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 220
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 35
POST REFORM VOTE：DAY 35
Full coverage of the day’s events on 23-07
Editorial﹕Political "revolving door"
CHIEF EXECUTIVE Leung Chun-ying has said two bureau secretaries will leave office and announced who will replace them. This is a rare change in the composition of the team of principal officials that has happened since the incumbent administration took office over three years ago. It can be regarded as a reshuffle of the "Leung team".
The replacement of the bureau secretaries shows the political "revolving door" idea is worth another discussion. The office of Secretary for the Civil Service is quite special. Though the accountability system was adopted in 2002, the post has been held by civil servants, and it has been the case that a civil servant appointed to the post should remain a civil servant. Therefore, the post has little to do with the political "revolving door". Conceivably, the decision to have Commissioner of Customs and Excise Clement Cheung replace Paul Tang as Secretary for the Civil Service will be in keeping with this convention and thus have few special political implications. However, the promotion of Lau Kong-wah to Secretary for Home Affairs is a typical "revolving door" case.
The government has in recent years taken on a number of people who belong to the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB). They have achieved various successes in their respective posts. But the SAR government is the government of the more than seven million citizens. It is certainly not possible for any single party to mirror the diversity that characterises Hong Kong. Furthermore, there are other groups in the pro-establishment camp apart from the DAB, and there are surely many members of the elite who share pro-establishment camp's ideas. Then, why is the government partial towards the DAB in bringing up political talents and allotting powers? Is that conducive to harmony and good government? These are questions one ought to think about.
It is understandable for the administration to want the members of the ruling team to have similar ideas. However, it does not follow that the government should take on people belonging to a single party. In fact, a highly homogeneous government team is prone to be biased, and that would not make it easier to run a society consisting of diverse sectors and strata. The SAR government should be so open-minded as to take on capable people from various quarters lest a single party's predominance should result in imbalance. The situation would be even graver if none in the pro-establishment camp other than DAB members were employable, for that would show there are problems with the quality and ability of those belonging to the pro-establishment camp. Nevertheless, it is clear from some people's abilities and accomplishments that there are no such problems. Furthermore, there is no lack of pan-democrats who are down to earth and whose clout and ability must not be slighted. It is of even greater significance for the government to make the "revolving door" open to them because, if it does so, more capable and high-minded people will serve Hong Kong citizens.
Nevertheless, pan-democrats should entertain new ideas about joining the government. So far they have refrained from doing so. Pan-democrats will treat a person who has gone along with them in the fight for democracy as a mere stranger or, in a worse case, bash him if he becomes an official. This is quite clear from what has happened to a few officials with pan-democratic backgrounds. Pan-democrats may consider their enmity towards the administration essential for their survival. However, as it has become clearer and clearer that their "destructive" role leads to social retrogression, this path has become narrower and narrower. Will they not have a wider scope if they mend their ways and play a "constructive" role? This merits pan-democrats' deep thought.
特區政治旋轉門 可對各黨派敞開
特首梁振英宣布兩名局長離任和接替人選，這是3年多以來，現屆政府少有的主要官員變動，亦可視為「梁班子」一次改組。
今次局長人事變動，顯示政治上的「旋轉門」，值得再提出來討論。公務員事務局長歷來較特別，即使在2002年實施問責制之後，局長仍由公務員出任，而且保留公務員身分，使這個職位更替與旋轉門沒有多大關係。原海關關長張雲正接替鄧國威出任公務員事務局長，想必也沿襲這個慣例，不具備特別政治意涵。至於原任政制及內地事務局副局長劉江華升任民政事務局長，則是其中一個旋轉門的典型個案。
近年，政府多吸納民建聯成員加入，他們在各個崗位的表現，自有一定成績。不過，特區政府是全港700多萬名市民的政府，單一政黨肯定不能反映本港的多元化特質，即使就建制陣營而言，除了民建聯，還有其他黨派，以至在理念上與建制陣營契合的社會精英，肯定不少。然則，特區政府在培養政治人才、分配權力為何獨厚於民建聯，這對達致良好管治和促進和諧是否有幫助，是需要思考的問題。
政府期望管治團隊理念一致，可以理解，但是理念一致不等於用人都出於單一黨派。事實上，政府團隊同質性太高，較容易流於偏頗，在應對多元多樣組合的社會，對管治並無好處。特區政府應該開放思維，吸納更多各方面人才加入，防止單一黨派獨大可能出現的失衡。設若建制陣營中人除了民建聯成員之外，再無可用之人，則情况就更嚴重，因為此乃反映建制陣營的質素和能量存在問題。不過，放眼檢視一些人的能力和表現，並不存在這樣的情况和問題。另外，泛民陣營取態理性務實，能力能量不宜小覷之士亦大不乏人，若旋轉門同樣向他們敞開，對吸納能人志士服務市民，更具意義。
不過，泛民陣營對是否加入政府，也應該有新思維。泛民陣營一直拒絕加入政府，連在民主路上的同道中人若晉身官場，在泛民陣營所獲待遇，輕者視同陌路，重者要面對詆毁攻訐，這在少有的民主派背景的官員遭遇，已經體現出來。泛民若認為繼續敵視特區政府，是他們的生存之道，則隨着市民逐漸清楚「破壞者」的角色，會使社會倒退，這條路線將會愈來愈窄，若改弦更張成為「建設者」，會否出現天地寬的局面？值得泛民人士深思。
Coconuts
沒有留言:
張貼留言