Occupy Central
Occupy Central is a civil disobedience movement which began in Hong Kong on September 28, 2014. It calls on thousands of protesters to block roads and paralyse Hong Kong's financial district if the Beijing and Hong Kong governments do not agree to implement universal suffrage for the chief executive election in 2017 and the Legislative Council elections in 2020 according to "international standards." The movement was initiated by Benny Tai Yiu-ting (戴耀廷), an associate professor of law at the University of Hong Kong, in January 2013.
Umbrella Movement
The Umbrella Movement (Chinese: 雨傘運動; pinyin: yǔsǎn yùndòng) is a loose political movement that was created spontaneously during the Hong Kong protests of 2014. Its name derives from the recognition of the umbrella as a symbol of defiance and resistance against the Hong Kong government, and the united grass-roots objection to the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) of 31 August.
The movement consists of individuals numbering in the tens of thousands who participated in the protests that began on 28 September 2014, although Scholarism, the Hong Kong Federation of Students, Occupy Central with Love and Peace, groups are principally driving the demands for the rescission of the NPCSC decision.
The movement consists of individuals numbering in the tens of thousands who participated in the protests that began on 28 September 2014, although Scholarism, the Hong Kong Federation of Students, Occupy Central with Love and Peace, groups are principally driving the demands for the rescission of the NPCSC decision.
Occupy Central site in an area surrounding the Legislative Council and Central Government Offices at Tamar were cleared 22-06-2015.
Hong Kong reform vote
The Hong Kong government’s political reform proposal for how the city elects its leader by universal suffrage for the first time in 2017 is based on a strict framework set by Beijing. The plan limits the number of candidates to two or three and requires them to win majority support from a 1,200 strong nominating committee. Arguing that this does not constitute genuine universal suffrage, pan-democratic lawmakers have vowed to reject the package, while pro-democracy groups have protested. The government’s resolution was to be put to a vote by the 70-member Legislative Council in June 2015, requiring a two-thirds majority to be passed.
POST OCCUPY CENTRAL - DAY 206
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 21
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 21
Full coverage of the day’s events on 09-07
Political struggle should end
CHIEF EXECUTIVE Leung Chun-ying has said the government has suggested that the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council (Legco) have five extra sessions so that its application for funding for setting up an Innovation and Technology Bureau (ITB) will go through before Legco goes into recess. There is no doubt that Leung is anxious for economic development. Nevertheless, because of pan-democratic legislators' filibustering and wilful opposition, there is now no discernible reason why one should be optimistic that this application will go through the Finance Committee.
It is three years since the government's ITB proposal was first discussed in the legislative chamber. Whenever it is tabled, it is soon killed with filibustering. We have observed where the pan-democratic legislators stand. Some of them have pitted themselves against Leung without more ado. They are firmly opposed to the proposal simply because it is Leung that has put it forward. Others have tried to make things difficult by asking the authorities to put forward their blueprints for and visions of innovation and technology. They have in fact set themselves against Leung. At first only a very small number of extremist legislators used the ITB proposal as a handle. Now all the pan-democratic legislators are opposed to it. One may say the controversy has become a personal war between them and Leung. Judging from what has been done by those on the offensive and those on the defensive, the solemn legislative chamber has become a place for emotional disputes. Both sides are swayed by personal feelings, and none is anywhere near as objective, sensible and down-to-earth as one ought to be in dealing with public affairs.
Some pan-democratic legislators are being extremist for the sake of extremism. Under the proportional representation system, they have to please only an extremely small percentage of voters to get sufficient support and remain honourable members of the legislature. It is in their interests to depart from what is right. Their attitude is understandable in this light. The government's proposal to set up an ITB bears upon the interests of the information technology (IT) sector, and nothing negative is discernible of it from the perspective of economic development. Therefore, the legislator of this sector ought reasonably to support it vigorously. Nevertheless, because of his political needs and for the sake of political struggle, he, like others, is opposed to it and covertly eager to do Leung. It is clear from this that, once one puts politics first, one will not look at things sensibly or objectively or deal with them matter-of-factly.
Pan-democratic legislators accuse Leung of political struggle. But they are like the pot that calls the kettle black. Have they not been politically struggling against Leung over the past three years? It is hard to imagine those in power would just resign themselves to their doom when those in the opposition are wilfully provocative and bent on struggling against them to bring them down. What has caused the white-hot struggle between the government and the opposition? Who is to blame for it? People who hold different views or look at things from different perspectives have different answers to those questions. But it is a fact that, while Leung has given ground and hopes to have a "new cooperative relationship", the pan-democratic legislators refuse to budge and persist in struggling against him. Will the situation change when legislators consider the government's proposal to set up an ITB? From the answer to this question one may tell whether Hong Kong will be well run and whether executive-legislature relations will again be as they ought to be in the next two years. For the sake of economic development and Hong Kong's best interests, one of course hopes the government will clear the hurdle and succeed in setting up an ITB. It is a shame that none is certain that this hope will come true. One can now only pray.
朝野放棄政治鬥爭 免使香港繼續沉淪
特首梁振英表示政府提出立法會財委會加開5次會議，目的為爭取創新及科技局在休會前獲通過撥款成立，梁振英心急發展經濟，毋庸置疑，只是在泛民議員拉布和蓄意針對下，創科局撥款申請能否闖過財委會這一關，暫時未見樂觀的理由。
政府設立創科局，在立法會已經討論了3年，歷次提出，都被拉布拖死。檢視泛民議員的取態，部分二話不說，把矛頭直指梁振英，堅決反對是因為由他提出設立創科局；部分以要求當局交代創新科技藍圖、願景之名，行百般刁難之實，實質是與梁振英對着幹。創科局議題在立法會，原本只有個別偏激議員操作，現在演變至全體泛民議員的共同反對事項，可以說已經成為泛民議員與梁振英之間的人際戰爭，從相互攻防招數看來，莊嚴的議事堂已經淪為意氣之爭之所，對壘雙方都意氣用事，完全偏離了處理公共事務應有的客觀理性、實事求是的精神和要求。
個別泛民議員為偏激而偏激，他們只要討好極端少數人，在比例代表制選舉中，就可以獲得足夠支持，繼續當尊貴議員，因此，他們的取態雖然偏離正道，在利益當頭下，仍然可以理解；政府設立創新及科技局關乎資訊科技界別利益，而從推動經濟發展角度，設立創科局看不到有何消極之處，這個界別的議員理應大力支持成立，只是，為了政治需要，更為了政治鬥爭操作，資訊科技界別議員竟然也與政府對着幹，同樣隱蔽地對付梁振英。此事反映一旦政治掛帥，就不會理性客觀看待問題，也不會實事求是地處理問題。
泛民議員指摘梁振英搞政治鬥爭，這是五十步笑百步而已，3年以來，泛民議員何嘗不是以政治鬥爭手段對付梁振英？若在野力量蓄意挑釁，志切要鬥倒權力當局，則很難想像對手會束手待斃。目前朝野鬥爭白熱化，孰令致之？哪一方是始作俑者？不同立場或不同角度的人，會有不同認知和答案。客觀事實是梁振英退讓了，期望有「新合作關係」，但是泛民議員未調整，堅持鬥下去，這般情勢在今次審議創科局會否有改變，是未來兩年香港管治良窳、行政立法關係會否回復合理狀態的觀察點。從經濟發展和香港最大利益出發，當然希望政府闖關成功，成立創科局。可惜這個期望，現在只能祈禱，誰都沒有把握。
Coconuts
沒有留言:
張貼留言