「一國」與「兩制」紅線均須守住

<轉載自2018年1月30日 明報 社評>

立法會議席補選，香港眾志成員周庭遭「DQ」（取消資格），之前立會宣誓案被「DQ」的姚松炎則成功入閘。「周out姚in」傳達了清楚政治信息，但凡參選人超越了「一國」紅線，不管以任何形式或論述包裝「港獨」，都不得進入體制之內。今次「DQ」是政治決定，「港獨」出現令中央覺得需要為「一國」劃紅線，另一方面港人也會關注中央的紅線會否愈收愈緊，倒過來威脅「兩制」的紅線 。一國兩制是香港唯一活路，需要各方嚴守分際，「一國」與「兩制」的紅線均要守住。

周out姚in傳達信息 體制不容港獨自決

過去選舉主任的職務，主要只是查核參選人有否交齊資料、填漏表格等工作，2016年立法會選舉引入「簽署確認書」安排，要求參選人須擁護《基本法》，選舉主任實質變成「DQ」把關人，負責根據參選人過去的言行，判斷是否主張「港獨」。

選舉主任角色質變，做法是否妥當，還看法院如何處理「DQ」者的選舉呈請，不過根據選管會條例，選舉主任的確有權決定提名表格是否有效，確保選舉合法及誠實進行。也許周庭支持者會質疑，前年羅冠聰獲裁定參選資格有效，為何同屬香港眾志的周庭卻不能，然而從選舉主任的角度而言，前年人大就宣誓案釋法，已為「DQ」提供更多法律憑據。此一時彼一時，現在不過是按法例「執正來做」。

當然，誰都知道選舉主任只是台前角色，周庭被拒參選也不是法律問題，而是政治問題。近年「港獨」冒起，徹底改變香港政治形勢；若沒有「港獨」，根本也不會有「參選確認書」。儘管周庭聲稱，「香港眾志反對港獨」，可是該黨的黨綱和《民主自決運動路線圖》等文件，明確主張設立《公投法》、爭取國際對香港「重新履行自決權」的認可，透過「公投」決定2047年後的香港前途，當中包括「獨立」選項。有關內容怎麼看都帶有強烈「港獨」色彩，所謂追求「民主自決」，不過是「港獨」另一種表述和包裝。

相比之下，連日來姚松炎也面對「DQ」陰霾。圍繞姚松炎的爭議，主要是當日他在立法會宣誓「加料」遭DQ後，是否不能參加今屆立法會任何補選。雖然選舉主任追問他對「港獨」的看法，以及出席台獨政黨時代力量論壇一事，惟過去姚松炎鮮有提及「港獨」或「民主自決」，現在最終獲得確認參選資格。有論者聲稱，受佔領運動啟發的年輕人，過去兩年相繼被拒參選，是當局的政治報復，扼殺「一代人」，不過周庭和姚松炎命運迥異，突顯目前封殺的只是「港獨」和類似的主張。

「港獨」抬頭挑戰「一國」，觸動中央神經，促使北京劃出政治紅線；然而中央收緊對港控制，亦觸動了港人神經。部分人擔心中央的紅線「愈劃愈過」，令港人自由權利受到更多限制，衝擊「兩制」。周庭DQ後，一些港人關注何謂「不擁護《基本法》」，諸如平反六四、結束一黨專政算不算在內？反對23條立法又如何？假設的情景，可以無限想像，關鍵是現實情况如何。根據參選確認書，擁護《基本法》，核心在於支持一國兩制、反對港獨，若是要求平反六四，又或只是反對23條立法具體內容而非拒絕履行憲制責任，不應成為「不擁護」的憑據。

中央港人各有紅線 各守局限可免硬撼

中央對「一國」劃出紅線，港人心中對「兩制」亦有紅線。守住一國兩制，就是守好這兩條紅線；如何判斷紅線有否踰越，應當建基於客觀言行而非揣測。香港眾志的主張，超出了「一國」紅線，姚松炎則未見越界。至於「兩制」的紅線，由於人人寬緊不一，難免較為含糊，不過如果「跨境執法」變成家常便飯、六四集會遭取締、七一不能上街，凡參與者都被剝奪參選資格，全港市民肯定都會認為這是「兩制」末日。眼下香港情况，當然遠遠未至於斯，可是港人擔心「兩制」紅線難守，中央也應該多加理解。

周庭宣布參選後，香港眾志在網站修改黨綱，刪去「以民主自決為最高綱領」，惟未改變核心理念。中央看待「民主自決」的態度，說明當局不會接受以任何形式包裝「港獨」，不管如何炮製各種政治論述，都很難蒙混過關。一國兩制是一個矛盾統一體，灰色地帶的存在，實際亦成為兩制的緩衝，如果有人存心使用模糊策略，加緊在灰色地帶游走，中央也不會手軟，向灰色地帶出招，結果必會導致一國兩制緩衝區愈縮愈小。守護一國兩制，最重要是各方嚴守分際。「港獨」也好，「民主自決」也好，都是此路不通，不承認此一局限，只會促使中央出重手，令香港政治空間愈來愈窄，倘若雙方互越紅線，一國兩制前景將不堪設想。

"One country" and "two systems" are both important red lines

AGNES CHOW, a member of Demosisto, has been disqualified from the upcoming Legislative Council by-election. On the other hand Edward Yiu, who was previously disqualified for his oath-taking, has successfully joined the race.

In the past a returning officer was mainly responsible for checking whether a candidate has provided all documents and properly filled out all the forms. In the 2016 election, however, the "confirmation letter" arrangement was introduced, under which a candidate was required to espouse the Basic Law. As a result, the returning officer became a de facto gatekeeper with the power to disqualify candidates, and was responsible for judging whether a candidate proposed Hong Kong's independence based on what they said and did in the past.

Whether the change of the returning officer's role is appropriate should be decided by the court, which has heard the election petition filed by candidates who were disqualified. However, according to the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance, the returning officer does wield the power to decide whether one's candidacy is valid in order to ensure that the election takes place in a legal and fair manner. Supporters of Agnes Chow might ask this: Nathan Law's candidacy was declared valid the year before last. Why has Agnes Chow, also a member of Demosisto, not been allowed to run as well? However, from the perspective of the returning officer, the National People Congress's interpretation of the Basic Law concerning the oath-taking case has provided more legal grounds for the disqualification of candidates. It is a different time now, when the laws and regulations are followed strictly.

No doubt everyone knows that the returning officer is only the actor on stage. The disqualification of Agnes Chow is not a legal issue. It is a political one. In recent years, the emergence of the Hong Kong independence ideology has radically altered Hong Kong's political situation. The "confirmation letter" would not have come into existence had there not been the independence ideology. Though Agnes Chow claims that "Demosisto is against Hong Kong's independence", the party's constitution and documents such as the "road map to democracy, self-determination" propose explicitly the enactment of a "referendum ordinance" and the fight for the international community's acknowledgement of "Hong Kong's re-exercise of its autonomy" so as to decide Hong Kong's future after 2047, one of the options being independence. Such contents carry strong overtones of the proposal for Hong Kong's independence. The so-called "democratic self-determination" is only another way to present and package the Hong Kong independence ideology.

The proposed Hong Kong's independence is a challenge to the "one country" policy. It has touched a raw nerve of the central government, forcing the Beijing authorities to draw a political red line. However, as the central government tightens its grip on Hong Kong, it also touches a raw nerve of Hong Kong people. Some people are worried that the central government's red line will be drawn further and further, so much so Hong Kong people's freedoms and rights will be further restricted in a way that threatens the "two systems". Since Agnes Chow was disqualified, some Hong Kong people have been concerned about this question: "What constitutes a failure to espouse the Basic Law? What about the demand to rehabilitate the June Fourth incident or the demand to end one-party dictatorship? What about the opposition to Article 23 legislation?" While hypothetical scenarios can go as far as where imagination takes them, what matters is the actual situation. According to the confirmation letter, the core of the espousal of the Basic Law is the support for "One country, two systems" and the opposition to Hong Kong's independence. Such being the case, the demand to rehabilitate the June Fourth incident or the opposition to the specifics of Article 23 legislation (rather than the refusal to fulfil the constitutional responsibility) should not be viewed as a failure to espouse the Basic Law.

「一國」與「兩制」 紅線均須守住

立法會議席補選，香港眾志成員周庭遭「DQ」（取消資格），之前立會宣誓案被「DQ」的姚松炎則成功入閘。

過去選舉主任的職務，主要只是查核參選人有否交齊資料、填漏表格等工作，2016年立法會選舉引入「簽署確認書」安排，要求參選人須擁護《基本法》，選舉主任實質變成「DQ」把關人，負責根據參選人過去的言行，判斷是否主張「港獨」。

選舉主任角色質變，做法是否妥當，還看法院如何處理「DQ」者的選舉呈請，不過根據選管會條例，選舉主任的確有權決定提名表格是否有效，確保選舉合法及誠實進行。也許周庭支持者會質疑，前年羅冠聰獲裁定參選資格有效，為何同屬香港眾志的周庭卻不能，然而從選舉主任的角度而言，前年人大就宣誓案釋法，已為「DQ」提供更多法律憑據。此一時彼一時，現在不過是按法例「執正來做」。

當然，誰都知道選舉主任只是台前角色，周庭被拒參選也不是法律問題，而是政治問題。近年「港獨」冒起，徹底改變香港政治形勢；若沒有「港獨」，根本也不會有「參選確認書」。儘管周庭聲稱，「香港眾志反對港獨」，可是該黨的黨綱和《民主自決運動路線圖》等文件，明確主張設立《公投法》、爭取國際對香港「重新履行自決權」的認可，透過「公投」決定2047年後的香港前途，當中包括「獨立」選項。有關內容怎麼看都帶有強烈「港獨」色彩，所謂追求「民主自決」，不過是「港獨」另一種表述和包裝。

「港獨」抬頭挑戰「一國」，觸動中央神經，促使北京劃出政治紅線；然而中央收緊對港控制，亦觸動了港人神經。部分人擔心中央的紅線「愈劃愈過」，令港人自由權利受到更多限制，衝擊「兩制」。周庭DQ後，一些港人關注何謂「不擁護《基本法》」，諸如平反六四、結束一黨專政算不算在內？反對23條立法又如何？假設的情景，可以無限想像，關鍵是現實情况如何。根據參選確認書，擁護《基本法》，核心在於支持一國兩制、反對港獨，若是要求平反六四，又或只是反對23條立法具體內容而非拒絕履行憲制責任，不應成為「不擁護」的憑據。