<轉載自2017年12月12日 明報 社評>
立法會加開會議，審議修訂《議事規則》議案，從會期安排看來，立法會主席梁君彥爭取在聖誕節之前通過議案。修改《議事規則》是議會重大事項，理應有深入透徹討論，以祈在議會整體運作、議員議事權力與議會效率之間，取得平衡；可惜今次修改立法會議事規則，淪為議會黨派殺紅了眼的鬥爭結果，即使通過了修訂，日後議會能否恢復正常議事？立法會對香港發展會是助力還是阻力？仍然是未知之數。
拉布手法近乎荒唐 市民感到利益受損
實行代議政制的國家地區，少數派議員在議會「拉布」，屬於整體議事的一部分，本港立法會泛民議員以拉布為手段，爭取主張或訴求得到體現，並非什麼大不了的事，惟其與其他國家地區議會不同之處，在於本港並沒有機制處理拉布，致使泛民議員作為少數派，可以變相騎劫立法會，癱瘓議事，使議會功能幾近盡失。過去幾年，迫切民生事項延宕，應有發展停滯不前，香港整體已經受到影響。
泛民議員拉布之初，基於立法會組成未充分反映民意，多數市民並未太大抗拒，只是泛民議員拉布手法愈演愈烈，甚至可以荒唐來形容，例如有議員動議驅趕新聞工作者和市民，不讓他們旁聽立法會會議；至於泛民議員為求製造流會，故意缺席會議，個別議員看到果真流會了，在鏡頭前表露從心底發出來的喜悅，使人認為他/她視立法會為遊樂場。泛民議員大概感受不到愛護香港的人對一幕、一幕立法會亂象之厭惡和痛心。
開會是議員基本職責，泛民議員卻把故意缺席說得天經地義，並沾沾自喜，以為無論他們怎樣在議會亂來，說辭如何扭橫折曲，都會獲得市民認同和支持。不過，凡事總有一個度，若逾「度」了，就會惹來反彈。近期，泛民議員為對抗建制派修訂議事規則，慣常上綱上線，連《基本法》23條立法也搬出來了，不過從市民反應看來，過去一抓就靈的「恐嚇」招數，現在失靈了，市民對修訂議事規則的抗拒程度，與泛民議員預期有顯著落差。
中大亞太研究所訪問了722名18歲以上市民，結果顯示49.4%贊成修改議事規則以減少拉布，不贊成為30.1%；至於是否支持議員就具爭議議題拉布，以阻撓相關法案或議案通過，受訪者有50.8%不支持，只有14%支持，差距更大。以往，市民對拉布抱持中間取態，現在偏向明確了，不贊成、不支持十分明顯，相信這是泛民拉布拉過了頭，市民感到利益已經受損而民意轉向。
同一個調查就「一地兩檢」詢問了受訪者，其中58.6%不贊成議員就此拉布，只有22.2%贊成。關於「一地兩檢」，泛民陣營假設了很多場景「恐嚇」市民，描繪「一地兩檢」之可怖，從民調結果看來並不奏效。連同市民對拉布的取態，泛民議員已經與民意處於對立面，不過，他們之中有人聲言不理會，繼續我行我素；目前不知道整體泛民議員是否仍然一拉到底，已故司徒華先生當年就議事、做人有兩句名言：「有道理走遍天下，無道理寸步難行」。這位前輩的話，值得泛民議員咀嚼。
建制派議員提出修訂議事規則，是對議會失序的反彈，從恢復議會理性議事，議員在議事堂開展有意義討論，發揮對政府正常監察職能等出發，建制派的舉措難以非議，嚴格而言更是職責所在。問題是建制派所提出修訂，其中一些會否改變議會面貌、弱化議員監察政府的權力等，值得深入探討。
例如為免流會，把立法會全體委員會階段法定人數，由現時全體議員一半（35人）降至20人，修訂若獲通過，日後議事堂只有20來人的零星落索景象，就會成為常態，「開會屬於議員基本職責」豈非成為空話。又例如，提高成立專責委員會門檻，由現時只要有20名議員同時站立提交呈請書，修訂為須全體議員一半（35人），修訂通過後，政府將會更「安樂」，議員監察政府的權力則很難說不被弱化了。
修規或有深遠影響 各方並無深入探討
建制派所提出修訂，基於鬥爭需要，是否就事論事和顧及議會的角色和職能，值得探究。表面觀之，今次修訂完全淪為「矛」與「盾」的攻防設計，着眼於盡量堵塞泛民議員的拉布空間，對修訂可能帶來的影響，缺乏足夠討論。市民傾向不贊成拉布，未慮及一些修訂是否必要，顯示整體社會被拉布拖得疲累了，充斥着顧不了那麼多，先處理拉布再說的意味。這種社會氛圍，並不值得高興。
無論如何，以目前建制派議員在議會的優勢，議事規則按他們的意願修訂的機會很大，泛民議員拉布空間被壓縮，將成為事實。只是，任何規則管得了君子，管不住小人，議事規則修訂之後，若泛民議員拉布路線不變，相信他們就修訂後的議事規則，仍然可以「開拓」出拉布空間。立法會發生的事，性質屬於政治對壘，修訂了議事規則只是治標，遠未治本；如此之下，修訂了的議事規則會否使立法會成為推動香港發展的積極助力，且拭目以觀。
Proposed amendments to Legco Rules of Procedure
EXTRA MEETINGS are to be held to deliberate the amendments to the Rules
of Procedure. Judging from the dates of these meetings, Andrew Leung, the Legco
President, is striving to have the bill adopted before Christmas.
In countries and regions with a representative political system, the use
of filibuster by minority lawmakers in the legislative body is part of its
business. In this light, pan-democratic lawmakers' use of filibuster in Hong
Kong to advance their proposals and demands is not a big issue. However, what
is different between Hong Kong's Legislative Council and the legislative bodies
in other countries and regions is that Hong Kong does not have a mechanism for
handling filibuster. As a result, pan-democratic lawmakers, though in the
minority, get to hijack the Legislative Council, paralyse the deliberation of
issues and undermine almost all of its functions as a legislative body.
According to a survey conducted by the Hong Kong Institute of
Asia-Pacific Studies of the CUHK, of the 722 respondents over 18, 49.4 per cent
supported the amendment of the Rules of Procedure in order to curb filibuster,
while 30.1 per cent were against the move. As for whether lawmakers should
filibuster against controversial issues to prevent related bills or motions
from being adopted, 50.8 per cent of respondents said "no", while
only 14 per cent said "yes", showing an even greater discrepancy. In
the past, citizens were neutral towards filibuster. Now their preference is
clear — they are obviously against filibuster. This is believed to be the
result of the pan-democrats' overuse of filibuster, so much so citizens feel
that their interests have been harmed. Hence the change of the tide of opinion.
In the same survey, respondents were also asked about the
"Co-location Arrangements". It was found that 58.6 per cent of
respondents did not think that lawmakers should filibuster against the motion,
while only 22.2 per cent thought they should. The pan-democratic camp had
invented many scenarios to frighten citizens, trying to paint a horrifying
picture of the Co-location Arrangements. As shown by the survey, their strategy
has not been successful. The finding, together with citizens' stance on
filibuster, demonstrates that pan-democratic lawmakers are now at the opposite
of public opinion. In spite of this, some of them, however, have said they will
not pay attention to the survey and will continue to do what they want to do.
It is uncertain whether the pan-democrats as a whole will filibuster to the
end.
The pro-establishment lawmakers' proposal to amend the Rules of
Procedure is a response to the lack of order in the Legislative Council. It is
aimed at restoring rational deliberation of matters, allowing lawmakers to have
meaningful discussion and carrying out the normal functions of monitoring the
government. In this regard, not only is the pro-establishment lawmakers' action
beyond criticism, but it is also, strictly speaking, what they are obliged to
do. The question is whether the amendments they have proposed will change the
face of the legislative body and weaken lawmakers' power to monitor the
government. All this deserves in-depth investigation.
For example, in order to prevent adjournment, it is proposed that the
quorum of the Committee of the whole Council be reduced from half the number of
all lawmakers, which is 35, to 20. If the amendment is adopted, will it not
become a common occurrence that the legislative chamber is sparsely seated by
just 20 lawmakers or so? Will it not be empty talk that "attending
meetings is a basic responsibility of lawmakers"? It is also proposed that
the threshold of establishing a Select Committee be raised. While at present a
Select Committee will be set up when only 20 lawmakers stand together and
submit a petition, the number of lawmakers needed will increase to 35, half the
number of all lawmakers, if the amendment is adopted. This will put the
government further at ease, and it will be very difficult to say that lawmakers'
power to monitor the government will not be weakened.
泛民拉布逾度惹反彈 建制修規治標不治本
立法會加開會議，審議修訂《議事規則》議案，從會期安排看來，立法會主席梁君彥爭取在聖誕節之前通過議案。
實行代議政制的國家地區，少數派議員在議會「拉布」，屬於整體議事的一部分，本港立法會泛民議員以拉布為手段，爭取主張或訴求得到體現，並非什麼大不了的事，惟其與其他國家地區議會不同之處，在於本港並沒有機制處理拉布，致使泛民議員作為少數派，可以變相騎劫立法會，癱瘓議事，使議會功能幾近盡失。
中大亞太研究所訪問了722名18歲以上市民，結果顯示49.4%贊成修改議事規則以減少拉布，不贊成為30.1%；至於是否支持議員就具爭議議題拉布，以阻撓相關法案或議案通過，受訪者有50.8%不支持，只有14%支持，差距更大。以往，市民對拉布抱持中間取態，現在偏向明確了，不贊成、不支持十分明顯，相信這是泛民拉布拉過了頭，市民感到利益已經受損而民意轉向。
同一個調查就「一地兩檢」詢問了受訪者，其中58.6%不贊成議員就此拉布，只有22.2%贊成。關於「一地兩檢」，泛民陣營假設了很多場景「恐嚇」市民，描繪「一地兩檢」之可怖，從民調結果看來並不奏效。連同市民對拉布的取態，泛民議員已經與民意處於對立面，不過，他們之中有人聲言不理會，繼續我行我素；目前不知道整體泛民議員是否仍然一拉到底。
建制派議員提出修訂議事規則，是對議會失序的反彈，從恢復議會理性議事，議員在議事堂開展有意義討論，發揮對政府正常監察職能等出發，建制派的舉措難以非議，嚴格而言更是職責所在。問題是建制派所提出修訂，其中一些會否改變議會面貌、弱化議員監察政府的權力等，值得深入探討。
沒有留言:
張貼留言