黄鐘毁棄傷筋骨 禮崩樂壞害民主

<轉載自2018年1月24日 明報 社評>

立法會九龍西議席補選尚未正式開始，民主派內部矛盾卻已因為初選「Plan B」爭議盡露人前。初選是民主派自己的選擇，到頭來部分泛民中人卻因為不滿「後備人選」，假借「勝算考慮」之名，將初選機制條文「搓圓撳扁」，在幕後大搞篩選欽點，自己人「DQ」自己人。道德高地是民主派力量泉源，不尊重初選遊戲規則，就是不尊重投票的市民。議席事小，核心價值事大，民主派黄鐘毁棄禮崩樂壞，必對追求民主帶來長遠傷害。民主派強調程序公義，不能因為不光采的政治計謀和路線鬥爭，自毁道德高地，動搖民主派的政治根基。

遞補規則「搓圓撳扁」 民主派初選淪鬧劇

「Plan B」爭論始於本月初，有傳言指自決派的姚松炎即使參與補選，也可能再被「DQ」（取消資格）。及至初選結果出爐，姚松炎得票七成，大勝傳統民主派的馮檢基，姚的支持者認為要找「勝算更高」的人作後備，惟不少民主派中人認為應該按初選機制處理，由得票第二多的馮頂上。部分泛民醞釀另覓重量級元老作後備，馮檢基最初堅持「當仁不讓」，可是後來卻宣布放棄遞補資格。馮表示有「進步民主派」中人威脅，一旦馮出選，他們也會派人參戰，暗示棄選是迫於無奈；進步民主派的朱凱迪則強調，尊重初選遞補機制，絕不阻撓馮參選，云云。

不管馮檢基是否因為「政治欺凌」退出，今次九西初選爭議，已變成一齣不堪入目的爛劇，事態發展直叫親者痛仇者快。「民主動力」是初選搞手，各路人馬信誓旦旦，強調要尊重初選機制行事，然而市民看到的，卻是不斷有人詭辯鑽空子，一邊扭曲規則，一邊還試圖自圓其說。

民主動力的初選條文寫明，一旦勝出初選的參選者遭政府「DQ」，「可根據初選結果首兩名至三名參選人的支持度」優先次序，作為「Plan B」或「Plan C」。條文寫得清晰，可是有所謂「進步民主派」中人卻聲言，遞補安排「不能只有『跟機制』一個行事標準，亦要考慮勝算，「姚落基上」會令不少民主派支持者不滿。有泛民中人更揚言，條文寫法是「可」根據而不是「必須」，初選機制「有預留彈性」，云云。

民主派常強調理念原則，可是這次爭議卻形同自拆招牌。民主派反對高鐵「一地兩檢」，一大理據是《基本法》第18條註明，內地法律除附件三者外不適用於香港，然而今次「Plan B」爭議卻不禁令人懷疑，部分民主派中人一樣認為規則條文可以「搓圓撳扁」，最重要是「顧全大局」，為民主派做「一件大好事」，只要能夠達到目的，捉字虱又有何妨。

馮檢基「被退出」後，根據初選機制，「Plan C」應是民主黨的袁海文，可是無論是袁和民主動力都含糊其辭，彷彿人人都作不了主，正在「等人發落」。袁海文說「參選與否不應由我個人決定」，民主動力說法更加荒謬，一邊聲稱初選機制「有替代方案的安排」，一邊卻說現在絕非討論替代人選「合適時間」。朱凱迪則爆出民主派有所謂「Plan D」，亦即物色「包底人選」，為馮、袁棄選作準備。

馮袁若放棄參選 初選應視作無效

不管是「另覓元老出山」還是「Plan D」，說穿了就是「空降」第三者參選，只要袁海文像馮檢基「知難而退」，初選遞補機制變相廢掉，屆時幕後操盤者就可大條道理，讓沒有參與初選的「Plan D」出戰。然而這種安排，跟民主派最深惡痛絕的欽點篩選和黑箱作業，又有何分別？如果初選規例一開始便刻意寫得模稜兩可，為推翻初選遞補安排留下後路，實際就是愚弄投票者。民主派有責任說清楚，初選遞補機制是否名存實亡。

有民主派中人質疑，馮、袁支持度不高，恐礙民主派勝算，然而只要民主派願意放棄私怨矛盾，團結一致催票，贏面理應相當高。「Plan B」爭議核心，說白了就是自決派和傳統民主派的路線之爭。所謂「團結」不過是政治利益算計，並非出於共同理念，當強勢一方發現制度於己不利，就想透過其他手段，防止他人「執死雞」，弱勢一方則擔心成為「敗選罪人」，即使道理站在自己一方，也不敢據理力爭。

泛民沒有權力，最大政治本錢是「人和」。泛民的「人和」建基於道德高地，既然民主派同意舉行初選，就應該尊重制度，不能為求目的不擇手段，破壞民主精神，支持者也不想見到民主派禮崩樂壞。2016年台灣國民黨總統初選，也曾發生洪秀柱勝出，可是卻因為路線和勝算問題被拉下馬事件，結果由朱立倫頂上，輸得一敗塗地。同年美國總統大選初選，共和黨建制派亦曾考慮鑽空子，研究在共和黨全國代表大會拉特朗普下馬，最終為免破壞制度，未有成事。這兩場初選爭議，都突顯堅持制度的重要。

對民主派來說，爭回眼前議席固然重要，可是更重要是不能自毁道德高地。若馮檢基決意棄選，民主黨必須堅定支持袁海文按初選機制遞補參選。若然馮、袁最後全部棄選，整場九西初選應該視作無效，若無法及時另辦初選，就應該開放讓各方人士自由搏擊，能者居之，泛民陣營千萬別搞派系鬥爭、篩選和欽點的一套。

Pan-dems' betrayal of their core values

WELL before the official kick-off of the Legislative Council by-election in Kowloon West, the internal conflicts within the pro-democratic camp have already been fully exposed by the so-called "Plan B" controversy over the primary election. Out of dissatisfaction with possible "backup candidates", some members of the pan-dem camp have ridden roughshod over the terms of the memorandum on the primary election mechanism in the name of "maximising their chances", in effect attempting to perform a screening and hand-picking exercise and "disqualifying" their fellows behind the scenes. The moral high ground is the source of the pro-democratic camp's strength. Disrespecting the rules of the game of the primary election is the same as disrespecting the people who had voted. The importance of a seat cannot compare with that of the core values. The pro-democrats have always placed high importance on procedural justice. They ought not let their own moral high ground be ruined and their political foundations be shaken by dishonourable political plots and rivalry between different political lines.

The Plan B controversy was born out of hearsay early this month that Edward Yiu Chung-yim, a member of the democratic self-determination caucus, may again be disqualified if he runs in the by-election. Days later, the result of the primary election was released and Yiu won 70% of the vote, defeating traditional pan-democrat Frederick Fung Kin-kee by a wide margin. Supporters of Yiu suggested that the camp needs someone with "better chances" to be Yiu's replacement. But many pro-democrats wanted to stick to the original mechanism and make Fung, the runner-up in the primary, the backup candidate. Some pan-democrats mulled over finding a political heavyweight to be the backup candidate. Later, Fung ruled himself out of the by-election. He said some "progressive pro-democrats" had threatened to field a separate candidate if Fung was to run, implying that his withdrawal was under pressure and against his own will.

The memorandum by the Power for Democracy on the primary election states clearly that in case the winner of the primary is disqualified by the government, they "can select the first two or three runners-up as the Plan B or Plan C candidates in accordance with their popularity". Despite the clarity in the statement, some so-called "progressive pro-democrats" have claimed that "abiding by the mechanism" should not be the only principle for deciding who should be the replacement. Saying the odds of winning should also be taken into consideration, they have asserted that the scenario of "Yiu out and Fung in" will cause discontent among many supporters of the pro-democrats. Some have even argued that since the word used in the memorandum is "can" instead of "must", there is actually "flexibility" in the primary election mechanism and so on.

Now that Fung has been "forced to withdraw", according to the primary election mechanism, the Plan C should be Ramon Yuen Hoi-man of the Democratic Party. However, both Yuen and the Power for Democracy have been evasive on this subject. Yuen said "running or not should not be decided by myself alone". What the Power for Democracy has said is even more ridiculous. On the one hand it has said "there are replacement plans" in the primary election mechanism. On the other hand it has maintained it is absolutely not the "appropriate time" to discuss replacement candidates now. Meanwhile Eddie Chu Hoi-dick has further revealed the existence of a so-called "Plan D". Put another way, they are looking for an "ultimate candidate" to prepare for the dropping out of both Fung and Yuen.

Whether presented as "inviting heavyweights to come out of retirement" or a "Plan D", what is going on is merely an attempt to field a non-participant in the primary. Once Yuen decides to "retreat in the face of overwhelming odds" like Fung, the replacement mechanism of the primary election will cease to exist . By then the one operating behind the scenes will have the excuse to field someone who did not run in the primary election as the "Plan D". If this is the case, how different will such a manoeuvre be from the hand-picking, screening and black-box operations that the pro-democrats have detested so bitterly? The pro-democrats should give a clear account on this and whether the replacement mechanism of the primary election exists in name only.

黄鐘毁棄傷筋骨 禮崩樂壞害民主

立法會九龍西議席補選尚未正式開始，民主派內部矛盾卻已因為初選「Plan B」爭議盡露人前。部分泛民中人因為不滿「後備人選」，假借「勝算考慮」之名，將初選機制條文「搓圓撳扁」，在幕後大搞篩選欽點，自己人「DQ」自己人。道德高地是民主派力量泉源，不尊重初選遊戲規則，就是不尊重投票的市民。議席事小，核心價值事大。民主派強調程序公義，不能因為不光采的政治計謀和路線鬥爭，自毀道德高地，動搖民主派的政治根基。

「Plan B」爭論始於本月初，有傳言指自決派的姚松炎即使參與補選，也可能再被「DQ」（取消資格）。及至初選結果出爐，姚松炎得票七成，大勝傳統民主派的馮檢基，姚的支持者認為要找「勝算更高」的人作後備，惟不少民主派中人認為應該按初選機制處理，由得票第二多的馮頂上。部分泛民醞釀另覓重量級元老作後備，馮檢基後來宣布放棄遞補資格。馮表示有「進步民主派」中人威脅，一旦馮出選，他們也會派人參戰，暗示棄選是迫於無奈。

民主動力的初選條文寫明，一旦勝出初選的參選者遭政府「DQ」，「可根據初選結果首兩名至三名參選人的支持度」優先次序，作為「Plan B」或「Plan C」。條文寫得清晰，可是有所謂「進步民主派」中人卻聲言，遞補安排「不能只有『跟機制』一個行事標準，亦要考慮勝算，「姚落基上」會令不少民主派支持者不滿。有泛民中人更揚言，條文寫法是「可」根據而不是「必須」，初選機制「有預留彈性」，云云。

馮檢基「被退出」後，根據初選機制，「Plan C」應是民主黨的袁海文，可是無論是袁和民主動力都含糊其辭。袁海文說「參選與否不應由我個人決定」，民主動力說法更加荒謬，一邊聲稱初選機制「有替代方案的安排」，一邊卻說現在絕非討論替代人選「合適時間」。朱凱迪則爆出民主派有所謂「Plan D」，亦即物色「包底人選」，為馮、袁棄選作準備。

不管是「另覓元老出山」還是「Plan D」，說穿了就是「空降」第三者參選，只要袁海文像馮檢基「知難而退」，初選遞補機制變相廢掉，屆時幕後操盤者就可大條道理，讓沒有參與初選的「Plan D」出戰。然而這種安排，跟民主派最深惡痛絕的欽點篩選和黑箱作業，又有何分別？民主派有責任說清楚，初選遞補機制是否名存實亡。