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.
POST OCCUPY CENTRAL - DAY 127:
Full coverage of the day’s events on 21-04
Survival of package may hinge on pan-dem runner
Legislative Council president Jasper Tsang Yok- sing says he has been given to understand that the political reform package has a chance of survival if the regulations permit a pan-democrat candidate rumored to be Civic Party chairwoman Audrey Eu Yuet-mee to enter the 2017 chief executive race.
Tsang said he cannot see any reason why Beijing would regard the person who he did not name as not loving the country and Hong Kong.
"Some core pan-democratic members, who are not in Legco, gave me some examples of a candidate and asked if they had any chance to be formal candidates," he told RTHK.
"I told them, why not? I cannot see any reason why they should not be regarded as people who `love their country and love Hong Kong."'
Tsang also said he cannot see any reason why the Nomination Committee should screen out pan-democratic candidates who love their country and love Hong Kong.
When asked if the unnamed person was Eu, Tsang replied: "You think I am going to answer you?" However, Eu told The Standard she disagreed with this opinion as this was not the correct view on political reform.
"Political reform is not about permitting a specific person to run in the election ... it's about universal and equal principles," she said.
Eu added that even if a specific person is permitted to join the election, it is not a sustainable measure. She does not believe that any pan-democrat would harbor such thoughts.
In the RTHK interview, Tsang also said he is psychologically prepared to cast his vote in Legco to break a deadlock, as he had the responsibility to vote on important issues. He said he is prepared to resign as Legco president after the vote and chairing of the meeting.
When asked if he would resign as a lawmaker, Tsang said he had not considered this.
Tsang did not reply when asked if he will support Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying for re-election. He also said he knows his own limitations and will not enter the chief executive race in 2017, nor the Legco election in 2016.
Massive poll to check views on reform plan
Three universities are to conduct a territory-wide survey on what the public thinks about the government's political reform proposal.
The poll will be conducted daily starting tomorrow until the eve of the Legislative Council vote on the reform proposal.
The University of Hong Kong's Public Opinion Programme, Chinese University of Hong Kong's Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University's Centre for Social Policy Studies will ask people a single question: do you support the political reform proposal for the 2017 chief executive election mapped out by the government?
PolyU center director Chung Kim-wah said the opinion polls would be an indicator for both lawmakers and the government of what the public really thinks of the reform proposal.
Chung said that if 80 percent of respondents oppose the reform, then the government should explain why citizens should accept it. If the opposite is the case, the pan- democrats should think about whether they should veto the proposal.
HKU program director Robert Chung Ting-yiu said they will not view themselves in the war between the government and pan-democrats to drum up public support for or against the political reform.
But pan-democrat lawmakers said they will maintain their stance if the proposal is based on Beijing's decision.
Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau Wai-hing said: "We still maintain our stance to veto the political reform if it fails to give genuine choice for local citizens to elect their favored candidate in the chief executive election."
Labour Party lawmaker Peter Cheung Kwok-che said: "We will keep our promise to veto the political reform as it is our principle to vote against the proposal based on Beijing's August 31 decision."
Academic slap for Occupy students
Newly appointed University of Hong Kong Council member Arthur Li Kwok- cheung says students who took part in the Occupy Central movement were not academically gifted and wanted to appear as heroes in the eyes of their girlfriends.
Speaking to Michael Chugani last night on TVB's Straight Talk program, Li criticized students for becoming too involved in politics.
"Many of these students who take part in political activities are not particularly academically gifted, many of them," the Executive Council member said. "I'm not saying they are stupid, I'm just saying they are not particularly academically gifted. They may be gifted in many other ways ... And they like to be heroes to their girlfriends and so on.
"And therefore, if they can stand out and wave banners and shout slogans, you know, they could look like a hero, couldn't they? And I think this is the attraction of it."
Li, who was elected to the HKU Council last month, also said HKU professors should prioritize their teaching and research duties before attending political events such as Occupy Central.
"I think there is a priority ...You should focus on what the job entails, and you should do that job properly."
Occupy Central co-organizer Benny Tai Yiu-ting is an associate law professor at HKU, while another co-organizer, Chan Kin-man, is an associate sociology professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Chugani then mentioned Federation of Students' new secretary-general Nathan Law Kwun-chung, who said on the same program last week he would consider storming the Legislative Council if the political reform package, due to be unveiled today, gets passed.
"Well, they obviously haven't been taught properly. They haven't been taught values. After all, in Hong Kong, we value the rule of law, we value respect for each other, and when you don't have that, that is a failure. But I wouldn't say the educational system has failed," Li, 69, responded.
He said it would be a "step forward" for Hongkongers if they can go to the polls for the 2017 chief executive election.
"To say that `Oh, we will reject everything because this comes from China, this is no good,"' Li said.
（編按：政務司司長林鄭月娥今日在立法會公布政改方案，法政匯思即時發出聲明回應，現轉載全文如下。）
法政匯思就政府建議的2017年行政長官選舉辦法之聲明
Statement of the Progressive Lawyers Group in relation to Government’s proposal for the method for selecting the Chief Executive in 2017 (Please scroll down for English)
1. 就2017年行政長官的選舉辦法，政府於今日發表了其將向立法會提交的方案（「此方案」）。此方案內容依循全國人民代表大會常務委員會於2014年8月31日作出的決定（「831決定」）：
(a) 提名委員會（「提委會」 ）將由1,200人組成。這1,200人將由一小撮香港人（基於立法設計，絕大部分都是親建制的）及不同類型的實體選擇出來；他們與其隸屬的提委會界別其實未必有任何關連。
(b) 最多10個而每個能夠取得至少120名提委會委員支持的人會獲提委會考慮是否能成為行政長官候選人。
(c) 惟每一位（最多2至3 位）給予香港人進行投票的行政長官候選人必需首先取得超過600名提委會委員支持。從香港人手上獲得最多票數的行政長官候選人將被提交予中央政府任命為行政長官。
2. 《法政匯思》於2015年1月27日發表的意見書中提到：
(a) 831決定中嘗試強加行政長官選舉辦法的具體框架並不具有法律約束力。
(b) 任何依循831決定框架的方案都不是普選。
(c) 若這樣的建議被接納為「普選」，這會製造一個假象，就是根據《基本法》下行政長官要由「普選」產生這個「最終目標」已經實現。這亦會讓當權者將來有機可乘，爭辯說在法律上再沒有需要去修改行政長官的選舉辦法（當然，我們認為這觀點是錯的）。
3. 鑒於上述背景，我們就此方案提出以下要點：
(a) 提委會的組成顯然不代表整體香港市民。
(b) 客許取得120名提委會委員支持的人士被考慮為行政長官候選人只是製造煙幕。不論「入閘門檻」是取得120名，12名甚至只是1名提委會委員的提名，要出閘成為行政長官候選人還需半數，即600名提委的支持，換句話說，可供香港市民選擇的兩至三位特首候選人最終還是來自同一政治陣營。
(c) 當香港市民在此機制下被剝奪一個真正選擇特首的權利，廣大市民投票的機制是如何已不重要。任何通過這投票機制被選出的候選人仍不是從普選產生。
4. 就當權者為求達到別有用心的政治目的而扭曲明確的法律及憲法觀念，《法政匯思》對於這份對法治的不敬感到失望。我們就此要求:
(a) 此方案應被拒絕並收回；及
(b) 政府應立刻履行其憲制責任，就2017年及其後的特首選舉模式提出在香港及國際法下均被認可的普選方案。
法政匯思
2015年4月22日
1. The Government has today released its proposal for the Legislative Council’s consideration on the method for selecting the Chief Executive (“CE”) in2017 (“Proposal”). The Proposal adheres to the Standing Committee of the National People Congress’s decision of 31 August 2014 (“831 Decision”):
(a) The Nominating Committee (“NC”) will consist of 1,200 people. They will be selected by a small minority of(mostly pro-establishment by legislative design) Hong Kongers, as well as by an assortment of entities which may or may not in fact have any connection with their designated NC sector.
(b) Up to 10 persons who each have the support of at least 120 NC members will be put to the NC to consider whether such a person can become a CE candidate.
(c) However, a person can only be presented as a CE candidate to Hong Kongers for voting if he or she is amongst 2 to 3 persons who can garner more than 600 NC members’ support. The person who obtains the most votes will then be presented to the Central Government for appointment as CE.
2. In submissions dated 27 January 2015, the Progressive Lawyers Group noted that:
(a) To the extent that the 831 Decision sought to impose a specific framework for the method for selecting the CE in 2017, it is not legally binding.
(b) Any proposal which adhere to the 831 Decision’s framework is NOT universal suffrage.
(c) If any such proposal is adopted as “universal suffrage”, it would give the false impression that the “ultimate aim” of selecting the CE by “universal suffrage” as stipulated under the Basic Law has been met. It would then be open to those in power to argue (wrongly, in our view) that there is no legal requirement to amend the method for selecting the CE in the future.
3. Against this background, we note the following in relation to the Proposal:
(a) The composition of the NC is clearly unrepresentative of Hong Kongers overall.
(b) The allowing of anyone with 120 NC members’ support to be considered as a potential CE candidate is a smokescreen. Regardless of whether this “entry” threshold is 120 NC members, 12 NC members or even 1 NC member, a person requires support from more than half of all NC members, namely 600 members to become a CE candidate. In other words, Hong Kongers will ultimately only get to choose between 2 to 3 CE candidates from the same political camp.
(c) Once Hong Kongers have been denied a genuine choice for CE in this way, in matters not how the voting by the populace takes place. Whoever is elected by purported popular vote would still not be elected by way of universal suffrage.
4. The Progressive Lawyers Group is disappointed by the disrespect paid by those in power to the rule of law in twisting clear legal and constitutional concepts for their own ulterior political ends. We therefore ask that:
(a) the Proposal be rejected and withdrawn; and
(b) the Government acts swiftly on its constitutional obligation to present a proposal on the method for selecting the CE in 2017 and beyond that does in fact constitute universal suffrage as a matter of domestic and international law.
Progressive Lawyers Group
22 April 2015
法政匯思就政府建議的2017年行政長官選舉辦法之聲明
Statement of the Progressive Lawyers Group in relation to Government’s proposal for the method for selecting the Chief Executive in 2017 (Please scroll down for English)
1. 就2017年行政長官的選舉辦法，政府於今日發表了其將向立法會提交的方案（「此方案」）。此方案內容依循全國人民代表大會常務委員會於2014年8月31日作出的決定（「831決定」）：
(a) 提名委員會（「提委會」 ）將由1,200人組成。這1,200人將由一小撮香港人（基於立法設計，絕大部分都是親建制的）及不同類型的實體選擇出來；他們與其隸屬的提委會界別其實未必有任何關連。
(b) 最多10個而每個能夠取得至少120名提委會委員支持的人會獲提委會考慮是否能成為行政長官候選人。
(c) 惟每一位（最多2至3 位）給予香港人進行投票的行政長官候選人必需首先取得超過600名提委會委員支持。從香港人手上獲得最多票數的行政長官候選人將被提交予中央政府任命為行政長官。
2. 《法政匯思》於2015年1月27日發表的意見書中提到：
(a) 831決定中嘗試強加行政長官選舉辦法的具體框架並不具有法律約束力。
(b) 任何依循831決定框架的方案都不是普選。
(c) 若這樣的建議被接納為「普選」，這會製造一個假象，就是根據《基本法》下行政長官要由「普選」產生這個「最終目標」已經實現。這亦會讓當權者將來有機可乘，爭辯說在法律上再沒有需要去修改行政長官的選舉辦法（當然，我們認為這觀點是錯的）。
3. 鑒於上述背景，我們就此方案提出以下要點：
(a) 提委會的組成顯然不代表整體香港市民。
(b) 客許取得120名提委會委員支持的人士被考慮為行政長官候選人只是製造煙幕。不論「入閘門檻」是取得120名，12名甚至只是1名提委會委員的提名，要出閘成為行政長官候選人還需半數，即600名提委的支持，換句話說，可供香港市民選擇的兩至三位特首候選人最終還是來自同一政治陣營。
(c) 當香港市民在此機制下被剝奪一個真正選擇特首的權利，廣大市民投票的機制是如何已不重要。任何通過這投票機制被選出的候選人仍不是從普選產生。
4. 就當權者為求達到別有用心的政治目的而扭曲明確的法律及憲法觀念，《法政匯思》對於這份對法治的不敬感到失望。我們就此要求:
(a) 此方案應被拒絕並收回；及
(b) 政府應立刻履行其憲制責任，就2017年及其後的特首選舉模式提出在香港及國際法下均被認可的普選方案。
法政匯思
2015年4月22日
1. The Government has today released its proposal for the Legislative Council’s consideration on the method for selecting the Chief Executive (“CE”) in2017 (“Proposal”). The Proposal adheres to the Standing Committee of the National People Congress’s decision of 31 August 2014 (“831 Decision”):
(a) The Nominating Committee (“NC”) will consist of 1,200 people. They will be selected by a small minority of(mostly pro-establishment by legislative design) Hong Kongers, as well as by an assortment of entities which may or may not in fact have any connection with their designated NC sector.
(b) Up to 10 persons who each have the support of at least 120 NC members will be put to the NC to consider whether such a person can become a CE candidate.
(c) However, a person can only be presented as a CE candidate to Hong Kongers for voting if he or she is amongst 2 to 3 persons who can garner more than 600 NC members’ support. The person who obtains the most votes will then be presented to the Central Government for appointment as CE.
2. In submissions dated 27 January 2015, the Progressive Lawyers Group noted that:
(a) To the extent that the 831 Decision sought to impose a specific framework for the method for selecting the CE in 2017, it is not legally binding.
(b) Any proposal which adhere to the 831 Decision’s framework is NOT universal suffrage.
(c) If any such proposal is adopted as “universal suffrage”, it would give the false impression that the “ultimate aim” of selecting the CE by “universal suffrage” as stipulated under the Basic Law has been met. It would then be open to those in power to argue (wrongly, in our view) that there is no legal requirement to amend the method for selecting the CE in the future.
3. Against this background, we note the following in relation to the Proposal:
(a) The composition of the NC is clearly unrepresentative of Hong Kongers overall.
(b) The allowing of anyone with 120 NC members’ support to be considered as a potential CE candidate is a smokescreen. Regardless of whether this “entry” threshold is 120 NC members, 12 NC members or even 1 NC member, a person requires support from more than half of all NC members, namely 600 members to become a CE candidate. In other words, Hong Kongers will ultimately only get to choose between 2 to 3 CE candidates from the same political camp.
(c) Once Hong Kongers have been denied a genuine choice for CE in this way, in matters not how the voting by the populace takes place. Whoever is elected by purported popular vote would still not be elected by way of universal suffrage.
4. The Progressive Lawyers Group is disappointed by the disrespect paid by those in power to the rule of law in twisting clear legal and constitutional concepts for their own ulterior political ends. We therefore ask that:
(a) the Proposal be rejected and withdrawn; and
(b) the Government acts swiftly on its constitutional obligation to present a proposal on the method for selecting the CE in 2017 and beyond that does in fact constitute universal suffrage as a matter of domestic and international law.
Progressive Lawyers Group
22 April 2015
Coconuts
沒有留言:
張貼留言