「我經歷家道中落，憑發奮好學、努力工作，一步步走到今天。我和許多港人一樣，相信天道酬勤；三次出洋留學，更令我深信教育和知識的力量。我希望新一代同樣有發揮所長的機會，使這些信念能夠延續下去，薪火相傳。今後，讓我們繼續共建希望，開拓美好未來！」
簡介
葉劉淑儀 GBM, GBS, JP (大紫荊勳賢、金紫荊星章、非官守太平紳士)
葉劉淑儀(香港大學文學士(一級榮譽)、英國格拉斯哥大學文學碩士、美國史丹福大學管理碩士、美國史丹福大學東亞研究文學碩士)
葉劉淑儀女士於1975年至2003年在香港政府服務，期間曾於多個不同範疇工作，包括在地區層面推行政府民主化、國際工貿及保安。她是首名被委任出掌紀律部隊(入境事務處)的女性(1996-98)，亦是首名女性保安局局長(1998-2003)。
-
2003年，葉劉淑儀女士辭去在香港特區政府的職務，帶女兒到美國就學，自己亦在當地進修。她在史丹福大學完成東亞研究文學碩士課程後，於2006年6月回港。她在2006年7月成立了智囊組織「匯賢智庫」，集中研究香港憲制和經濟兩方面的結構性問題。「匯賢智庫」的核心願景，就是令香港轉型為知識型經濟。
-
2008年9月，葉劉淑儀女士在立法會選舉(香港島地方選區)獲選為立法會議員。
-
2011年1月，葉劉淑儀女士創立「新民黨」，獲選為黨主席。2012年、2016年及2021年，三度成功連任立法會議員。
-
2012年10月及2017年7月，葉劉淑儀女士獲委任為行政會議非官守議員。
-
2015年9月，葉劉淑儀牽頭成立了「海上絲綢之路協會」，擔任聯席主席。
-
2016年12月，葉劉淑儀向行政長官辭去行政會議成員職務並獲批准。她曾參選2012年及2017年行政長官選舉。
-
2022年7月，葉劉淑儀獲香港特區第六屆政府委任為新一屆行政會議召集人。
愛文學的乖乖女
我的父親乃新加坡華僑，原籍廣東佛山南海（與葉問同鄉）。從爸爸口中得知，曾祖父在星洲發跡後，心懷家國，回到唐山建祖屋、聯絡鄉親。兒時，爸爸經常奔走星、港兩地；可惜後來生意艱難，家境漸困。
母親十分重視教育，即使我們家道中落，她仍堅持將我送到校風純樸的聖士提反女校上學。自四歲起在教會學校讀書，我較多機會接觸英語及英國文學，「數口不精」的我較愛語文及人文學科，後來考入香港大學英國文學系，以一級榮譽畢業。
父親在我大學畢業前過世，我身為長女，自此肩負起養家的責任。畢業不久，可能與我愛學習有關吧，到了新法書院當教師，教授「老本行」英語及英國文學。數十年後的今天，我仍非常喜歡教書，間中會到自己於2009年創辦的匯賢智庫學苑向中學生講課，既可重拾昔日興趣，又有機會與年輕人談天，聽聽他們的想法。
1973年，我靠著一點積蓄，隻身到蘇格蘭格拉斯哥大學，在艱苦的環境下完成英國文學碩士學位。雖然我在學校多接觸「番書」，但受媽媽的薰陶，自幼對中國文學（特別劇曲）的興趣甚濃。現在，雖然立法會及政黨工作繁重，我仍會間中抽空欣賞京劇及其他地方戲曲，閒時也愛閲讀經、史、子、集及其他文學經典。
公僕銅人行
1975年，我獲聘為政務主任，從低做起，在多個政府部門服務。
任職工商科、貿易署和工業署時，我與多國及歐共體、世貿、亞太經合組織等談判，為本地業界掃除貿易障礙，並推動科技創新和工業發展。
1996年任入境處處長，隨後當上保安局局長；我四出推銷特區護照，爭取到歐盟免簽證，奠定多國免簽證的基礎。此外，我亦處理了多項棘手問題，包括居港權、公安條例、張子強綁架案等，為保障港人的穩定生活出一分力。
擔任公職近30年來，我不僅見證了地區民主化、主權回歸、新機場啟動以及香港作為中國第一個特區的早期發展等歷史里程碑，亦處理過不少極具爭議性的任務，大大提升了我的政治能力。
學會謙卑 政治科學101
2003年推動《基本法》廿三條立法的經歷，是我人生重要一課。我於是決定實踐一個醖釀多年的念頭──繼1986年到史丹福修讀管理碩士課程後，我重返校園，「回到曠野」。在美國史丹福的第一年，我擔任訪問學人。在鳥語花香的校園，生活恬靜，終能真正與女兒享受家庭樂。同時，我不斷深切反思從前為官時之不足，以及推銷政策時之錯誤，覺悟自己當年解釋政策時的確忽略了市民感受。
我在史丹福的第二年，獲東亞研究碩士課程取錄，重新學習政治科學；不但學習書本上的理論，也親身體會到美國的民主政治和選舉模式。2005年年底，我與在史丹福認識的一群香港「同學仔」，以及住在三藩市灣區的科技界人士，計劃回港組織智庫，以期推動香港的科技創新及經濟轉型，鼓勵有識之士積極參政，發展優質民主。
2006年我取得人生中第三個碩士學位（東亞研究）。留學外地，雖然清靜安逸，但我時刻記掛著香港；憑藉三年留學之體驗，我深切體會到，若得不到民意授權，始終難以服務社會；故於2007年我毅然重新起步，返港參選。
走民主路 重獲市民信任
2006年我回港成立匯賢智庫，2009年創立匯賢智庫學苑，至今已收生越千人，2011年創立新民黨，積極推動香港民主發展。
2007年，我參加立法會港島區補選，雖然敗於陳方安生女士，但有幸得到13萬7千多名選民支持，獲得近43%選票。2008年，我再接再厲參選，我們的團隊得到超過6萬1千票，是全港得票第四高的名單。
進入立法會後，我參加了9個事務委員會，關注各個政策範疇。我關心中產議題（包括動議撤銷外傭稅，使政府暫緩執行）；協助雷曼迷債苦主，提出金融改革建議；力倡促進科技發展和改善教育；反對降低強拍門檻；向各方解釋居港權問題，提出解決方法……數年努力，終獲市民認同，民調多次把我列為最受歡迎議員，給我極大鼓舞。
相信希望 共建香港
近年，社會經常討論甚麼是香港的核心價值。香港吸納了許多西方文化的優點，例如健全法制、自由人權和科學管理；同時，我們亦保持華人的優良傳統，如重視家庭和教育，以及堅持奮鬥、深信努力總有回報的精神。這些都是香港賴以成功的要素。
我經歷家道中落，憑發奮好學、努力工作，一步步走到今天。我和許多港人一樣，相信天道酬勤；三次出洋留學，更令我深信教育和知識的力量。我希望新一代同樣有發揮所長的機會，使這些信念能夠延續下去，薪火相傳。回港後這幾年，我為30多名年輕人提供就業機會，並鼓勵了多位青年參政，這可說是我最感自豪的成就之一。
早前，新民黨和匯賢智庫的手足同僚在辦公室為我舉行了一個小型生日派對。他們請我許願，我說，在奮鬥的路途上，幸得朋友挺身支持，我已非常感恩，別無他願。今後我只會繼續努力，在不同崗位服務市民，為香港出一分力。
一直以來，我們相信希望，創出奇蹟；今後，讓我們繼續共建希望，開拓美好未來！
學歷及專業資格
-
香港大學文學士（一級榮譽）
-
英國格拉斯哥大學文學碩士
-
美國史丹福大學管理碩士
-
美國史丹福大學東亞研究文學碩士
工作經歷
-
新法書院大坑道分校學位教師
-
政務主任 （輔政司署銓敘科）
-
民政署社區關係主任
-
旺角民政主任
-
助理新界民政司
-
政務總署首席助理政務司
-
首席助理保安司
-
助理貿易署署長
-
副行政署長
-
副工商司
-
工業署署長
-
人民入境事務處處長（入境事務處處長）
-
保安局局長
-
匯賢智庫創會主席
-
新民黨主席
-
立法會議員(香港島西)
-
行政會議召集人
Biography
Regina IP LAU Suk Yee, GBM, GBS, JP
Regina IP LAU Suk Yee - B.A.-First Class Honor (University of Hong Kong), Master of Letters (University of Glasgow), Master of Science in Management (Stanford University), and Master of Art in East Asian Studies (Stanford University)
Mrs. Ip worked for the Hong Kong Government from 1975 to 2003. During that time, she served in a wide range of areas including democratization of local government, international trade and industry and security. She was the first woman to be appointed the head of a disciplined service (Immigration Department) (1996-98) and as Secretary for Security of Hong Kong (1998-2003).
In 2003 Mrs. Ip resigned from her position in the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to take her daughter to the U.S. for education and to pursue higher studies herself. In June 2006, she returned to Hong Kong after completing the MA program in East Asian Studies at Stanford University. In July 2006, she established Savantas Policy Institute, a think tank focused on tackling the twin structural constitutional and economic problems of Hong Kong. The core vision of Savantas is to transform Hong Kong into a knowledge-based economy.
-
In September 2008, Mrs. Ip was elected Legislative Council Member in the Hong Kong Island geographical constituency.
-
In January 2011, Mrs. Ip founded New People’s Party and was elected the party chairperson. She was re-elected as Legislative Council Member in September 2012, 2016, and December 2021respectively.
-
In October 2012 and July 2017, Mrs. Ip was appointed as Non-Official Member of the Executive Council (ExCo).
-
In September 2015, she established the “Maritime Silk Road Society” (MSRS), and is now Co-Chair of the organization.
-
In December 2016, Mrs. Ip resigned from the Executive Council. She ran in both 2012 and 2017 Chief Executive elections.
-
She is currently the Convenor of the Executive Council for the sixth term of the HKSAR Government.
特朗普當選不久便遇到第一個挫折，他提名的司法部長人選蓋茨因未能獲得共和黨國會參議員的支持而主動撤回候選人提名。表面上看這是美國制度對特朗普一次成功制衡；可是那邊廂，美國最高法院似乎對特朗普妥協了。自2023年被刑事起訴以來，圍繞着特朗普的一系列法律糾紛在美國憲政史上創造了一連串的「歷史首次」。例如2024 年7 月1 日，美國最高法院公布了一項有關「總統刑事豁免權」的歷史性判決，裁定總統在執行憲法職權時有「絕對」刑事免罪權，任期內不能追究。由此可見，特朗普成功掌握了參眾兩院和保守派主導的美國最高法院。
特朗普還有世界首富馬斯克的支持，此外亦有報道指一些歐洲國家元首不得不向特朗普俯首稱臣，反映特朗普將掌握極大的權勢和影響力。
根據美國憲法，總統只能擔任兩屆。為了延續自身的政治影響力，特朗普於是次回朝後便開始着手委任一些較年輕的「特朗普主義」追隨者擔任重要的政府職位。比方說，共和黨全國委員會共同主席賴拉和候任副總統萬斯。兩位被看好在特朗普2.0 政府中有更上一層樓的發展，甚至可能在2028 年接棒問鼎大位，繼承特朗普的政治遺產。由此可見，特朗普在商場或政壇都有親信密切合作。
這些現象讓人擔心美國是否會走向強人政治，類似於羅馬帝國的歷史。眾所周知，美國在立國之初是一個共和國，但若特朗普能延續強人政治，美國可能會走向歷史轉折點，類似羅馬帝國由民主共和國轉變為獨裁專制政權。有羅馬帝國奠基者之稱的凱撒大帝憑藉赫赫戰功於公元前49 年實行獨裁統治。雖然其後被元老院成員暗殺，但其強人政治傳承至他的甥孫屋大維，將羅馬從共和國轉變為帝國。
如今，美國出現了特朗普這樣的強人，如果他完成第二任期並讓接班人繼承他的政策，那美國會否沿着羅馬的軌迹，由共和國變成獨裁政體？
Will the United States Become an Autocracy? (Part 2)
Shortly after Trump's election, he encountered his first setback. His nominee for Attorney General, Gates, voluntarily withdrew his candidacy due to a lack of support from Republican members of Congress. On the surface, this may seem like a successful check on Trump by the American system; however, on the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court seems to have compromised with Trump. Since being criminally indicted in 2023, a series of legal disputes surrounding Trump has created a series of "historical firsts" in American constitutional history. For example, on July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a historic ruling on "presidential criminal immunity," stating that the president has an "absolute" criminal immunity while performing constitutional duties and cannot be prosecuted during their term. This indicates that Trump has successfully gained control over both houses of Congress and the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court.
Trump also has the support of the world's richest person, Musk, and there are reports that some European heads of state have had to bow to Trump, reflecting Trump's immense power and influence.
According to the U.S. Constitution, a president can only serve two terms. In order to continue his political influence, Trump has started appointing younger "Trumpist" followers to key government positions after his second term. For example, the co-chair of the Republican National Committee, Laila, and the vice president-elect, Vance. Both are seen as having a promising future in the Trump 2.0 government, and they may even vie for the presidency in 2028, inheriting Trump's political legacy. This shows that Trump has close collaborators in both the business world and the political arena.
These phenomena raise concerns about whether the United States is heading towards authoritarianism, similar to the history of the Roman Empire. It is well known that the United States was founded as a republic, but if Trump can continue authoritarian rule, the U.S. may reach a historical turning point, similar to the Roman Empire's transition from a democratic republic to a dictatorial regime. Julius Caesar, known as one of the founders of the Roman Empire, established dictatorial rule in 49 BC based on his great military achievements. Although he was later assassinated by members of the Senate, his authoritarian rule was passed on to his grandnephew, Augustus, transforming Rome from a republic to an empire.
Today, the United States has a strongman like Trump. If he completes a second term and passes on his policies to his successor, will the U.S. follow the path of Rome, transitioning from a republic to an autocracy?
美國共和黨在大選成功取得參眾兩院控制權，加上美國最高法院目前由保守派大法官控制，使得美國「三權分立」的制度受到嚴重衝擊。以特朗普涉嫌偽造商業紀錄向成人片女星支付「掩口費」的案件為例，紐約州法官不久前宣布案件無限期押後判刑，並且允許特朗普的律師提出駁回此案的動議，引起外界一片譁然，國際社會關注美國能否維持其民主政制。關於這點，我在史丹福大學進修時的論文導師戴雅門教授（Professor Larry Diamond）在特朗普當選後不久便發布文章Democracy Without America? 表達對美國民主發展的憂慮。
文章指出：「能否捍衛美國民主典範將取決於政府和社會領袖的行動，包括國會、州和地區政府、公務員、武裝部隊和地方警察、商界、公民機構，以及法院。」根據《美國憲法》，州政府擁有各自的州權，有關權力不能被美國聯邦政府侵犯。美國建國時設立的權力制衡制度，在三權分立基礎上進一步保障地方政府的權力，防範聯邦政府濫權。因此，各州政府不一定須向特朗普臣服。
此外，特朗普提名的司法部長已宣布退出角逐此職位，原因是未能在參議院獲得足夠支持，民主黨固然不會同意由涉嫌吸毒和曾爆出性醜聞的人擔任司法部長，共和黨員也不願意因支持蓋茨而付出政治代價，據聞已向特朗普表示不會支持，因此這項提名因支持不足而作廢。
美國原有的制度頂層設計和法律執行層面都有各種制衡手段，防止總統獨攬大權。戴雅門教授仍然審慎樂觀的在文章指出：「不應將美國大選解讀為對專制的投票。」從數字來看，雖然特朗普的民粹政策看似獲得決定性支持。文章引述美聯社數據：「共和黨初選時有1700 萬美國人把票投給特朗普；到正式大選，特朗普僅獲得共和黨10% 登記選民和7% 合資格選民的支持。」遠比初選時低。並且，賀錦麗雖敗但仍然取得7434 萬多票，特朗普僅獲50% 選票。由此可見，特朗普有獨裁傾向的政策能否獲美國大多數人支持仍是未知數。
The United States: Will It Become an Autocracy?
The success of the Republican Party in gaining control of both houses of Congress in the election, coupled with the current conservative control of the Supreme Court, has seriously impacted the system of "separation of powers" in the United States. For example, in the case where Trump was suspected of falsifying business records to pay "hush money" to an adult film star, a judge in New York recently announced an indefinite postponement of the case and allowed Trump's lawyer to file a motion to dismiss the case, causing an uproar and international concern about whether the United States can maintain its democratic system. Concerning this issue, my thesis advisor Professor Larry Diamond at Stanford University expressed concerns about the development of American democracy shortly after Trump's election in an article titled "Democracy Without America?"
The article points out: "Whether the American democratic model can be defended will depend on the actions of government and societal leaders, including the Congress, state and local governments, public servants, armed forces and local police, businesses, civil society organizations, and the courts." According to the U.S. Constitution, state governments have their own powers that cannot be infringed upon by the federal government. The system of checks and balances established at the founding of the United States further safeguards the powers of local governments based on the separation of powers, preventing federal government abuse of power. Therefore, state governments may not necessarily submit to Trump.
In addition, the Attorney General nominated by Trump has announced his withdrawal from the race for this position due to insufficient support in the Senate. The Democratic Party, of course, would not agree to have someone suspected of drug use and involved in sexual scandals serve as Attorney General, and Republicans are also unwilling to incur political costs for supporting Gates, reportedly indicating that they will not support Trump, rendering the nomination invalid due to insufficient support.
The top-level design and legal enforcement aspects of the original U.S. system have various means of checks and balances to prevent the president from monopolizing power. Professor Diamond cautiously and optimistically points out in the article: "The U.S. election should not be interpreted as a vote for autocracy." In terms of numbers, although Trump's populist policies seemed to garner decisive support, the article cites data from the Associated Press: "During the Republican primaries, 17 million Americans voted for Trump; in the general election, Trump only received support from 10% of registered Republican voters and 7% of eligible voters." Much lower than during the primaries. Furthermore, although Harris was defeated, he still received over 74.34 million votes, while Trump only secured 50% of the vote. Therefore, whether Trump's authoritarian policies can gain support from the majority of Americans remains uncertain.
共和黨總統候選人特朗普強勢歸來，再度當選總統。然而，有意見認為他將威脅美國民主及長遠發展。當今世界，雖然一人一票直選政治領袖已在許多地方成為政治正確的標竿，亦把美國視為民主理想的彼岸。然而，美國總統選舉並非完全由選民直選，而是通過選舉人團制進行。這一制度源自1787 年制定的美國憲法，最初由美國各州公民先選出該州選舉人，再由選舉人代表該州投票選出總統、副總統。理論上，選舉總統的過程中，由各州推舉產生的選舉人團可以為缺乏辨別能力的普通選民把關，從而更有希望選出稱職的總統人選，防止民粹主義等嚴重後果。
關於這點，美國史丹福大學政治及社會學教授戴雅門（Larry Diamond）在 Democracy Without America? 一文中寫到：「對於選舉結果的早期分析，特朗普的勝利更多歸因於經濟和移民等問題，而非對其專制傾向的認可。然而，無論美國人支持特朗普的理由是什麼，他的競選活動清楚表明，他將不受任何全球制約，來制衡他和他的政府的反民主衝動。各種迹象顯示他是一名民粹主義的獨裁者。」他的這番言論讓我聯想到19 世紀法國政治思想家托克維爾的一部著作《民主在美國》，書中描述了托克維爾在美國考察的經歷，他從第三者的角度觀察美國的民主制度。上卷介紹美國與歐洲的不同，又指出美國地大物博，人民可以擁有自己的土地，並且獨立經營自己的生活。這種先天條件孕育出美國獨特的政治和社會價值觀。在美國社會，幾乎所有人民都抱持勤勞工作和超越他人的理想。對托克維爾而言，美國與歐洲最大的差異就是這些獨特的民主價值觀。
托克維爾讚揚民主制度在美國的成功發展，同時對民主制度下出現多數暴政的可能性提出警告。他認為自由不是個人主義和利己主義，自由不是絕對的無限制的自由，而是基於正確理解的權利。在他看來，民主的未來不是必然的，有可能走向新的專制，也有可能走向自由。
那麼，托克維爾讚揚的美國將何去何從？我們下回分解。
Tocqueville on American Democracy / 托克維爾論美國民主
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has made a strong comeback and been re-elected as president. However, some believe that he poses a threat to American democracy and its long-term development. In today's world, although one person, one vote direct election of political leaders has become a political correctness benchmark in many places, the United States is still seen as the epitome of democratic ideals. However, the election of the U.S. president is not entirely by direct vote of the people, but through the Electoral College system. This system, originating from the U.S. Constitution drafted in 1787, initially involves citizens of each state electing electors who then vote for the president and vice president on behalf of the state. In theory, during the process of electing the president, the Electoral College, composed of electors selected by each state, can act as a check on ordinary voters lacking discernment, thereby increasing the likelihood of electing a qualified presidential candidate and preventing serious consequences like populism.
Regarding this, Larry Diamond, a professor of political science and sociology at Stanford University, wrote in "Democracy Without America?" that, "Early analysis of the election results attributes Trump's victory more to economic and immigration issues than to acceptance of his authoritarian tendencies. However, regardless of the reasons Americans support Trump, his campaign clearly indicates that he will not be constrained by any global norms in balancing his and his government's anti-democratic impulses. Various signs indicate he is a populist autocrat." His remarks remind me of Alexis de Tocqueville, a 19th-century French political thinker, and his work "Democracy in America," where he describes his observations of the American democratic system from a third-party perspective. The first volume introduces the differences between America and Europe, highlighting America's vastness, where people can own their land and independently lead their lives. These inherent conditions have nurtured unique political and social values in America. In American society, almost everyone holds ideals of hard work and surpassing others. Tocqueville believes that the biggest difference between America and Europe lies in these unique democratic values.
Tocqueville praises the successful development of the democratic system in America while also warning of the potential for majority tyranny under a democratic system. He argues that freedom is not individualism and selfishness, nor is it absolute unlimited freedom, but rather rights based on correct understanding. In his view, the future of democracy is not predetermined; it could lead to new despotism or towards freedom.
So, where will the America that Tocqueville praised be headed? Let's delve into that next time.