權力傾斜利益團體 須防滋生政治腐敗

<轉載自2021年3月2日 明報 社評>

中央有關部門在深圳舉辦座談會，就完善香港選舉制度聽取意見。若說國務院港澳辦主任夏寶龍上周的講話，是為「愛國者治港」原則定調，這次座談會則是討論具體改革主張，有與會者提到改變特首選委會構成、改革立法會選舉制度、設立資格審查委員會、立法會參選人須獲選委會成員提名，云云。由反修例風暴到《港區國安法》，香港政治環境已然改變，無法回到反修例之前，中央要將「反中亂港者」排除出權力架構之外，香港政治及選舉制度必有巨變，然而過猶不及亦非好事。「愛國者治港」，不搞「清一色」，制度改革既要保障社會多元，同時亦要避免權力向小撮既得利益者過度傾斜，滋生政治腐敗。

社會多元須保障 制度設計要公平

全國人大及政協「兩會」本月舉行。身兼全國政協副主席的港澳辦主任夏寶龍，上周在北京出席一場研討會，闡述中央對「愛國者治港」的立場、原則和定義，提出要在中央主導下，完善香港選舉制度。今年「兩會」，全國人大很可能就香港選舉制度問題作出重大決定。過去兩天，夏寶龍等中央官員在深圳出席座談會，就落實「愛國者治港」，聽取與會香港人士意見，這既是內地慣用的諮詢方式，某程度亦是「吹風」場合，先放一些政治氣球，了解香港社會對不同改革方案的看法。

反修例風暴是一場「政治攤牌」，香港走上政治不歸路，各方都以不同方式押下政治重注，甚至孤注一擲。歷史沒有如果，經過這兩年的政治鬥爭，事到如今，香港已經回不了從前。政治現實說明，港獨是死路，「一國兩制」才是香港唯一活路，「一國」必須堅持，「兩制」亦要維護。中央決意維護「一國」這個本，提出要將「愛國者治港」制度化，選舉制度變化已是無可避免，從政治現實主義角度看，港人當然希望這場制度大手術後，「兩制」仍然可以有廣闊的空間，不會嚴重影響香港作為一個多元社會的開放度和包容度。

夏寶龍談到香港選舉制度修改五大原則，包括嚴格依照憲法及《基本法》辦事、尊重中央主導權、落實行政主導體制提升施政效能、選舉制度符合香港實際情况，以及要有健全制度保障，確保行政、立法、司法人員和重要法定機構負責人，均由真正的愛國者擔任。深圳座談會後，部分與會香港人士談到多項主張，特首選委會構成方面，有人提到取消117個區議會組別選委名額，並將港區全國政協列為當然代表。立法會選舉方面，有人主張取消立法會5個「超級區議會」議席；有人建議立法會直選棄用比例代表制，改採「雙議席單票制」，「拆細」現有選區。參選把關方面，有人呼籲設立資格審查委員會，不應只由選舉主任決定參選人資格；亦有意見認為，立法會參選人須獲一定數目選委提名，方能入閘。

根據《基本法》，區議會並非政權性的組織，不過在立法會和特首選舉上，區議會皆有一定角色。前年區議會選舉，遇上反修例風暴，非建制派在如此特殊的政治氛圍下，史無前例大捷，幾乎包攬各區區議會控制權。刻下多項涉及區議會的改動主張，都是針對眼前局面而來，現屆區議會在更高層次選舉的角色被壓縮甚至刪除，似乎已成定局。相比之下，有關立法會選舉制度等如何改動，相信仍有一些懸念。

改善管治推動改革 勿讓既得利益坐大

世上沒有完美的選舉制度，比例代表制與「小選區勝者全取」，孰優孰劣，並無定論。比例代表制較能反映不同政治光譜，惟亦較容易讓邊緣激進力量躋身議會，找到政治宣傳平台，助長政治極端化；「勝者全取」則偏向遏抑小眾聲音，勝負亦容易受到選區劃界影響，出現所謂「 傑利蠑螈（gerrymandering）」一類不公平操作。中央強調「愛國者治港」絕不是搞「清一色」，又提到社會多樣多元是香港的一個特點，選舉制度改革，理應照顧這些港情。比例代表制未必再適合當下港情，然而選舉制度改革必須公平，具體方案設計，要避免予人「明益」個別某一兩個政黨之感。

任何選舉制度改動，必然牽涉權力再分配、誰人可以得到更多權力。從中央的角度，完善選舉制度，目的是要確保「愛國者治港」、「反中亂港者出局」，然而在香港，不排除一些社會既得利益者希望趁此機會，擴大政治影響力，換取更多好處。特首選委會由1200人組成，來自社會不同利益界別，手握選票意味有政治影響力。小圈子選舉，本來就較容易出現向既得利益傾斜的問題，如果擴大特首選委成員的權力，在立法會參選提名過程扮演重要角色，等於進一步增加他們的政治籌碼，可以想像，比起特首參選人要爭取逾600票才能當選，屆時立法會參選人要取得的選委提名不會很多，這樣的提名安排，容易滋生政治腐敗、利益交換等問題。中央選舉制度修改五大原則，目標之一是希望提升特區政府施政效能，發展經濟改善民生；容讓既得利益集團藉機坐大，掌握更多政治權力，拖政府改革後腿，相信亦非中央所願。

Tilted power may breed political corruption

Several departments of the central government have held a symposium in Shenzhen to hear opinions on perfecting Hong Kong's electoral system. If the speech by Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office Director Xia Baolong last week was to set the tone for the principles of ''patriots governing Hong Kong'', the Shenzhen symposium was to discuss the concrete reform proposals. Attendees have floated ideas like changing the composition of the chief executive election committee, reforming the legislature's electoral system, establishing a credentials committee for qualifying candidates, requiring Legislative Council candidates to be nominated by members on the chief executive election committee and so forth. Hong Kong's political environment has already changed ever since the anti-extradition storm and the enactment of the Hong Kong National Security Law. We cannot turn the clock back to the time before the anti-extradition storm. Now that Beijing wants to expel ''anti-China individuals who disrupt Hong Kong'' from the Establishment, the political and the electoral systems of Hong Kong are bound to face drastic changes. However, overdoing something can be equally bad as underdoing it. ''Uniformity'' should not be the goal when fulfilling ''patriots governing Hong Kong''. Institutional reform should be done in a way that guarantees the pluralism of society as well as to avoid skewing the power overly in favour of a handful of people with vested interests, which will breed political corruption.

Central government officials including Xia attended the symposium in Shenzhen over the last two days to solicit opinions from Hong Kong participants on implementing the principle of ''patriots governing Hong Kong''. Xia mentioned five general principles for reforming Hong Kong's electoral system. They include adhering to the National Constitution and the Basic Law strictly, implementing an executive-led system to enhance the effectiveness of governance, respecting the central authorities' leadership, making sure the electoral systems reflect Hong Kong's reality, and soundly safeguarding the systems to guarantee that positions in the executive, legislature and judiciary, as well as persons in charge of key statutory bodies, are held by true patriots.

A number of proposals were mentioned by some Hong Kong attendees. On the composition of the chief executive election committee, some said the 117 committee seats currently held by district councillors should be abolished while the Hong Kong representatives to the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference National Committee should be listed as ex-officio members. On LegCo elections, a proposal called for cancelling the five ''super district council'' functional constituency seats while another suggested abandoning the proportional representation mechanism for the directly elected LegCo seats and adopting a ''double-seat, single-vote'' system instead. Current electoral districts would be ''broken down into smaller ones''. As for the gatekeeping of candidacy, some called for setting up a credentials committee instead of relying solely on the returning officers for deciding on a candidate's qualification. There were opinions that LegCo candidates have to obtain nominations from a certain number of chief executive election committee members before entering the contest.

According to the Basic Law, district councils are not organs of political power. But they play certain roles in both legislative elections and the election of the chief executive. Apparently the die is already cast that the roles of incumbent district councillors in higher-level elections will be squeezed or even abolished. By comparison, supposedly there are still loose ends regarding how the LegCo's electoral system shall be changed.

Small-circle elections are more easily beset by the problem of being tilted in favour of vested interests. If the members of the chief executive election committee are given more power and allowed to play important roles in the nomination of LegCo candidates, that will mean furthering their political leverage. One can imagine that compared to the 600-plus votes a chief executive candidate has to secure for election, the number of nominations from election committee members a LegCo candidate has to obtain will not be very large in the future. Such a nomination arrangement can easily breed political corruption, horse-trading and other problems.

權力傾斜利益團體 須防滋生政治腐敗

中央有關部門在深圳舉辦座談會，就完善香港選舉制度聽取意見。若說國務院港澳辦主任夏寶龍上周的講話，是為「愛國者治港」原則定調，這次座談會則是討論具體改革主張，有與會者提到改變特首選委會構成、改革立法會選舉制度、設立資格審查委員會、立法會參選人須獲選委會成員提名，云云。由反修例風暴到《港區國安法》，香港政治環境已然改變，無法回到反修例之前，中央要將「反中亂港者」排除出權力架構之外，香港政治及選舉制度必有巨變，然而過猶不及亦非好事。「愛國者治港」，不搞「清一色」，制度改革既要保障社會多元，同時亦要避免權力向小撮既得利益者過度傾斜，滋生政治腐敗。

過去兩天，夏寶龍等中央官員在深圳出席座談會，就落實「愛國者治港」，聽取與會香港人士意見。夏寶龍談到香港選舉制度修改五大原則，包括嚴格依照憲法及《基本法》辦事、落實行政主導體制提升施政效能、尊重中央主導權、選舉制度符合香港實際情况，以及要有健全制度保障，確保行政、立法、司法人員和重要法定機構負責人，均由真正的愛國者擔任。

部分與會香港人士談到多項主張，特首選委會構成方面，有人提到取消117個區議會組別選委名額，並將港區全國政協列為當然代表。立法會選舉方面，有人主張取消立法會5個「超區」議席；有人建議立法會直選棄用比例代表制，改採「雙議席單票制」，「拆細」現有選區。參選把關方面，有人呼籲設資格審查委員會，不應只由選舉主任決定參選人資格；亦有意見認為，立法會參選人須獲一定數目選委提名，方能入閘。

根據《基本法》，區議會並非政權性的組織，不過在立法會和特首選舉上，區議會皆有一定角色。現屆區議會在更高層次選舉的角色被壓縮甚至刪除，似乎已成定局。相比之下，有關立法會選舉制度等如何改動，相信仍有一些懸念。

小圈子選舉，本來就較容易出現向既得利益傾斜的問題，如果擴大特首選委成員的權力，在立法會參選提名過程扮演重要角色，等於進一步增加他們的政治籌碼，可以想像，比起特首參選人要爭取逾600票才能當選，屆時立法會參選人要取得的選委提名不會很多，這樣的提名安排，容易滋生政治腐敗、利益交換等問題。