開會是責任非「恩賜」 市民看厭流會鬧劇

<轉載自2017年10月20日 明報 社評>

立法會新年度會期開始不足兩周便出現流會，泛民因為議事規則和高鐵「一地兩檢」方案，與建制派和政府再起烽煙，政治和風瞥然消失，如此開局絕非好兆頭。有泛民議員聲言要抗爭到明年3月立法會補選，令人擔心議會可能繼續癱瘓下去。議員開會是基本責任，可是現在竟然變成議員的「恩賜」，不管有何冠冕堂煌理由，都難以自圓其說。議員薪酬愈來愈高， 議事水平卻今不如昔，鬥氣取代議事，市民早感厭煩，各派責任難逃，還請一眾「尊貴議員」靜思加入議會所為何事，究竟是為民請命還是政治鬥爭為先。

泛民建制鬥氣代議事 有權用盡心態要不得

政府提出休會待續議案，押後審議《印花稅修訂條例草案》，以便盡快討論高鐵「一地兩檢」方案，待立法會通過無約束力動議後，正式啟動「三步走」安排，惟泛民不滿政府沒有採取公眾諮詢程序，臨時調動議程「打尖」，一天內先後十多次要求點算法定人數，最終休會待續議案通過，之後大會便因為法定人數不足流會。泛民與建制派互相指摘，並繼續就修改議事規則問題爭拗，雙方侃侃而談，說穿了不過是「你做初一我做十五」，看在市民眼裏，只是一齣令人厭煩卻又沒完沒了的鬧劇。

每次立法會流會，泛民建制議員總是說得大義凜然，強調錯不在己，背後是否各有私利盤算，市民心裏明白。對泛民來說，「一地兩檢」是動員支持者、維持政治張力的議題，有可能延續至明年補選，不會輕易放過；對建制派而言，既然休會待續議案已通過，任務完成，提早散場不成問題。議事堂終日蜩螗沸羹，論斷誰是誰非，已變成「有雞先還是蛋先」的問題。從泛民角度看，今次是建制陣營出手在先，趁着非建制派6名議員失去議席，乘人之危修改議事規則，至於政府調動議程，則是「霸王硬上弓」，為了推動「一地兩檢」犧牲民生事項。可是從建制派角度看，過去泛民濫用拉布損害民生，早應修改議事規則遏制，現在泛民出於意識形態阻撓一地兩檢，還批評政府犧牲民生，是賊喊捉賊。

高鐵明年第三季通車，按照「三步走」安排，政府需要在12月人大常委會開會前，提呈人大授權落實「一地兩檢」，一旦誤了人大會期，就要等到明年2月，屆時內地兩會召開在即，加上立法會補選快將來臨，選舉操作勢必激烈。政府為免夜長夢多，調動議程無可厚非。根據議事規則，政府毋須事前預告，便可提出休會待續動議，抽起議程。今次政府特意提前兩天預告，以示「尊重立法會」，惟真正問題是泛民堅決反對「一地兩檢」方案，卻又無力否決議案，不管政府如何表達尊重，泛民也不會領情。泛民批評政府「不尊重議會」，必須用盡一切方法表達最強烈不滿，不惜製造流會，不過是包裝政治鬥爭的託辭。

鬥打茅波禮崩樂壞 還請議員臨崖勒馬

「一地兩檢」爭拗反映的是意識形態分歧，議事規則爭拗則把泛民和建制派「有權用盡」的思維表露無遺。放眼世界各地議會，少數派都會用拉布手段，各地議會亦有制約措施，確保運作，惟香港立法會並沒有多少機制約束拉布。建制派議員表示，反對拉布是他們的競選承諾，推動修改議事規則是「找數」，可是部分修訂內容，卻跟阻止拉布沒有直接關係，最明顯是將呈請書門檻由20人增至35人，變相阻止泛民議員提交呈請成立專責委員會。泛民抨擊建制派乘人之危，有權用盡，可以理解。不過一直以來泛民何嘗不是有權用盡，為求達到目標用盡每寸政治空間。在建制派眼中，現在不過是以彼之道還治彼身。

針對建制派打算補選前修改議事規則，泛民先發制人突襲，繞過議事規則委員會，直接向立法會大會提出34項修改。早前建制派提出修改財委會議事程序，泛民強調必須先交議事規則委員會討論，才符合「應有程序」。無論現在泛民如何高呼「非常時期需要非常方法」，肯定是「今天的我打倒昨天的我」，平日高高舉起的「程序公義」，在政治鬥爭時可以輕輕放下。有泛民議員指出，議事規則沒有禁止將修訂馬上提交大會，背後邏輯一樣是有權用盡。當泛民建制均認定，「我見縫鑽隙是理直氣壯，你見縫鑽隙是卑鄙邪惡」，結果必然是鬥打茅波，禮崩樂壞。

本港選舉制度，議員只需取悅小撮死忠擁躉已足以躋身議會，只要支持者高興，不管在議事堂如何茅招盡出，犧牲社會利益，也沒有相干。升斗小民全部看在眼裏，只能嘆句慘不忍睹。議員每月薪津十多萬元，開會是職責所在，一談不攏就採取玉石俱焚手段，製造流會，只會令一般市民愈益反感，還請議員以社會福祉為念，臨崖勒馬，勿逼市民未來半年繼續再看這些議事堂爛戲，還要給一眾「演員」奉上大筆公帑，勿再荒謬了。

Adjournment farce

LESS than two weeks after this legislative year had begun, a Legislative Council (Legco) meeting was adjourned for the lack of a quorum. The pan-democrats have again crossed swords with the pro-establishment camp and the administration over rules of procedure and the Express Rail Link "checkpoint co-location" plan. Political harmony has vanished. Such a beginning in no way bodes well. Some pan-democratic legislators have threatened to fight until next March, when Legco by-elections take place. Some are therefore worried that Legco may remain paralysed.

While the "co-location" controversy mirrors ideological differences, the row about rules of procedure lays bare the pan-democratic camp's and the pro-establishment camp's thinking of "making full use of powers". In any legislative chamber in the world, minority members filibuster. Any legislature in other parts of the world may take measures to curb filibustering and thereby ensure its own smooth operation. However, there are few regulations Legco may use to restrain filibustering. Pro-establishment Legco members say it is their election pledge to curb filibustering and they seek to "deliver" when they push for the amendment of the rules of procedure. Nevertheless, some of the amendments they have proposed have nothing directly to do with the prevention of filibustering. Their proposal to raise the petition threshold from 20 to 25, which would virtually make it impossible for pan-democrats to submit petitions for setting up select committees, is a case in point. It is understandable for pan-democrats to have slammed the pro-establishment camp for capitalising on others' precariousness and using their powers to the full. However, is it not true that pan-democrats have always used their powers to the full and, to achieve their objectives, made use of every bit of their political latitude? In their view, pro-establishment members have just paid pan-democrats back in their own coin.

Aware that pro-establishment members intended to have the rules of procedure amended in the run-up to the Legco by-elections, the pan-democratic legislators made a pre-emptive move. They proposed 34 amendments to the Legco secretariat for the general meeting, bypassing the Committee on Rules of Procedure. Some time ago, when the pro-establishment camp proposed that the rules of procedure of the Finance Committee be changed, pan-democrats stressed it was not in keeping with "due procedures" not to submit its proposals to the Committee on Rules of Procedure for discussion. However loud they may yell "extraordinary times call for extraordinary ways", one may certainly say "what they are has knocked down what they were". They have in a political struggle casually abandoned "procedural justice", which they usually claim to uphold. Some pan-democratic legislators have pointed out that it is not against the rules of procedure to submit amendment proposals to the general meeting. The logic behind this argument is also "using powers to the full". If pan-democratic and pro-establishment politicians are convinced that "it is right and proper for us to seize every chance to gain advantages and despicable and evil of you to do so", they will vie with one another to resort to "foul play", and the "rites and music" will inevitably be marred.

Hong Kong's electoral system is such that one only has to please a small number of one's staunch supporters to squeeze into the legislature. As long as his supporters are pleased, it does not matter what foul play a legislator may use at the expense of the public interest. Seeing this situation, ordinary wage-earners can only lament it is too ghastly to contemplate. A legislator is paid more than a hundred thousand dollars a month. It is his duty to attend Legco meetings. If legislators play all-destructive tricks and cause adjournments whenever they fail to come to any agreement, they will only make themselves more and more repulsive to ordinary citizens. We call on legislators to have society's well-being at heart. We hope they will rein in at the brink of the precipice and refrain from forcing citizens to continue to watch such bad Legco shows and at the same see their "players" receive huge sums from the public coffers. No more of such absurdities!

開會是責任非「恩賜」 市民看厭流會鬧劇

立法會新年度會期開始不足兩周便出現流會，泛民因為議事規則和高鐵「一地兩檢」方案，與建制派和政府再起烽煙，政治和風瞥然消失，如此開局絕非好兆頭。有泛民議員聲言要抗爭到明年3月立法會補選，令人擔心議會可能繼續癱瘓下去。

「一地兩檢」爭拗反映的是意識形態分歧，議事規則爭拗則把泛民和建制派「有權用盡」的思維表露無遺。放眼世界各地議會，少數派都會用拉布手段，各地議會亦有制約措施，確保運作，惟香港立法會並沒有多少機制約束拉布。建制派議員表示，反對拉布是他們的競選承諾，推動修改議事規則是「找數」，可是部分修訂內容，卻跟阻止拉布沒有直接關係，最明顯是將呈請書門檻由20人增至35人，變相阻止泛民議員提交呈請成立專責委員會。泛民抨擊建制派乘人之危，有權用盡，可以理解。不過一直以來泛民何嘗不是有權用盡，為求達到目標用盡每寸政治空間。在建制派眼中，現在不過是以彼之道還治彼身。

針對建制派打算補選前修改議事規則，泛民先發制人突襲，繞過議事規則委員會，直接向立法會大會提出34項修改。早前建制派提出修改財委會議事程序，泛民強調必須先交議事規則委員會討論，才符合「應有程序」。無論現在泛民如何高呼「非常時期需要非常方法」，肯定是「今天的我打倒昨天的我」，平日高高舉起的「程序公義」，在政治鬥爭時可以輕輕放下。有泛民議員指出，議事規則沒有禁止將修訂馬上提交大會，背後邏輯一樣是有權用盡。當泛民建制均認定，「我見縫鑽隙是理直氣壯，你見縫鑽隙是卑鄙邪惡」，結果必然是鬥打茅波，禮崩樂壞。

本港選舉制度，議員只需取悅小撮死忠擁躉已足以躋身議會，只要支持者高興，不管在議事堂如何茅招盡出，犧牲社會利益，也沒有相干。升斗小民全部看在眼裏，只能嘆句慘不忍睹。議員每月薪津十多萬元，開會是職責所在，一談不攏就採取玉石俱焚手段，製造流會，只會令一般市民愈益反感，還請議員以社會福祉為念，臨崖勒馬，勿逼市民未來半年繼續再看這些議事堂爛戲，還要給一眾「演員」奉上大筆公帑，勿再荒謬了。