觀察者社評：彭定康又發聲，但他又錯了

【本文英文稿由觀察者網提供，於10月6號刊載於《赫芬頓郵報》，題為“Hong Kong’s Last British Governor Has Key Fact Wrong About Protests”。】

17年前，彭定康被迫放棄英國殖民地香港；現在，眼瞅着這座城市被捲入所謂的“雨傘革命”，他再度出招。

這位末代港督、現在的牛津大學校監（觀察者網注：他還曾任BBC信託會主席，在BBC爆出多起醜聞後，以健康問題為由辭職。），5號在美國《世界郵報》上發表文章，將仍在持續的危機定義為一場關於香港民主的“爭論”：

“香港被許諾的民主之路應該從何時何地開始？”“沒有人曾告訴香港人，在保證給予他們的普選中，他們不能選擇候選人。沒有人曾説過，在中國共產黨政府心中，伊朗是民主樣板。全國人大的決定，實際上賦予中央對候選人的否決權。”

《赫芬頓郵報》網站截圖

彭定康勳爵指控中國中央政府背叛了對香港的民主承諾，為了證明自己的觀點，他提出了以下“證據”：

“其實，這不是中國當年的想法。早在1993年，中國的首席談判代表魯平（觀察者網注：時任國務院港澳事務辦公室主任）告訴《人民日報》，‘（普選方法）報全國人大常委會備案就可以，不必要中央同意。將來香港如何發展民主，完全是香港自治權範圍內的事，中央不會干涉。’次年，中國外交部證實了這一點。”

答對了！中國作出了承諾，現在卻沒有履行它，毋庸置疑是有錯的。好吧，一個小問題是，彭定康勳爵並非完全誠實。不，他並沒有捏造上述證據——魯平確實説過那些話。然而，魯平討論的事情與目前的爭議根本是兩碼事。魯平實際上指的是立法會選舉，而非行政長官選舉。

法治是香港核心價值中神聖不可侵犯的信條，無論是反對派還是彭定康都聲稱自己將捍衞它，因此，有必要看看法律到底是怎麼説的。

立法會的產生

關於立法會的產生辦法，香港的“小憲法”《基本法》中的“附件二”第三條是這樣説的：

二〇〇七年以後香港特別行政區立法會的產生辦法和法案、議案的表決程序，如需對本附件的規定進行修改，須經立法會全體議員三分之二多數通過，行政長官同意，並報全國人民代表大會常務委員會備案。

換言之，如果香港決定改變立法會的選舉方法，需要完成四個步驟：1）三分之二的立委必須先通過法案；2）行政長官必須同意；3）向全國人大常委會報告新方案；4）人大常委會接收方案並備案。是的，正如魯平所説、彭定康所引用的，中央在此過程中不會干涉。

行政長官選舉則是另一回事

然而，行政長官選舉——目前香港持續鬥爭的核心，是一個完全不同的問題。

關於行政長官的產生辦法，《基本法》“附件一”第七條規定：

二〇〇七年以後各任行政長官的產生辦法如需修改，須經立法會全體議員三分之二多數通過，行政長官同意，並報全國人民代表大會常務委員會批准。

如果香港要改變行政長官的選舉辦法，同樣要完成四個步驟：1）三分之二的立委必須先通過法案；2）行政長官必須同意；3）向全國人大常委會報告新方案；4）人大常委會將必須決定是否批准方案。

換言之，人大在此過程中有合法的角色，並將一錘定音，決定如何選舉香港行政長官。這是《基本法》所明確要求的法律行為，而不是彭定康所暗示的什麼不光彩的招數。

彭定康引用魯平的話，並將兩個完全獨立的選舉混在一起，這往輕了説，是在誤導讀者，往重了説，則是不誠實的行徑。

香港更像威斯敏斯特而非伊朗

彭定康居然好意思挑出審查候選人這一點，妄比香港與伊朗，值得指出的是，世界上最古老的民主制度並不符合彭定康及其香港朋友所追求的“普選”。英國首相既不是由所有選民“一人一票”選舉產生，也不是由“公民提名”所提名的，而是由其所在的政黨選出。

如果彭定康真心認定自己的主張就是香港應走的路，也許他該先在英國倡議。

（點擊下一頁，查看英文版）

 

Hong Kong’s Last British Governor Has Key Fact Wrong About Protests

Seeing that the city he was forced to give up 17 years ago is embroiled in the “Umbrella Revolution,” Chris Patten struck again.

In an article in The WorldPost, the last British colonial governor of Hong Kong defines the ongoing crisis as a “dispute about where Hong Kong’s promised path to democracy should take it, and when.” “No one told Hong Kongers when they were assured of universal suffrage that it would not mean being able to choose for whom they would vote. No one said that Iran was the democratic model that China’s Communist bureaucracy had in mind, with the Chinese government authorized to exercise an effective veto over candidates,” the current chancellor of the University of Oxford proclaimed.

Trying to prove this accusation of Hong Kong democracy betrayed by China, Lord Patten offered the following piece of evidence:

“In fact, that is not what China had in mind. As early as 1993, China’s chief negotiator on Hong Kong, Lu Ping, told the newspaper People’s Daily, ‘The [method of universal suffrage] should be reported to [China’s Parliament] for the record, whereas the central government’s agreement is not necessary. How Hong Kong develops its democracy in the future is completely within the sphere of the autonomy of Hong Kong. The central government will not interfere.’ The following year, China’s foreign ministry confirmed this.” Bingo! China made a promise and is now not honoring it. Guilty beyond doubt. Well, a tiny problem is that Lord Patten was not totally honest. No, the piece of evidence wasn’t fabricated - Lu Ping did say what he said. However, what Mr. Lu was discussing was something entirely different from what the current dispute is about. Mr. Lu was in fact referring to the elections of the Legislative Council and not that of the Chief Executive.

Since the sacred cow of the rule of law is among the core values of Hong Kong both the opposition and Lord Patten claim to be defending, it’s worth looking at what the laws actually say.

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

On the formation of the Legislative Council, Annex II, 3 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, reads:

With regard to the method for forming the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and its procedures for voting on bills and motions after 2007, if there is a need to amend the provisions of this Annex, such amendments must be made with the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the members of the Council and the consent of the Chief Executive, and they shall be reported to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress for the record.

In other words, there are four steps to follow if Hong Kong decides to change the election method of the legislature: 1) two thirds of the legislators have to pass a bill first; 2) the chief executive has to agree with the package; 3) the new method will then be reported to China; and 4) China will receive it for the record. And yes, China will not interfere in this process, as said by Mr. Lu quoted by Lord Patten.

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE IS ANOTHER MATTER

The election of the chief executive - the crux of the ongoing struggle in Hong Kong, however, is an entirely different matter.

On the selection of the chief executive, Annex I, 7 of the Basic Law states:

If there is a need to amend the method for selecting the Chief Executive for the terms subsequent to the year 2007, such amendments must be made with the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the members of the Legislative Council and the consent of the Chief Executive, and they shall be reported to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress for approval.

Again, there are four steps to follow if Hong Kong wants to change the election method of the chief executive: 1) two thirds of the legislators have to pass a bill first; 2) the chief executive has to agree with the package; 3) the new method will then be reported to China; and 4) China will have to decide whether to approve it or not.

In other words, China has a legitimate role to play in, and the final word on, deciding how the chief executive will be elected. This is a legal requirement stipulated in the Basic Law and not a dishonorable move by China as suggested by Lord Patten.

By quoting Mr. Lu and mixing the two entirely separated elections together, Lord Patten is misleading at least and dishonest at worst.

HONG KONG MORE LIKE WESTMINSTER THAN IRAN

While Lord Patten has the nerve of comparing Hong Kong to Iran in terms of vetting candidates, it’s interesting to note that the oldest democracy in the world doesn’t conform to the kind of universal suffrage Lord Patten and his friends in Hong Kong are pushing for. The prime minister of Britain is neither elected by “one person, one vote” from all the voters, nor nominated by “civic nomination,” but chosen by his or her own party.

If Lord Patten truly believes that should be the way to go in Hong Kong, perhaps he should start advocating at home first.