防止濫用拉布 避免有權用盡

<轉載自2017年10月10日 明報 社評>

立法會復會在即，硝煙味滾滾而來。建制派提出修改「財委會會議程序」阻止「拉布」，泛民議員反對，認為會削弱立法會監察權力。現在修改議事程序，時機合適與否見仁見智，然而近年「拉布」變本加厲，損害民生，確有需要加強議事效率。議事文化本應有商有量，可惜泛民跟建制陣營缺乏互信，雙方均抱着防人之心不可無的態度，互相算計，令人遺憾。修改議事程序減少「拉布」並非上策，惟可能別無選擇；泛民擔心當局一味硬闖議會強推政策，亦非無法理解，政府和建制派必須避免有權用盡。

財委會成拉布重災區 審理民生效率須提高

今時今日立法會蜩螗沸羹，由解決問題變成製造問題的地方，一大原因是各方為求達到目的，有權用盡，部分議員更將議事堂當成政治戰場，但求打擊敵人。少數派濫用「拉布」手段作為政治鬥爭武器，多數派則拒絕尊重少數派意見。當年財委會強行「剪布」通過新界東北發展撥款，反對者憤憤不平；前年泛民在財委會「拉布」拖死創科局撥款申請，還有醫委會改革和版權修訂條例草案胎死腹中，同樣招來憤恨。「少數派暴力」惡鬥「多數派暴力」，犧牲的是民生福祉，財委會正是一個重災區。

受「拉布」影響，去年財委會批出的項目，由前一年度的88個，減至上年度的29個，金額相差500億元，不少涉及民生，諸如新市鎮擴建撥款等。議會當然有責任監察政府，惟避免濫用「拉布」損害民生，亦屬合理期望。倘若議員是以民生為念，並非以民生作為政治籌碼，提高審理民生事務效率，理應是基本共識。議事堂論政，貴乎言之有物而非時間長短，關鍵是確保討論透徹有意義。如果修改會議程序只是令到討論更為聚焦，不會馬虎走過場，其實並無不可。

財委會主席陳健波提出設立「主席指引」，主席可以減少「縮短表決鐘聲動議」的辯論時間；若有議員被逐出會議廳，同日不能再參與開會。指引內容主要是賦予主席較大彈性處理會議，嚴格來說只屬備用工具，用與不用，權在主席，對具體議事影響有限。

相比之下，建制派議員提出的會議程序修訂，針對「拉布」味道明顯較強，包括限制每名議員每項議程最多只能提出一項臨時動議，以及修改「中止待續議案」字眼，即使通過，亦不會即時休會，而是改為審議其他撥款。正常議事情况下，議員甚少需要提出大量臨時議案，近年部分泛民議員在財委會提出數以百計臨時動議，目的純為「拉布」，新建議阻撓「拉布」多於阻礙「議事」，若說是「自閹」議事監察權力，似乎是太輕率將「監察政府」和「拉布阻撓」畫上等號。

財委會修改會議程序，只需過半數委員通過，對少數派的泛民相當不利。泛民憂慮「拉布」權力遭剝奪，建制派和政府會恃着多數派優勢，動輒硬闖議會強推政策。遇上背逆主流民意的措施，「拉布」確是一個有用的政治武器，若用得其所，市民也會理解，問題是過去數年部分議員濫用「拉布」情况太嚴重，動不動就將「拉布」當成「政治核武器」使用，惹來一般市民怨言。泛民擔心修改會議規則後，建制派會有權用盡，然而當局眼見財委會「拉布」不休，同樣擔心泛民繼續有權用盡，濫用「拉布」。

泛民建制缺乏互信 互相憂慮有權用盡

立法會全體大會和不同小組會議，各有專職範圍，惟近年部分會議職能漸見模糊化，討論重複。以財委會為例，近年經常有議員要求重新討論轄下兩個小組委員會（人事編制及工務小組委員會）已支持的項目，既沒必要亦費時失事。議會本應是理性討論和尋求妥協的地方，如果政府與各黨派有良性互動，其實沒有收緊會議規則的必要，然而遺憾的政治現實是，泛民跟政府和建制派缺乏互信，寧可事事抱着防人之心不可無的想法，冰封三尺非一日之寒，很難只怪責其中一方。

新政府上台百日，強調修補撕裂，然而與泛民的關係仍舊陰晴不定，「DQ」議員資格案和社運中人判囚亦影響了政治氣氛。明天立法會大會，泛民議員表示不會站立迎接特首林鄭月娥進入議事廳，說明雙方都很難放下戒心。現在建制派要求修訂財委會會議程序，時機是否合適，言人人殊，惟立法會復會在即，政治現實「逼到埋身」，是否加強防止「拉布」，需要有個決定。議事規則只能管到君子，管不到小人。一法立一弊生，若議員決心「拉布」，相信仍會找到法子，不過泛民應避免濫用「拉布」這張牌，政府亦應向泛民釋出善意，強調不管議事規則如何變化，都會繼續與民共議，在民生事務上多聽意見，不會一意孤行。

The proposal to amend the Finance Committee Procedure

THE pro-establishment camp has proposed amending the Finance Committee Procedure in order to stop filibustering. The pan-democrats are against the move, arguing that that will weaken the Legislative Council's power to monitor the government. It is a moot point whether this is the appropriate time to amend the Procedure. However, given the fact that filibuster has gone increasingly unchecked in recent years to the detriment of people's livelihood, it is indeed necessary to improve efficiency in Legco.

That the Legislative Council has become a place in disarray and the venue for creating problems instead of solving problems is attributable to the fact that all sides have been exercising their powers to the full in order to achieve their aims. Some lawmakers have even turned the legislative chamber into a political battlefield, doing nothing else apart from defeating their enemies. The minority in Legco uses filibustering as a weapon for political struggles, while the majority refuses to respect the point of view of the minority. When the Finance Committee ended the filibustering forcefully to approve funding for the development plan of the North East New Territories, opponents of the plan were bitter about that. The year before last, the pan-democrats scuppered the funding request made by the Innovation and Technology Bureau through filibustering. Filibustering also led to the miscarriage of the reform of the Medical Council and the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, to the anger of their supporters.

When the violence of the minority locks horns with the violence of the majority, it is the people's livelihood that has been affected, with the Finance Committee being one of the most affected areas. Thanks to "filibustering", the number of projects approved by the Finance Committee reduced from 88 the year before last to 29 last year, and the committee approved $50 billion less than before. Many of the projects affected have to do with people's livelihood, an example being the funding for the expansion of New Towns. No doubt the Legislative Council has the responsibility to monitor the government. However, it is also reasonable to expect that filibustering should not be abused and people's livelihood should not be affected. If legislators have people's livelihood on their mind and do not use people's livelihood as a political bargaining chip, there should be a consensus among them that it is necessary to enhance the efficiency of handling bread-and-butter matters. When it comes to the discussion of political issues in the legislative chamber, what matters is the validity of the argument rather than the length of the speech. So the key is to ensure that the discussion is clear and meaningful. It is not problematic if the amendment of the Procedure can ensure that the discussion will be more focused and less haphazard.

The amendment of the Finance Committee Procedure will be adopted with a majority vote within the committee. This puts the pan-democrats, who are in the minority, at the disadvantage. The pan-democrats are worried that if they are stripped of the power to filibuster against a bill, the pro-establishment camp and the government, taking advantage of their majority in Legco, will force their policies on Legco. When a policy is deeply unpopular among the mainstream society, filibustering is indeed a useful weapon which, if used properly, will be accepted by citizens. But the problem is that in recent years filibustering has been abused in a very problematic way. Filibusters are employed as a "political nuclear weapon" at will, leading to complaints from ordinary people. The pan-democrats are worried that after the amendment of the Procedure, the pro-establishment camp will exercise their powers to the full. But the government is also worried that, given the incessant filibustering in the Finance Committee, the pan-democrats will continue to exercise their powers to the full and abuse filibustering.

A hundred days into the new administration, the new government has stressed the need to heal the divisions. However, its relationship with the pan-democrats remain unstable. The disqualification of several lawmakers from their posts and the jailing of some social activists have also affected the political atmosphere. If lawmakers are determined to filibuster against a bill, they will find the way to do it. However, the pan-democrats should avoid abusing such a "trump card". The government should extend an olive branch to the pan-democrats and stress that whatever changes to the Procedure it will continue to discuss matters with the people.

防止濫用拉布 避免有權用盡

建制派提出修改「財委會會議程序」阻止「拉布」，泛民議員反對，認為會削弱立法會監察權力。現在修改議事程序，時機合適與否見仁見智，然而近年「拉布」變本加厲，損害民生，確有需要加強議事效率。

今時今日立法會蜩螗沸羹，由解決問題變成製造問題的地方，一大原因是各方為求達到目的，有權用盡，部分議員更將議事堂當成政治戰場，但求打擊敵人。少數派濫用「拉布」手段作為政治鬥爭武器，多數派則拒絕尊重少數派意見。當年財委會強行「剪布」通過新界東北發展撥款，反對者憤憤不平；前年泛民在財委會「拉布」拖死創科局撥款申請，還有醫委會改革和版權修訂條例草案胎死腹中，同樣招來憤恨。

「少數派暴力」惡鬥「多數派暴力」，犧牲的是民生福祉，財委會正是一個重災區。受「拉布」影響，去年財委會批出的項目，由前一年度的88個，減至上年度的29個，金額相差500億元，不少涉及民生，諸如新市鎮擴建撥款等。議會當然有責任監察政府，惟避免濫用「拉布」損害民生，亦屬合理期望。倘若議員是以民生為念，並非以民生作為政治籌碼，提高審理民生事務效率，理應是基本共識。議事堂論政，貴乎言之有物而非時間長短，關鍵是確保討論透徹有意義。如果修改會議程序只是令到討論更為聚焦，不會馬虎走過場，其實並無不可。

財委會修改會議程序，只需過半數委員通過，對少數派的泛民相當不利。泛民憂慮「拉布」權力遭剝奪，建制派和政府會恃着多數派優勢，動輒硬闖議會強推政策。遇上背逆主流民意的措施，「拉布」確是一個有用的政治武器，若用得其所，市民也會理解，問題是過去數年部分議員濫用「拉布」情况太嚴重，動不動就將「拉布」當成「政治核武器」使用，惹來一般市民怨言。泛民擔心修改會議規則後，建制派會有權用盡，然而當局眼見財委會「拉布」不休，同樣擔心泛民繼續有權用盡，濫用「拉布」。

新政府上台百日，強調修補撕裂，然而與泛民的關係仍舊陰晴不定，「DQ」議員資格案和社運中人判囚亦影響了政治氣氛。若議員決心「拉布」，相信仍會找到法子，不過泛民應避免濫用「拉布」這張牌，政府亦應向泛民釋出善意，強調不管議事規則如何變化，都會繼續與民共議。