程翔講座：政改方案通過後香港政制發展的前景

Chinese Only 中文

Newsletter on Political Reform #8 政改通訊第八期

[Please scroll down for the English version]

18.6.2010

政改第八期通訊

「偽普選 真倒退」─對喬曉陽政改講話的回應

全國人大常委會副秘書長喬曉陽願意向港人闡釋對「普選」的概念，雖有助港人了解中央政府對香港民主化進 程的看法，但無助掃除港人對民主路線圖的疑慮，原因如下：

1. 喬曉陽一方面表示同意「普選」是指選舉權的 普及而平等，另一方面為未來的選 舉制度設下多個框框，基本上與平等原則截然違背。就有關制度必須與香港特區行政主導的 政治體制相適應一點而言，我們認為經 開放民主程序提名普選產生的行政長官才能建立強勢領導。兼顧香港社會各階層利 益的最佳辦法，無過於每個階層個人平等參與投票選舉以反映各自的訴求，這是目前半數立法會議席由公司票及特權人士選出的做法所不能比擬的。在先進資本主義國家廣泛實施的民主普選 制度證明行之有效，相信同樣有利於香港資本主義經 濟的發展；
2. 再者，喬曉陽只提到選舉權的普及平等，沒有承諾投票權及被提名權都會貫徹普及平等原則；
3. 更嚴重的是，喬曉陽直接否定了現時取得足夠提名票數 便可參選的做法，他直言未來行政長官提名委員會按「民主程序」提名候選人，與現行的行政長官選舉 委員會由100名委員個人聯合提名候 選人，「完全是兩種不同的提名方式，沒有甚麼可比性」。他更進一步指出「普選時提名的民主程序 如何設計，需要根據基本法的規定深入研究」，相信提名委員會將發揮篩選機製作用，日後的選舉只有篩選後的候選人可供選擇，不會有真正競爭的行政長官選舉，「普選」於是名存實亡。
4. 喬曉陽以歷史原因，堅持保留功能界別。

由此可見，未來的政治制度並不會比現在的更民主，「政制向前走」帶來的反而是「民主大倒退」。政改失敗可能會撕裂社會，港人難以修補與中央的關係，代價太過沉重，必須力挽狂瀾。

最後，公共專業聯盟希望中央及特區政府能把握廣納民意，為香港建構民主包容的政治制度。

公共專業聯盟

2010年6月

Newsletter on Political Reform #8

“Fake Universal Suffrage, Genuine Step Back”

–Responses from The Professional Commons on Qiao Xiaoyang’s Speech on Political Reform

Although the speech from The Deputy Secretariat of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress Qiao Xiaoyang indicated that he is willing to exemplify the meaning of “universal suffrage” on the interpretation from the central Government to Hong Kong people, and has explained the views on the progress of democratization of the central government, it offers no help in addressing the concerns of the Hong Kong public on the roadmap of democracy. Here are the reasons why the general public would still be worried:

1. Although Qiao Xiaoyang expressed that he agreed with the idea that “universal suffrage” means the exercise of the principles of universal fairness in election rights, he has set many constraints on the design of the electoral system. Such constraints violate equality principles. As for the argument of which the system should be consistent with the executive-led political system in Hong Kong, we are of the view that strong leadership could only be built through the selection of the Chief Execution based upon election by universal suffrage and through an open and democratic procedure. The best practice for fostering the representation of different interests among the sectors of society in Hong Kong is the reflection of these demands through the equal right of participation among the individuals from the different sectors. The selection of legislators by universal suffrage is simply no match compared with the current practice in which half of the legislators are selected through corporate votes and from privileged sectors. The democratic electoral system as adopted in advanced capitalist countries has been running smoothly for a long time. We believe that a similar system would be beneficial to the development of the capitalist economy in Hong Kong.
2. Secondly, Qiao only mentioned the adoption of the “universal and fair” principles in voting rights; he does not promise the exercise of “universal and fair” principles in both the voting rights and the rights for being nominated to be the candidates in the elections.
3. An important point to note is that Qiao Xiaoyang directly objected to the current practice in which candidates would be able to run after obtaining the minimum threshold of votes; he bluntly stated that the nomination of the candidates in the Chief Executive election should be conducted under the “democratic procedures” from the Nomination Committee for the Selection of the Chief Executive. He stated that “they are in fact two different means of nomination, in which they cannot be compared directly”. He also stated “as for the means of design for the “democratic procedures” during the exercising of universal suffrage, it is pending for further studies in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Law”. It is believed that the Nomination Committee would exercise the function of screening candidates, and so there would be pre-screened candidates which could be able to stand formally in the Chief Executive election. There would not be a Chief Executive election which could have genuine competition. This would render a situation in which the “universal suffrage” would exist only in name, but not in substance.
4. Qiao Xiaoyang insists on retaining functional constituencies for historical reasons.

As we can see from Qiao’s speech, the political system in the future would not become more democratic than it is now. Not only would the political system not be able to “move forward”, it would “make a major step back”. The failure of the political package would dismantle society, and wound Hong Kong’s relationship with the Mainland which would not be healed that easily. The cost, as such, would be too high, and it would be necessary to do one’s utmost to stem the raging tide.

Lastly, the Professional Commons hopes that both the central government and the HKSAR Government fully understand and acknowledge public opinion, and construct a democratic and tolerant political system for all.

The Professional Commons

June 2010



新聞稿 : 「偽普選 真倒退」 ─對喬曉陽政改講話的回應

Chinese Only 中文

新民主運動第二波研討會

Chinese Only 中文

Talk : “Genesis of Himalayan Consensus” by Mr. Laurence Brahm

The Professional commons has a great honor to invite Mr. Laurence Brahm to give a talk on “Genesis of Himalayan Consensus”.  To learn more about the Himalayan Consensus, please refer to the link http://www.laurencebrahm.com/himalayan-consensus/himalayan-consensus

Laurence Brahm is a global activist, international mediator, political columnist and author. He is the leading advocate of a fresh development paradigm – The Himalayan Consensus – an innovative approach to development. The Himalayan Consensus emphasizes empowering people with local pragmatism in place of broad sweeping globalized ideology and theory. If you have interest to come, please register by the following link.

Detail
Date: 24th May 2010
Time: 5:00pm
Venue: Room B6605, City University of Hong Kong (Kowloon Tong Campus)
Topic: Genesis of Himalayan Consensus
Language: English

Profile of the speaker : Laurence Brahm

Member of The United Nations Theme Group on Poverty and Inequality, Laurence Brahm is a global activist, international mediator, political columnist and author. He is the leading advocate of a fresh development paradigm – The Himalayan Consensus – an innovative approach to development. The Himalayan Consensus emphasizes empowering people with local pragmatism in place of broad sweeping globalized ideology and theory.

The Himalayan Consensus evolved from Brahm’s years embedded as a central government advisor in Vietnam and Laos in the early 1990s, during which Brahm vociferously opposed the “shock therapy” policy prescriptions of the Washington Consensus. During these years, Brahm drafted the overarching financial reforms and accompanying policy legislation that led to economic take-off and continues to serve as the development framework for these countries to this day. Two decades later, Vietnam and Laos are examples of the success of Brahm’s policy advice, in contrast to the graveyard status of the “shock therapy” method.

Brahm went on to advise Cambodia, Mongolia and ultimately China’s economic tsar, former Premier Zhu Rongji, during the critical years that Zhu supervised China’s transition from planned to market economy, creating the economic miracle China has today. A member of the inner circle of Zhu’s economic advisors and a trusted personal friend to several of China’s leaders, advice provided by Brahm was regularly sought behind China’s state-owned enterprise, banking, and monetary reforms that paved the way for China’s entry into the WTO in 2001. During these years, Brahm coined the “China Century” theory which juxtaposed the doomsday “China Collapse” view held by certain scholars in the West. Brahm also documented the reforms that he personally witnessed in his biography of Zhu.

Following China’s entry into the WTO in 2001, Brahm considered his work on economic and monetary reform policy in Beijing to be finished, as the reform process would now be magnetized by global integration through the WTO as opposed to being driven by policy decision-making of individual leaders.

Brahm shifted his focus from coastal China to the western regions, moving to the Himalayan Plateau and seeking alternative economic experiences relevant to rural poverty alleviation and environmental protection as opposed to urban industrialization. At this point, Brahm’s previous work as alternative developmental advocate evolved into that of a global activist.

Since 2002, Brahm has refused any further engagements with multinational corporations as investment advisor and strategist and moved from Beijing to Lhasa, where he began an extensive program of heritage building restoration, microequity empowerment for marginalized women and the handicapped, medical outreach programs (including establishing clinics in monasteries and campaigns to rid blindness among nomadic and poor populations), and the first free education Montessori school in the Tibet Autonomous Region.

Brahm’s extensive writing and film documentation of experiences on the Tibetan Plateau during the years 2002-2006 emerged in a book trilogy of Himalayan travelogues: Searching for Shangri-la, Conversations with Sacred Mountains, and Shambhala. These were followed by a fourth book (New Age Sutra) and two art heater films (Searching for Shangri-la and Shambhala Sutra). These works expressed Brahm’s multifaceted concerns over environmental protection, ethnic identity, poverty alleviation, income gap redistribution, and promotion of world peace.

From 2006 onward, Brahm embarked on integrating different experiences across the Himalayan range from Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan to Bangladesh and then Sri Lanka, weaving his experiences into a new paradigm that calls for prioritizing environmental protection, ethnic diversity, and cultural sustainability in the context of the Himalayan Consensus. In March 2009, the concepts of the Himalayan Consensus were crystallized in Brahm’s latest book, The Anti-Globalization Breakfast Club: Manifesto for a Peaceful Revolution, published by John Wiley & Sons.

Tags: Genesis of Himalayan Consensus, Laurence Brahm