Joint Petition from EC Members, Professionals and Academics
NO Functional Constituencies
NO Fake Universal Suffrage
2009 Government Proposal – be Revamped or be Rejected
(Please scroll down to sign the petition)
We are both saddened and angered by the consultation document and the relevant explanations on political reform that were recently issued by the Chief Executive. They clearly oppose the public interest. The document does not have a roadmap for democracy nor a definition of universal suffrage. The Chief Secretary openly declared that he could not find in the basic law that functional constituencies were incompatible with universal suffrage.
During the CE Election in 2007 Mr Donald Tsang promised Hong Kong people to deliver an ultimate solution to the issue of universal suffrage during his five-year term, and spare Hong Kong from the controversy of universal suffrage once and for all. As the Chief Executive, he has the duty to convey Hong Kong people’s demand for universal suffrage to the National People’s Congress.
Instead Mr Tsang, by issuing this Consultation Document, has unambiguously conveyed the following message to the Hong Kong people:
- He has completely reneged on his election promise, and has decided not to resolve the question of universal suffrage during his term;
- He has abandoned his constitutional authority which would allow him to kick-start the process by submitting a report to the Central Authorities that contains a roadmap to universal suffrage.
- He has chosen a policy to try to confuse people, expand political privileges, and aggravate social conflicts.
In view of the above, Mr Tsang has effectively announced that he has neither the intention nor the capability to lead Hong Kong forward. He is now a Chief Executive who has abandoned his responsibilities by forfeiting his constitutional accountability for political development.
THREE QUESTIONS
We believe that all political reform proposals must be judged against three fundamental criteria:
1. Do they improve transparency, accountability, and the legitimacy of government?
2. Do they make government fairer and more effective in solving our problems?
3. Do they advance Hong Kong toward achieving greater democracy or do they stay the same or go backwards?
THREE ANSWERS
Unfortunately, the government reform proposals fail in all three criteria:
1. The secret arrangements that let a few thousand big business people choose nearly half of the Functional Constituency seats without competitive elections continues. The problem of government-big business collusion is left untouched. In 2008 all 30 directly elected Geographic Constituency seats had many candidates, but 14 of the 18 business sector seats had no competition. Why not? Who are these corporate voters and how many hundred votes do some people control? Why do some company directors have votes and most do not? Why do some professionals have votes and many do not? Why is government policy so unfair? It is because half of Legco is elected by unfair means, putting unfair, secretive power at the heart of government.
2. Turning 5 seats in Legco into Functional Constituency seats elected by a few hundred District Councilors brings the secretive deals of the Functional Constituencies out of big business boardrooms and right into the District Councils. This will allow the unfair system in Legco to continue. Adding only 100 directly elected District Councilors to the Chief Executive Election Committee, further increases the risks of corrupt practices and effectively raises the bar for potential CE candidates.
3. Obviously this plan does not improve transparency and accountability. It does not address the cause of unfair government policy, which is the unfair election system for Legco and for Chief Executive. It will not improve the quality of public governance; it will very likely make it even worse by corrupting the District Councils.
One Conclusion
The current proposal is not in line with Hong Kong people’s aspiration for GENUINE Universal Suffrage and total removal of functional constituencies. The Chief Executive must withdraw it and re-issue a more progressive package, and if the Chief Executive insists on supporting this proposal it should be rejected.
Initiators:
| Francis Fong | Charles Mok | Pun Tin Chi |
| Ng Yut Ming | Dennis Kwok | Joseph Cheng |
| Ho Kwok Keung | Chan Ka Lok | Albert Lai |
| Stanley Ng | Chan Kwok Kuen | Bill Lay |
| Chester Soong | Chan Kai Yuen | Philip Dykes |
| Gladys Li | Stephen Chan | CHUNG Kim Wah |
| Ringo Li | Chan King Ming | James Hon |
| LI Yiu Man | Francis Chan | Robin S Bradbeer |
| Woo Hawk Yan | Fung Wai Wah | John Clancey |
| Victor Wai | Paul Wong | Simon So |
| Yuen Shu Tong | Wong Hung | Pok Fook Sun |
| George Cautherley | Wong Keung Sang | Mark Kin Yin Li |
| Cheung Tat Ming | Young Wo Sang | |
| S.C. Leung | Lento Yip | |
| Louis Leung | Kris Liu | |
| Kenneth Leung | Michael DeGolyer |
Co-signatories (Professionals and Academics from all sectors):
Loading…
轉述自曾蔭權先生之口：
Direct Quotes from Mr Donald Tsang:
「無論如何這個普選問題不要交給我下手去做，2012 年前一定要解決問題。…我所講的方案有3 樣東西，設計、路線圖、時間表….尤其今次，大家香港一齊都要玩一鋪勁的。」
“No matter what happens, I would not pass the issue of universal suffrage to my successor. This issue has to be resolved before 2012. …. My proposal shall comprise of three elements: the design, a roadmap and a timetable…. This time, everyone in Hong Kong shall get involved and play hard.”
(Source:《曾蔭權允連任推政改「大家一齊玩鋪勁」普選方案爭六成人支持推介中央》, 明報, 22.3.2007, p. A2)
而且我競選時曾說過，現在我重覆再說一次，我在任內全面徹底解決雙普選問題，我想沒有一個承諾比這更言重。
“As I said during my election campaign, and now I repeat it again, “I will fully resolve the issues concerning universal suffrage during my term”, I believe that no other promise could be stronger than the one I have just said.
(Source:《行政長官立法會答問大會談話全文（五）》, ２００７年１０月１１日,
http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200710/11/P200710110266.htm)
Comments are closed.