<轉載自2018年3月20日 明報 社評>
全國人大會議通過修改《憲法》，新科全國人大常委譚耀宗表示，以後高叫「結束一黨專政」口號，可能違反《憲法》及《基本法》，甚至影響參選立法會資格。有關觀點令市民擔憂言論自由社空間收窄，損害港人對一國兩制信心，除了添煩添亂，看不到對香港社會有何好處。《基本法》源於《憲法》第31條，然而尊重《憲法》，不代表所有《憲法》條文都適合硬搬生套到香港。一國兩制是矛盾統一體，需要「創造性的模糊」，留有灰色地帶，才能讓兩制並存；無視歷史和制度差異，抹去灰色地帶，只會掏空一國兩制的基礎。
過度演繹修憲內容 恐損香港言論自由
今次爭議源於中央修憲，在《憲法》第1條「社會主義制度是中華人民共和國的根本制度」之後，加入「中國共產黨領導是中國特色社會主義最本質的特徵」。1949年新中國成立後，除了文革時期的「七五憲法」以及過渡色彩甚濃的「七八憲法」，過去《憲法》正文從未提及「中國共產黨領導」，有關字眼最多只會出現在序言，作為國家制度的一種理論闡述。從中央角度來說，今次修憲將「中國共產黨領導」放入正文，最大意義是在憲法條文層面，確立中共領導地位，說明中共在建設中國特色社會主義上的根本角色，然而不見得一國兩制方針在修憲後有何轉變，沒必要過度演繹修憲內容，為港人言論自由添加不必要的枷鎖。
譚耀宗強調其說法是個人觀點，內容主要有三部分﹕1）本港從政者若想參選立法會議員，一定要擁護《基本法》，效忠特區政府；2）《基本法》源於《憲法》，而現在《憲法》訂明了中共的領導地位，以及與國家制度的根本關係；3）基於前兩點，現在若有立法會參選人提出「結束一黨專政」，可能牴觸《憲法》和《基本法》，影響參選資格。第一點和第二點是事實陳述，然而以此推導出第三點這個結論，卻有堆砌之嫌。
首先，《基本法》第104條訂明，立法會議員必須宣誓「擁護《基本法》和效忠中華人民共和國香港特別行政區」，並未提及必須擁護《憲法》。前年人大就104條釋法，本意也只是劃清底線，維護宣誓儀式莊嚴，不容鼓吹「港獨」分子進入體制破壞一國兩制，並未要求宣誓「擁護《憲法》」。
誠然，《憲法》第31條提到「國家在必要時得設立特別行政區」，特區制度由全國人大「以法律規定」，構成了《基本法》的法理基礎，港人必須遵守《基本法》，亦應尊重《憲法》，可是中央決定在香港推行一國兩制，就是承認香港的獨特性，不宜照搬內地法規。部分《憲法》條文，諸如第15條「國家實行社會主義市場經濟」、第10條「城市的土地屬於國家所有」等，明顯便不可能硬套在香港身上。若將《基本法》源於《憲法》這個事實，無止境地借題發揮，變成《憲法》所有條文可以直接搬到香港，就是摧毁一國兩制。
一國兩制有效操作 需要「創造性的模糊」
《憲法》表明社會主義是中國根本制度，沒有一句具體提到可以在某地區奉行資本主義，然而這並不影響《基本法》訂明香港奉行資本主義的法律基礎，也不會有人說這牴觸《憲法》。看待修憲確立「中國共產黨領導」，也應該運用相類邏輯，體現一國兩制精神。鄧小平曾表明，1997年後香港仍然可以是一處罵共產黨的地方，「共產黨是罵不倒的」。雖然《憲法》第1條提到，「禁止任何組織或者個人破壞社會主義制度」，然而如果只是在香港高喊「結束一黨專政」表達民主訴求，沒有實質破壞內地制度的行動，也沒有鼓吹「港獨」，看不出有何處踰越了一國兩制分際。
香港與內地制度迥異，是歷史遺留下來的問題，亦是客觀事實。中央提出一國兩制，是克服兩制矛盾、尋求和平統一的最大妥協。一國兩制需要劃出基本底線，諸如不容「港獨」，可是一國兩制若要有效運作，亦需要有「創造性的模糊」，亦即有策略地容許一些灰色地帶存在，保留彈性，好讓內地與香港制度能夠共存發展，避免不必要的摩擦；強行劃清界線，抹走灰色地帶，容易令兩制直接暴露於矛盾對立之中。水至清則無魚，如何看待《憲法》與香港的關係，也應該多朝這個方向思考，否則一國兩制迴旋空間只會愈收愈窄。
人大政協會議期間，香港社會聽到不少政治雜音，高呼「結束一黨專政」口號有可能被「DQ」（取消參選資格）僅屬其一。例如有全國政協港區委員便提議，中央應敦促特區政府修改地名街名，減少「殖民時代符號」，云云。這些主張無視香港與內地制度迥異的歷史和現實，強行將差異抹去，實際就是掏空一國兩制存在的基礎。立法會議員宣誓擁護《基本法》及效忠特區，已充分表明支持一國兩制，沒必要改變誓言要求。當年港人對一國兩制的認知，是回歸之後「帝力於我何有哉」，現在中央則是以全面管治權、憲法於港實質體現等方式，顯示「帝力於港、無處不在」。一國兩制究竟如何？使人迷糊了。
Erosion of Basic Law's basis
THE AMENDMENTS to the Constitution have gone through the National
People's Congress (NPC). Tam Yiu-chung, a new member of the Standing Committee
of the NPC, has said that, from now on, it may contravene the Constitution and
the Basic Law and even affect one's eligibility to stand in an Legislative
Council (Legco) election for one to yell "bring an end to the one-party
dictatorship". His view has made citizens worry their freedom of speech
may be curtailed. It is detrimental to Hong Kong people's confidence in
"one country, two systems". It has added to trouble and chaos, and
none can see how it may profit society.
The controversy in question stems from the fact that, when the central
authorities had Article 1 of the Constitution amended, they had a line stating
that "the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC) is the most
essential feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics" added to the
end of its second paragraph, which says that "the socialist system is the
basic system of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and that sabotage of the
socialist system by any organisation or individual is prohibited".
In the first place, Article 104 of the Basic Law expressly provides that
the Legco members "must swear to uphold the Basic Law" and
"swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR)
of the PRC". It mentions nothing about upholding the Constitution.
It is clear from the Constitution that socialism is China's fundamental
system. It does not say specifically it is permissible to pursue capitalism in
any region, but that has no effect on the legal basis expressly stated in the
Basic Law — that capitalism is pursued in Hong Kong. None would say that
contravenes the Constitution. In looking at the constitutional amendment that
provides for the CPC's leadership, one should apply a similar logic so as to
give expression to the spirit of "one country, two systems". Deng
Xiaoping once declared that, after 1997, Hong Kong would remain a place where
the CPC might be railed at, adding that "no railing would topple the
CPC".
Hong Kong's system is diametrically different from the mainland's. That
is a problem inherited from history. That is also a hard fact. It was to
overcome contradictions between the two systems and bring about the maximum
concessions in relation to peaceful reunification that the central authorities
came up with "one country, two systems". It is necessary to put in
place certain minimum requirements in pursuing "one country, two
systems". For example, gangdu (Hong Kong separatism) should in no
circumstances be tolerated. However, there must be creative ambiguity before
"one country, two systems" can effectively operate. In other words,
certain grey areas must be strategically allowed to exist and flexibility must
be retained so that the mainland's system and Hong Kong's may co-exist and
develop and conflicts not bound to arise can be prevented. It is likely to
expose the two systems to contradictions and antagonisms to go to any length to
draw the line and wipe out grey areas. "Where the water is perfectly
clear, there are no fish." One should try to think this way when one looks
at how the Constitution relates to Hong Kong. Otherwise, the "one country,
two systems" room for manoeuvre will only become smaller and smaller.
When the NPC and the CPPCC (Chinese People's Political Consultative
Conference) were in session, society heard many political noises, of which it
is only one that it may "DQ" (disqualify one from standing in
elections) to yell "bring an end to the one-party dictatorship". For
example, a CPPCC member proposed that the central authorities urge the SAR
government to change street names so that there would be fewer "symbols of
the colonial era". Those who make such suggestions have no regard to the
historical and actual fact that the mainland's system and Hong Kong's are like
chalk and cheese. To go to any length to blot out such differences is actually
to disembowel what the existence of "one country, two systems" is
based on. When a Legco member swears to uphold the Basic Law and swears
allegiance to the HKSAR, he makes it clear that he upholds "one country,
two systems". The oath requirement need not be changed. When "one
country, two systems" was proclaimed, Hong Kong people's perception of it
was "what would the emperor's power be to us" after Hong Kong's
reversion to Chinese sovereignty! Now the central authorities have made it
clear that "the emperor's power is perceivable everywhere in Hong
Kong" with their comprehensive powers of administration and by giving
concrete expression to the Constitution in the SAR. What will become of
"one country, two systems"? This question is perplexing.
修憲後收緊參政空間 乃蛀蝕一國兩制基礎
全國人大會議通過修改《憲法》，新科全國人大常委譚耀宗表示，以後高叫「結束一黨專政」口號，可能違反《憲法》及《基本法》，甚至影響參選立法會資格。有關觀點令市民擔憂言論自由空間收窄，損害港人對一國兩制信心，除了添煩添亂，看不到對香港社會有何好處。
今次爭議源於中央修憲，在《憲法》第1條「社會主義制度是中華人民共和國的根本制度」之後，加入「中國共產黨領導是中國特色社會主義最本質的特徵」。
首先，《基本法》第104條訂明，立法會議員必須宣誓「擁護《基本法》和效忠中華人民共和國香港特別行政區」，並未提及必須擁護《憲法》。
《憲法》表明社會主義是中國根本制度，沒有一句具體提到可以在某地區奉行資本主義，然而這並不影響《基本法》訂明香港奉行資本主義的法律基礎，也不會有人說這牴觸《憲法》。看待修憲確立「中國共產黨領導」，也應該運用相類邏輯，體現一國兩制精神。鄧小平曾表明，1997年後香港仍然可以是一處罵共產黨的地方，「共產黨是罵不倒的」。
香港與內地制度迥異，是歷史遺留下來的問題，亦是客觀事實。中央提出一國兩制，是克服兩制矛盾、尋求和平統一的最大妥協。一國兩制需要劃出基本底線，諸如不容「港獨」，可是一國兩制若要有效運作，亦需要有「創造性的模糊」，亦即有策略地容許一些灰色地帶存在，保留彈性，好讓內地與香港制度能夠共存發展，避免不必要的摩擦；強行劃清界線，抹走灰色地帶，容易令兩制直接暴露於矛盾對立之中。水至清則無魚，如何看待《憲法》與香港的關係，也應該多朝這個方向思考，否則一國兩制迴旋空間只會愈收愈窄。
沒有留言:
張貼留言