking their leader is not airy-fairy democracy. It is democracy real and substantial. What’s more, this is by no means democracy in its final form. If, after 2017, we desire to further improve our democratic system, there is clear mechanism within the Basic Law for us to do so.

Regardless of their political stance, Hong Kong people have demonstrated their political sensibility and maturity. Most are moderate and rational. There are outstanding talents on both sides of the political divide, and many of them are patriots with an abiding love for our city. In essence, anyone who are patriotic and love Hong Kong are free to win over the support of the 1,200 Nomination Committee members with their vision, political ideals, and proven record of service to our community, and seek nomination as a candidate in the 2017 CE election. The final choice of our leader rests with the five million voters.

Democracy doesn’t have a final destination, and to fight for democracy is far from being the whole story in improving people’s livelihood – which after all is the ultimate test of good governance. I appeal to people of all political stripes to come together, and turn negative sentiments into positive energy. Hand in hand, we will build a sound electoral arrangement on the basis of the foundation laid down by NPC.

I am resolutely opposed to Occupy Central because it is against the law. I have no doubt that many of those who are sympathetic towards Occupy Central are patriots and true-blue Hongkongers at heart. We may have our differences of views, but we are united by our desire to see our city succeed and prosper.

I do not approve to the call for students to boycott classes. But I believe the students are motivated to do so by their love of Hong Kong. They are idealistic and filled with passion. Many of us are parents. Our children deserve our understanding, care, and protection.

I therefore appeal to all teachers and parents to join together in protecting our young and their core values and to make sure that their studies are not disrupted. After all, they are the future of Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is our home. We have to work together. The only way out and the only way forward is through working together hand-in-hand, or otherwise, there will be no end to the bitter squabbles and paralysis.

For the sake of our next generation, let us turn our energy and creativity towards improvements for our electoral system. In two-and-a-half years’ time, five million Hong Kong citizens and all of our 2.4 million families will all have the final say on the choice of our leader. Let us make Hong Kong again our collective pride.




董建華 站立個多鐘頭說話,記者們急忙慰問 "脚痛" 近况。


【明報專訊】全國政協副主席董建華召開記者會,推銷全國人大常委會通過的普選框架,懇請港人接受,這是董建華9年前以腳痛為由辭任特首以來,首次公開談論香港政治議題。董建華對政改的呼籲固然值得參考,另外,他回答提問時承認政治制度有問題,使管治不順甚至出現困境,同樣值得重視。全國政協副主席是國家領導人,這是回歸17年以來,首次有國家領導人公開承認香港的政治制度有問題,目前無從猜度會否有後續發展,若承認問題的背後有良方,使香港走出管治困局,達至良好管治,會是對香港的莫大貢獻,功德無量。

國家領導人承認政制問題 回歸17年以來首次
董建華蟄伏9年之後出山,顯示政改成敗處於關鍵時刻,一般解讀為中央欲借助他的德高望重,參與推動政改,落實人大常委會設定的普選;不過,不能排除董建華參與推動政改工作,是出於關心國家、愛護香港的心志。事實上,董建華稍後將率領由重量級工商界和專業界別知名人士組成的訪問團到北京,據知會獲得國家主席習近平接見,訪問團規格之高,是2003年以來僅見;從這些迹象顯示,董建華在今次政改有一定角色。

董建華就政改的觀點,與全國人大常委會副秘書長李飛等京官在港的說法,口徑相若,不過,京官猛批佔中,消費民主派(例如勿把自己的一生貢獻給馬路),又說提委會如美玉,愈見愈可愛等「硬話」與調侃言辭的姿態,與董建華的大氣相比,差之遠矣!董建華對佔中、罷課,沒有絲毫惡言,反而表示理解和籲請社會對學生愛護包容,熟識董建華的人,都會知道這是他出自真心,並非矯情之詞。董建華擺出柔性身段、提出柔性訴求,能否爭取更多市民認同「袋住先」,改變民主派議員否決政改方案的決定,尚待事態發展。可以肯定的是,董建華並未火上加油,或許有更多人會因為他的誠懇而冷靜一下,重新思考。

記者會上,有記者問董建華對行政立法癱瘓、對特首梁振英的評價,他沒有評論梁振英的施政,但是指出癱瘓情况,立法會有責任。董建華進而指出政治制度有問題,因為特首沒有政黨背景,在議會缺乏多數支持,因此運作困難,他特別指出自己任特首到現在情况並無改變。政府有權,在立法會無票,致使政府推動政策,在立法會被議員諸多阻撓,董建華和其後的特首曾蔭權飽嘗施政困局的滋味,現在梁振英政府更要面對少數議員無休止的拉布,事實說明,目前的體制已經使施政失效。

現行畸形政治體制歷經3名4任特首17年,已經證明是香港管治敗局的根源,這個道理,社會人士早已知之,即使是建制派政治人物,私底下溝通交流時,也坦承特首不能有政治背景、在立法會沒有穩定多數支持,是導致內耗空轉、管治失效的主要因素。這個現象顯而易見、道理淺顯,但是建制派在公開發言每每不表態,3名特首在昨日之前,只是捍衛既定制度,未見有半句抱怨,董建華做特首時深受其苦,也是在離任9年之後,才坦承政制有問題。

現行政制,因應特首的孤家寡人景况,原本以為政府與立法會建制黨派組成統治聯盟,可以協助通過政策,推行政令,但是證諸回歸17年的現實,統治聯盟從未強固穩定地出現過,基於政治利益和選票考量,建制黨派拖政府後腿的情况,與泛民黨派不遑多讓,只是程度略有不同而已。特別是梁振英與唐英年兩年多前競逐特首,釀成建制陣營分裂,至今未能整合,政府施政倚賴統治聯盟支持,更是愈行愈遠,渺無蹤影。

放眼未來,隨着建制黨派之間競爭愈趨白熱化,即使人大常委會構思的普選得以落實,也不可能出現輔助特首施政的功能,因為隨之而來的立法會普選,無論是否變相保留功能組別議席,建制黨派利益的爭奪,只會更激烈、不會紓緩。因此,所謂統治聯盟瓦解勢將走上不歸路,政制若不調整,無論有沒有普選,政府只會陷於困境,看不到香港可以走出管治困局。

董建華以過來人的體會,承認政制有問題,箇中不知道有什麼潛台詞,抑或顯露中央終於認識問題所在,將有良方應對。從改變香港管治失效出發,期望承認問題之後,要面對問題,想方設法解決;董建華點出政制問題,在政局混沌中,若結果是帶來切合香港管治實際需要的政治架構,則港人會感謝董建華和聽他進言的中央。

增進了解建立互信 中央泛民應雙向而行
另外,董建華在記者會上,多番勸喻泛民人士多了解國家,勿單純從香港中心出發,要了解國家考慮什麼,相信他的用意是期望使中央覺得與港人有共同語言,而非各說各話而誤解加深。中央與港人缺乏互信,在今次普選爭議完全呈現出來。沒有了解,不可能有互信。董建華呼籲港人、泛民人士對國家的了解,不要停留在老黃曆的日子,要了解國家改革開放以來所取得的成就,國家整體面貌一新等,大多數泛民中人在這方面確有惡補需要;然而,中央是否繼續以僵化目光審視泛民中人,也很重要。事實上,不少泛民中人(包括民主派議員),仍然被拒諸國門,他們連踏足國家的機會也沒有,如何去了解這個國家。

董建華在任期間,曾經嘗試推動泛民與中央和解,因為種種客觀因素而未取得進展,以董建華現在的身分,若他肯重拾這個議題,再努力創造條件與空間,讓中央與泛民走上增進了解、建立互信的道路,對香港同樣是積極而重要的貢獻。




南華早報都有篇新聞報導 董建華 談政改的記者會。


【SCMP】Tung says Hong Kong will usher in a new chapter in history in 2017 written by the people of Hong Kong

Welcomes NPC framework, says election method for chief executive could change after 2017

“I appeal to people of all political stripes to come together and turn negative sentiments into positive energy”

Hong Kong's first chief executive Tung Chee-hwa has called on Hongkongers of "all political stripes" to cast aside their differences and work together to achieve universal suffrage.

The former shipping magnate said it would be democracy "real and substantial" for five million voters in the city to pick their leader in 2017, a claim disputed by critics who say the tougher-than-expected framework set by Beijing will deprive voters of a genuine choice of candidates.

In his first press conference since stepping down as chief executive in March 2005, Tung said it would be a "glittering achievement" for the chief executive to be elected by "one man, one vote" in 2017, 20 years after he was chosen as the city's first leader by a 400-strong selection committee.

"Between 1997 and 2017 - a short span of just 20 years - Hong Kong would have moved from having Britain parachute a governor into Hong Kong to having five million voters choosing their own leader," he said. "We will be ushering Hong Kong into a new chapter in history.


“If we come to a standstill this time, I don’t know when we can move forward again“ TUNG CHEE-HWA


"If we come to a standstill [on constitutional development] this time, I don't know when we can move forward again. That's why I came out today to make the appeal."

His rare comments on Hong Kong's affairs were widely seen as part of Beijing's publicity campaign to defend the decision by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on political reform.

Tung's remarks came a day after the last governor, Chris Patten, wrote in the Financial Times that Britain had a "moral and political obligation" to the city because it co-signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984. "We have a huge stake in the well-being of Hong Kong, with a political system in balance with its economic freedom," Patten wrote.

The framework endorsed by the committee on Sunday allows only two or three candidates to run. They will need approval from the majority of a 1,200-strong nominating committee. Methods for electing the committee, its composition and size will be "in accordance with" those of the election committee that decided the 2012 poll.

All 27 pan-democratic lawmakers vowed on Sunday to veto any government proposal to implement a "one man, one vote" election based on such a model.

During the press conference at the Office of Former Chief Executives, Tung said he noted many pan-democrats reacted with anger and disappointment to the NPC's decision.

"I understand how deeply and strongly felt those emotions are," he said.

But Tung, a vice-chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, said: "Today, on the eve of Hong Kong's crucial development in our long history, on the verge of our going for the biggest political leap, how can we possibly choose to stand still? How can we let our march towards democracy stop and stall?"

Tung, 77, said the framework set down by the Standing Committee was "comparatively conservative" but also comparatively the best, citing the possible constitutional crisis that would be triggered if someone Beijing deemed unacceptable was elected. "If, after 2017, we desire to further improve our democratic system, there is a clear mechanism in the Basic Law for us to do so.

"I appeal to people of all political stripes to come together and turn negative sentiments into positive energy. Hand in hand, we will build a sound electoral arrangement on the basis of the foundation laid down by NPC."

Although he "resolutely opposed" Occupy Central, Tung said he had no doubt that many of those sympathetic towards the civil disobedience movement were patriots and "true-blue Hongkongers at heart".

He did not approve of calls for students to boycott classes. But he believed some were motivated to do so by a love for Hong Kong.

Tung's comments drew criticism, with Joseph Cheng Yu-shek, convenor of the Alliance for True Democracy, saying: "Hong Kong people can't accept a reform model without a democratic element."

Anson Chan Fang On-sang, who served as chief secretary under Tung, said under Beijing's model "it would be impossible for five million voters to have genuine choice", adding: "It would be 100 per cent fake democracy."






伸延閱覽:
Britain is honour bound to speak up for Hong Kong By Chris Patten FT.COM
UK Foreign Office responds to Hong Kong reform plans gov.uk
Tung Chee-hwa’s speech on Hong Kong’s political reform SCMP
Tung Chee-hwa meeting with the press SCMP




我的舊文:
直 普 篩 量 質










No comments: