【明報專訊】中聯辦被指幫政府「拉票」,令立法會日前否決用特權法索取電視發牌文件,中聯辦副主任王志民(右)昨出席福建社團聯會會董就職慶典後被問到事件時,指「中聯辦依照一國兩制行使職責」;另一中聯辦副主任林武面對久候的記者,離開時只稱「辛苦晒」。同場的港澳辦前副主任陳佐洱及特首梁振英則沒有回應。
(10/11/2013明報)
不要以為標少譁眾取寵,用這充滿噱頭的標題,我寫這篇,從法理角度去看。中央人民政府駐香港特別行政區聯絡辦公室(簡稱中聯辦),英文叫 Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong S.A.R. (這中英文名字我是從它的網頁抄出來的,R後面的簡寫標點它遺漏了,我自己替它補上)。顧名思義,這組織是聯絡性質。它網頁所介紹的職能如下:
| ||||||||||
|
我不知道中聯辦在立法會議員投票前約見議員,在行使那種職能,1至4項可以肯定講怎樣也套不入,可圈可點的只有寫得極其含糊的第5項……承辦中央人民政府交辦的其他事項。其他事項的涵蓋性可包括甚麽呢?他們自己説是依照一國兩制行使職責。講一國兩制,就只有往《基本法》裏面找。《基本法》第二章講中央和香港特別行政區的關係,由第十二條到第二十三條,沒有一條講出或明示暗示中聯辦可以行使甚麽剩餘的職責,立法會議員的投票意向,又不涉國防外交事務,純粹是香港事務,中聯辦實際上是違反了第22條,在干預香港事務。
明報另一則新聞講羅范椒芬的看法:
羅范:通訊局非與行會割蓆
另外,港區人大代表、行政會議成員羅范椒芬昨表示,通訊局向立法會提交的文件,並非要與行會割蓆,只是以事論事。她又指中聯辦是國家駐港機構,有責任維護《基本法》和一國兩制,當看見立法會想用特權法查免費牌、衝擊行會制度,中聯辦才覺得涉及憲政問題,但中聯辦不是每件事都想參與,接觸部分立法會議員是因為事件重要。
連中聯辦自己都不敢講是在維護《基本法》,羅范椒芬想以此替他們開脫也枉然,如果他們講得出是依賴《基本法》那一條作出干預香港事務的理據,就不用縮瑟地用隱誨不堪的話語來蒙混,也不用派大公報的打手出來跳樑。中聯辦的做法是霸王上弓,强姦香港人的治港權。只有謝偉俊沒有被强姦,因為他的褲是自己脫的,建制派也沒有被強姦,因為他們暗地裏私通,只屬通姦。
有關謝偉俊的比喻很貼切,標少有神來之筆。
回覆刪除我冒昧加一句,他先公告天下要保衛他的貞節,然後才脫褲。
香港有此立法議員,可憐復可悲。
Paul Tse在debar之前偶有碰頭,只跟他開個玩笑。本應是黎民於變時雍,可惜香港是黎民於變時瘋。至於議員,品質之劣,就不消説了。
回覆刪除//中聯辦實際上是違反了第22條,在干預香港事務。//
回覆刪除如何告上法庭?
這個我不懂。違反基本法並非刑事控罪,以民事入稟禁制那一干人我又未聽過,索償又講不出損失,而且基本法的最終解釋權屬人大常委會(第158條),所以省點氣,駡就照駡,法律行動就別想了。劉慧卿當年以新華社違反私隱條例入稟告前社長羗恩柱,最後賠了訟費收埸。所以,別想了,去西環門口放氣球,放幾個響屁好了,回敬他們所放的屁。
回覆刪除理論上,中國最高法院可以接受一切關於憲法的訴訟,在這個場合,香港政府或香港市民可以提出訴訟以阻止干預。但現實上這不可能發生,因爲:1)中國並非司法獨立與實行憲政的國家;2)中聯辦只是會見議員,並不代表它直接下了命令。
刪除當然一切訴訟的想法都枉然,一黨專的不單只是政,黨是真理道路,想怎樣就怎樣。無端端去見議員,沒有圖謀就不會在那時刻約見,何需下命令,議員揣摩一下,結果正合吾意。
刪除嘻嘻嘻,有些人以往在此常客,冇口水尾執,二毛半都冇本事揾.失踪了.....
回覆刪除我也不太清楚你講的二毛半是甚麽人。在你眼中,我又值多少?
刪除標少評論:憑良心,有風骨和專業見解。讚讚讚.......
回覆刪除Ray
良心時有時無,風骨要遇到試探才見真章,至於專業嘛,吹牛也算專業。
刪除哈哈!標少手中無劍,心中有劍,有意思。
刪除Ray
假作真時真亦假,無為有處有還無。虛幻真假怎説得清,Ray兄不要太認真,把我抬高了,就有人把我摔得痛。初看手中劍,再看不復見,三看何需劍,本來無一物,手何來有劍。
回覆刪除I always ask the question who has the constitutional role under the Basic law to defend Hong Kong from being interfered by other state organs of the People’s Republic of China? While the NPC Standing Committee has the constitutional power to intemperate the Basic Law, they can only do so only under the prescribed procedures under the Basic Law. And depends on the matter being interpreted, there may also be a political price to pay for.
回覆刪除Thomas L Friedman, two times Pulitzer Prize winner, has advanced the Hama rules in his book “From Beirut to Jerusalem” in order to “make sense” for the happening of the Hama massacre in Syria in 1982:
“…it all comes down to Hama Rules: Rule or die. One man triumphs, the others weep. The rest is just commentary” (page 104)
While Hong Kong is not yet up to that stage, I think this rule is still of reference value to Hongkongers today.
Theoretically, the Supreme Court of China is the defender of the Chinese Constitution, of which the HK Basic Law is a part of. In a federal system, there exists mechanisms that prevent the federal government from going over its constitutional boundaries, ranging from constitutional safeguards, such as the notwithstanding cause that is being used in Canada, litigation between governments in the USA, to having a constitutional court as Germany does. Unfortunately, there is no such mechanisms in the Chinese constitution and the Supreme Court of China is only a CCP's organ when it comes to political/constitutional questions.
刪除There is little the HK people can do to guard against intereferenc from the People's claws. The Chinese officials feel it is a matter of right for what they have done. Metaphorically, it is just like a husband who wants to discharge his lustful desire by coercing the wife to bed despite her protest. He just feels it is a matter he can do any time as of right. There is no concept that it amounts to raping the wife. In the Syria case David drew comparation with, a line in les miserables pops up in my mind "give up your gun or die". It is the crude fact of life we have to swallow.
刪除中華人民共和國實行的「人民代表大會制」,全國人民代表大會是最高權力機關,法院在體制上的地位是低於全國人大的,而中國共產黨則控制了中國人大的絕大多數議席,使行政立法司法三權互相合作。即使不考慮解放軍是隸屬於黨而非國家這個因素,中共在體制上也不會被制衡的。
刪除I wonder Ms Elise Leung and Ms Maria Tam never stand out in defending Hong Kong under Article 22 of the Basic Law from being interfered by department of the Central People's Government.
刪除The simple answer is they are loyal to their true master.
刪除Montwithin
回覆刪除Do you know any other country like the People's Republic of China that no cause of action can be based on its own constitution, i.e. people cannot sue on the constitution against any party (including the government) for breaching the constitution?
My prime suspect was Japan and I was right: http://lawreview.wustl.edu/inprint/88/6/matsui.pdf
刪除The Supreme Court of Japan in theory has the power to answer some political questions in relation to the constitution, but in practice, it is unwilling to do so, so it is useless in effect. I'm not an expert on Japanese politics so I cannot tell you the reason, although I have couple ideas.
我在我的文章亦有談及:
回覆刪除http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20131113/51898262
中聯辦插手 很難從法律行動上反抗
要做的 可能還是要靠大量市民的聲用施壓
可惜其實有很多市民仍然是偏政治冷感
更可怕的是 中央剛成立的國安會不知會如何影響香港
國安會乃情報系統指揮中心,不需過度害怕:
刪除http://montwithin.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/%E5%9C%8B%E5%AE%B6%E5%AE%89%E5%85%A8%E5%A7%94%E5%93%A1%E6%9C%83%E8%88%87%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF/
戴笠當年就是國民政府「情報系統指揮中心」的頭子,當年不怕戴笠的人又有幾多個?
刪除要「影響香港」,不管是什麽方法,中共早就有足夠能力與機制影響,有國安會跟沒有國安會沒有太大分別。再者,害怕也沒用。
刪除