議事規則只管君子 理性討論還看議員

<轉載自2017年7月21日 明報 社評>

教育新資源撥款在驚濤駭浪下獲得財委會通過，然而餘波未了，泛民溫和派和激進派分歧浮現，至於建制派則醞釀修改議事規則，隨時再掀政治波瀾。立法會由協商解決問題，變質成為製造問題的地方，關鍵不是議事規則未夠嚴，而是理性討論精神的淪喪，部分議員將議事堂當成政治戰場，但求打擊敵人，不惜犧牲公眾利益。議事規則只能管到君子，管不到小人，現在也不是修訂議事規則的好時機。立法會必須重拾理性議事文化，方有希望重回正軌，若議員繼續不知分寸，凡事皆以政治鬥爭先行，就算收緊議事規則也不會有太大作用。

泛民內部分歧浮現 溫和派勿被牽着走

財委會會議告一段落，然而不同派別的議員仍然處處針鋒相對，隔空開火。建制派批評泛民阻撓會議進行，導致東涌新市鎮擴建等撥款項目未能通過，罔顧民生，有泛民議員則堅稱最迫切的教育和醫院擴建撥款都已通過，其他項目「絕對可以多等幾個月」；同時，泛民內部也隱然出現分歧，有激進派議員批評溫和派向政府低頭，甚至不點名抨擊有人「只顧保住業界利益」，非建制派碎片化情况會否加劇，惹人關注。

立法會議員應當以市民福祉為依歸，就算泛民對高院裁定4名議員宣誓無效喪失資格憤憤不平，也必須接受按法律框架和程序處理，不應把民生項目作為政治鬥爭的工具，所謂「其他項目可以多等幾個月」的說法不負責任，違背從政者「便民利民」的初衷。不過更加令人擔憂的，是部分激進民主派議員的心態。有激進派議員堅持應全面「開戰」拉倒教育撥款，認為財委會會議根本不應繼續進行，直至北京「還番6個議席給我們」，民主派不應「等派餅」，而是應當由人民決定如何用錢，云云。如果激進派議員的邏輯，是一日不「奪回」6個議席，就杯葛政府到底，不分青紅皂白阻撓施政，最受影響的必然是普羅市民。以「人民」之名做有損「人民」利益之事，道理上說不過去。

當然，泛民溫和派支持通過撥款，未必純然以民生為念，背後可能摻雜不少政治考慮，皆因教育界是泛民傳統票倉，倘若撥款告吹，日後恐流失大量選票。不過無論溫和泛民有何利害盤算，客觀後果是令到一項惠民措施得到通過。激進派議員質疑，教育界和議員的建議獲得採納不代表勝利，因為獲得掌聲的只有政府，有關說法顯然忘記了民生的勝利，比誰人多拿一點政治分數都更為重要；當「業界利益」與「社會利益」一致，就不存在所謂「只顧保住業界利益」的問題。值得留意的是，會議尾聲有溫和泛民議員提出縮短表決臨時動議的時間，令到教育和醫院擴建等撥款及時通過，反映部分泛民議員願意實事求是，顧全公眾利益。推動民主是泛民的共同事業，保持團結無疑重要，然而對於民生事務亦應孜孜念念。君子和而不同，溫和泛民不應因為懼怕政治壓力，事事被激進派牽着鼻子走。

重建理性議會文化 輿論可起督促作用

教育撥款驚險過關，財委會主席陳健波表示無論是立法會大會和財委會，都有需要修改《議事規則》。他打算先與建制派議員商量，待10月復會後提出修改財委會議事規則，處理拉布等問題，包括限制每位議員只能就着一個議案提出一項臨時動議，若議員因為行為不檢被逐，全日都不能返回會議室。雖然陳健波強調修訂財委會議事規則只需過半數議員通過，毋須分組點票，並沒有乘人之危，然而議員資格覆核案剛剛掀起風波巨浪，現在貿然推動修訂，絕非明智之舉。

修改議事規則應當按照跨黨派共識進行，否則必然引起激烈反彈，掀起新一場政治戰爭。陳健波認為部分激進議員存心抵制，修改規則可以一勞永逸解決問題，未免想得太簡單。議事規則只能管得了君子，管不了小人。倘若有議員決意阻撓施政，總會找到方法妨礙會議進行，收緊議事規則不僅無濟於事，反而有可能為他們提供更多政治彈藥，振振有辭挑戰「不公義的議會秩序」。

今時今日立法會蜩螗沸羹，原因之一是各方為求達到目標，有權用盡，事事硬碰，不知折衷迴旋之道。少數派濫用拉布手段作為政治鬥爭武器，多數派則挾着議席優勢，拒絕尊重少數派意見，「少數派暴力」惡鬥「多數派暴力」，形成惡性循環，永無寧日。議會應是議事論事的地方，不是政治鬥爭的戰場，立法會需要重建理性討論的議會文化，今次教育撥款最終獲得通過，反映社會輿論可以起到督促作用，議員們不應因為意識形態分歧，忘記實事求是的精神。

Restore the culture of rational discussion in Legco

THE funding request for new resources for education has been approved by the Legco Finance Committee in tempestuous circumstances, but the repercussions are still being felt. Within the pan-democratic camp, divisions between the moderates and radicals have emerged, while the pro-establishment camp is mulling over a plan to amend the Rules of Procedure, raising the spectre of another political storm.

The last Finance Committee meeting might have come to an end, but lawmakers from different camps remain diametrically opposed and are attacking each other over the airwaves. The pro-establishment camp lambasted the pan-democrats for hindering the conduct of meetings and preventing funding requests for items such as the Tung Chung new town from being adopted in a total disregard for people's livelihood. Pan-democrats, on the other hand, insisted that the most urgent requests, i.e. education and the hospital expansion plan, have all been approved, and that discussion of other items can definitely be delayed until several months later. Meanwhile, there seem to be disagreements within the pan-democrats. A radical lawmaker has criticised the moderates for bowing to pressure from the government. He has even criticised some people for "caring about nothing except the interests of their industry", though they have refrained from naming names. It is likely to attract attention whether the non-establishment camp will become further fragmentised.

Lawmakers should always be guided by the public interest. However infuriated the pan-democrats might be at the High Court's ruling that the oaths taken by the four lawmakers are invalid, they should agree with handling the case within the legal framework and in accordance with legal procedures. They should not treat issues that have to do with people's livelihood as tools for political struggles. The assertion that "discussion of those other items can be delayed until several months later" is very irresponsible and a departure from the underlying principle that politicians should make citizens' lives better and more convenient. However, what is even more worrying is the mindset of some radical democrats. Some radical lawmakers insisted that the pan-democrats should launch an all-out war and scupper the new funding for education and that the Finance Committee meeting should not proceed until the Beijing authorities "give us back the six seats". They also claimed that the pan-democrats should not "wait for a share of the pie" but should let the people determine how the money should be spent. If the logic of these radical lawmakers were correct, would it not follow that they should boycott what the government did until they "won back" the six seats? It is ordinary citizens who will be affected if the pan-democrats obstruct the work of the government invariably. It is not right to harm the interests of the people in the name of the people.

Of course the moderates in the pan-democratic camp supported the funding not necessarily because they had the interests of the people in mind. They did so possibly out of political calculation, as the education sector has traditionally been the heartland of the pan-democrats. Had the funding request fallen through, the pan-democrats could have lost a lot of votes. But whatever calculation the pan-democrats had in mind, the result is that a policy that benefits citizens has been adopted.

The messy state of affairs in the Legislative Council is attributable to the fact that all sides have no qualms about exercising their powers to the full just to achieve their aims. They go head to head with each other instead of seeking compromises. The minority uses filibusters as a weapon for political struggles. The majority, taking advantage of their superior position, refuses to respect the views of the minority. The fight between the violence of the minority and the violence of the majority has led to a vicious cycle and endless chaos. The Legislative Council should be a place for discussing issues. It is not a battlefield for political struggles. The culture of rational discussion of matters should be restored in the Legislative Council. That the funding request for new resources for education has finally been approved shows that supervision of the Legislative Council through public opinion works. Lawmakers should not forget to be practical because of ideological differences.

議事規則只管君子 理性討論還看議員

教育新資源撥款在驚濤駭浪下獲得財委會通過，然而餘波未了，泛民溫和派和激進派分歧浮現，至於建制派則醞釀修改議事規則，隨時再掀政治波瀾。

財委會會議告一段落，然而不同派別的議員仍然處處針鋒相對，隔空開火。建制派批評泛民阻撓會議進行，導致東涌新市鎮擴建等撥款項目未能通過，罔顧民生，有泛民議員則堅稱最迫切的教育和醫院擴建撥款都已通過，其他項目「絕對可以多等幾個月」；同時，泛民內部也隱然出現分歧，有激進派議員批評溫和派向政府低頭，甚至不點名抨擊有人「只顧保住業界利益」，非建制派碎片化情况會否加劇，惹人關注。

立法會議員應當以市民福祉為依歸，就算泛民對高院裁定4名議員宣誓無效喪失資格憤憤不平，也必須接受按法律框架和程序處理，不應把民生項目作為政治鬥爭的工具，所謂「其他項目可以多等幾個月」的說法不負責任，違背從政者「便民利民」的初衷。不過更加令人擔憂的，是部分激進民主派議員的心態。有激進派議員堅持應全面「開戰」拉倒教育撥款，認為財委會會議根本不應繼續進行，直至北京「還番6個議席給我們」，民主派不應「等派餅」，而是應當由人民決定如何用錢，云云。如果激進派議員的邏輯，是一日不「奪回」6個議席，就杯葛政府到底，不分青紅皂白阻撓施政，最受影響的必然是普羅市民。以「人民」之名做有損「人民」利益之事，道理上說不過去。

當然，泛民溫和派支持通過撥款，未必純然以民生為念，背後可能摻雜不少政治考慮，皆因教育界是泛民傳統票倉，倘若撥款告吹，日後恐流失大量選票。不過無論溫和泛民有何利害盤算，客觀後果是令到一項惠民措施得到通過。

今時今日立法會蜩螗沸羹，原因之一是各方為求達到目標，有權用盡，事事硬碰，不知折衷迴旋之道。少數派濫用拉布手段作為政治鬥爭武器，多數派則挾着議席優勢，拒絕尊重少數派意見，「少數派暴力」惡鬥「多數派暴力」，形成惡性循環，永無寧日。議會應是議事論事的地方，不是政治鬥爭的戰場，立法會需要重建理性討論的議會文化，今次教育撥款最終獲得通過，反映社會輿論可以起到督促作用，議員們不應因為意識形態分歧，忘記實事求是的精神。