|
改革後的區議會為民謀福
文章
2023 年 5 月 17 日
早前我在《中國日報香港版》以英文撰文,闡述區議會改革的優點,感謝《文匯論壇》節錄原文並翻譯為中文版本,在此與大家分享。順道附上我於1982年作為政務總署首席助理政務司,負責推動首屆區議會選舉的照片(感謝林妙茵提供)。
【改革後的區議會為民謀福】《文匯論壇》節錄中文版本
期待已久的區議會改革方案公布後,獲得社會各界大力支持。特首李家超強調,改革後的區議會必須遵守「愛國者治港」原則,必須維護國家安全、必須擁護行政主導——對這些重要原則,有必要再三強調。
回顧區議會發展歷程,不難看到隨着民選比例擴大,反對派陣營的區議員政治野心亦不斷上升,妄圖將區議會變成權力機關。顯然,區議會這一發展方向背離了基本法第九十七條的規定:「香港特別行政區可設立非政權性的區域組織,接受香港特別行政區政府就有關地區管理和其他事務的諮詢,或負責提供文化、康樂、環境衞生等服務」。為了回歸基本法初心,區議會改革勢在必行。
區議會改革後,歡迎所有願意維護國家安全、支持行政主導、擁護「一國兩制」的市民參與。新的區議員產生辦法列明三條途徑,有助於政府廣納賢能,讓不同背景和資歷的人才在他們最熟悉、聯繫最密切的地區服務市民。
有人認為,委任制無需直接向選民負責,相比民選議員可能反應不夠迅速,服務不夠用心,對此,市民完全不必擔心。改革之後的區議會,每一位議員都必須緊緊貼近市民、牢牢把握地區事務動向。而且,政府已明確表示將增設履職監察機制以評估議員表現。不僅會統計出席率等數據,還會評估議員在改善環境、惠利民生方面有哪些貢獻、做出了哪些政績。
由民政事務專員擔任區議會主席,也有助區議會職能回歸基本法初心。事實上,最初的「地區諮詢委員會」也是由民政事務專員擔任主席,負責監督協調政府的民生事務工作。後來,港英政府刻意給予民選區議會更多的權力,由此導致區議會過度政治化而無法有效運作。
令人欣慰的是,現在,政府在提高區議員評估準則的同時,也要求各政府部門擔負起相關責任、共同改善基層施政。新設立「地區治理領導委員會」,並由政務司司長主持,同時,副司長則會領導「地區治理專組」,確保地區治理決策和統籌工作得以順利進行。
在新的區議會制度下,只要候選人真誠維護國家安全、擁護行政主導、捍衛「一國兩制」即可參選。對縮減民選比例完全無需擔憂,因為評估區議會的成敗指標是議員的政績而非其產生辦法。預計當局會適時通過法案修改《區議會條例》,並在年底前完成委任和選舉,屆時,新一屆區議會將會選賢與能,魄力重現,戮力同心,共同謀求香港利益最大化,開啟社區服務新篇章。
改革後的區議會為民謀福(《文匯論壇》節錄,英文原文發表在《中國日報香港版》評論版。)
---------- 以下為刊登於《中國日報香港版》英文原文-----------------
Revamped district councils will get back on tracks (Authored by Regina Ip, posted on China Daily hk)
On May 2, Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu unveiled long-awaited plans for reforming the district councils.
The revamped district councils are to be restructured to have a tripartite membership, similar to the Legislative Council, comprising appointed members, members elected by members of Area Committees, the Fight Crime Committee and the Fire Prevention Committee in each district, and about 20 percent directly elected in substantially enlarged geographical constituencies. The numbers of district councilors will be slightly reduced from 479 to 470. The new-style district councilors are expected to play a bigger role in district consultation and improving governance at district level.
In announcing the “major surgery”, the chief executive stressed that the reformed district councils must comply with the principle of “patriots administering Hong Kong”, must safeguard national security and must support “executive-led governance”. These principles cannot be overemphasized.
When appointed members were replaced entirely by directly elected members in 2015, many district councils fell into the hands of rabble-rousers who got elected through fanning anti-government sentiments. They grabbed media attention through indulging in eye-catching antics at council meetings, but did little solid work of value to local residents.
Things went from bad to worse in 2019 when months of rioting stoked dissatisfaction with the government. Many anti-government candidates seized the opportunity to win seats through exploiting the politics of hate and fear. Riding on their anti-government platforms, some elected members openly adopted anti-China positions, fueling separatist sentiments especially among young people.
After the National Security Law for Hong Kong was enacted by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee in June 2020, over 300 district councilors resigned, causing the work of a number of district councils to grind to a halt. Their exodus from the district councils speaks volumes about their inability to comply with the fundamental requirements of loyalty to the country and commitment to “one country, two systems”.
Looking back on the history of the district councils since the 1980s, expansion of the electoral element led elected members in the opposition camp to harbor ambitions to turn district councils into organs of power. Such a development clearly went against the provision of Article 97 of the Basic Law, which clearly states that “District organizations which are not organs of power may be established in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, to be consulted by the government of the Region, on district administration and other affairs, or to be responsible for providing services in such fields as culture, recreation and environmental sanitation”.
The dysfunction and disorder which plagued the district councils made it imperative for the chief executive to reshape the district councils in accordance with the original intent of Article 97 of the Basic Law.
District councils were actually preceded by “district advisory boards” established in the early 1980s, designed to serve as platforms for consultation and collation of public opinions at district level. They were given some responsibilities for providing cultural, sport and recreational activities. Their knowledge of local conditions enabled them to give sound advice to the government on the improvements necessary to ameliorate the local environment and sanitary conditions.
This format worked well. But twisted ideas of power emanating from delusions about their “direct popular mandate” perverted the functions of subsequently elected district councils. Many veered from serving the people to jockeying for power. Reform is necessary to return district councils to the right path, as intended in the Basic Law.
The tripartite composition will enable the government to enlarge the talent pool for district councils. The different routes to membership will enable suitable candidates of diverse skills and backgrounds to have an opportunity to serve in the district with which they have the greatest affinity and connection.
There is no reason to worry that appointed members would be less hardworking or responsive than elected members who are more directly accountable to their electors. All are expected to establish a close connection with the people, so that they can keep close tabs on the pulse of the community. Moreover, the government has made it clear that there will be a mechanism to assess their performance, presumably not just on the basis of quantitative yardsticks such as attendance records, but the value of their contributions in terms of constructive ideas for improving the local environment and the livelihoods of the people.
It follows from the return to the original intent of the Basic Law that district councils would more appropriately be chaired by district officers. Before the British tried to give elected district councils more power as a check on government (which degenerated into excessive politicization and malfunction), district advisory bodies were chaired by district officers charged with the responsibility of overseeing and coordinating the work of government departments which most directly impact local residents.
It is pleasing that while the government will raise the bar in evaluating the performance of new-style district councilors, the government will also require government departments to do their part in improving district administration. The chief secretary for administration will chair a high-level steering committee on district governance, while the deputy chief secretary for administration will lead a task force to ensure effective coordination.
The revamped system is open to participation by all willing to uphold the key principles of safeguarding national security and supporting executive-led governance, the cornerstones of “one country, two systems”. Hand-wringing on the reduction of the electoral element is unnecessary, as incumbents should not be assessed purely on the procedure by which they were selected, but by the quality of their performance. Assuming that the necessary amendment legislation will be enacted in time for appointments and elections to be completed before the end of the year, we can look forward to revitalized district councils filled with able and committed people with Hong Kong’s best interests at heart, ready to open a new chapter of service for the people.
|