公務員應宣誓效忠香港特別行政區
|
作者︰葉劉淑儀 | 來源︰:經濟通 | 日期︰2020 年 6 月 16 日 |
公務員團隊一直是香港繁榮穩定的基石,特區政府各個政策局、上上下下各部門,都是依靠十九萬公務員,執行政府政策,為市民提供優質服務,這點無容置疑。然而,在目前高度政治化的社會環境下,公務員體系及理念也難免受政治化的氣氛衝擊。
有公務員高調參與去年的反修例抗爭集會甚至被捕,強調政治理念的新公務員工會成立,讓「公務員是否政治中立」、公務員操守等等問題引起廣泛爭議。最近,新上任的公務員事務局局長聶德權指「公務員是香港特區政府的公務人員,同樣是中國香港特區政府的公務員,執行職務時要考慮此兩重身份」,更加引起軒然大波。
香港特別行政區本身就是國家不可分離的一部分,在「一國兩制」下,公務員沒有身份問題,反而公務員操守、是否效忠特區政府,更值得社會關注。
《公務員守則》清楚界定
《公務員守則》第3.7條對「政治中立」有清楚解釋:「不論本身的政治信念為何,公務員必須對在任的行政長官及政府完全忠誠,並須竭盡所能地履行職務。在履行公職時(包括提供意見、作出決定或採取行動),他們不得受本身的黨派政治聯繫或黨派政治信念所支配或影響。公務員不得以公職身分參與黨派的政治活動,亦不得把公共資源運用於黨派的政治目的上,例如進行助選活動或為政黨籌款。」
事實上,早於2004年6月9日,時任公務員事務局局長王永平到立法會回答議員質詢,當時他便指出:「公務員政治中立,包括以下主要元素:(一)公務員的政治中立,建基於效忠政府的責任;(二)所有公務員應對在任的行政長官和主要官員盡忠;(三)公務員必須衡量各項政策方案的影響,在政策制訂過程中坦誠而清晰地提出意見;(四)在政府作出決定後,不論個人立場如何,公務員應全力支持,把決定付諸實行,並且不應公開發表個人意見;以及(五)公務員應協助主要官員解釋政策,爭取立法會和市民大眾的支持。」
四類工種性質特殊
同時,我認同公務員工會聯合會總幹事梁籌庭所指,特區政府列出四類職位,基於工作性質,回歸前後也不容許有個人政治主張:
(一)首長級官員,負責制訂政策
(二)政務主任,負責制訂政策
(三)新聞主任,負責推銷政策
(四)警務人員,負責維持治安及社會安全
記得回歸前,時任港督彭定康推動政改方案,要在立法會爭取足夠票數通過,當時我在工商科工作,所有高級官員及政務主任都收到指令,要全力幫港督拉票,游說不同業界支持政改方案(包括增加直選議席,以及新增九個功能組別,以個人票取代團體票,只要屬該組別的從業員,便可自動成為有關功能組別的選民)。可見首長級官員及政務主任,由於負責制訂及推銷政策,必須堅定支持政府政策,沒有政治中立可言。
我擔任保安局局長時,時任天主教香港教區主教陳日君,曾公開批評公務員支持時任特首董建華,是違反政治中立。我出席活動時亦被問及這問題,當時我已指出,政治中立適用於「技術型」公務員,例如運輸、科學及環保主任等,他們的工作性質以專業、技術及科學為主,不牽涉政治,自然需奉行《公務員守則》政治中立、忠誠執行政策等原則。
此外,我認為所有公務員必須做到以下幾點:
(一)要專業地、具操守地做好工作
(二)不可因為其個人政治立場而在工作時偏離其專業
(三)擁護《基本法》、效忠香港特別行政區
(四)支持政府政策
公務員應宣誓 議案獲通過
我早於2019年11月4日,便於立法會「公務員及資助機構員工事務委員會」提出動議,促請行政長官根據《基本法》第48條第4款發出行政指令,要求所有公務員(包括新入職的公務員)宣誓擁護《基本法》,以及效忠中華人民共和國香港特別行政區,以確保公務員上下一致、同心同德,維護「一國兩制」。當日,我的議案獲大比數通過,雖然議案沒有法律約束力,但我認為特區政府應該落實。特區政府作為僱主,應該對僱員有要求,公務員既然在政府工作,便應該擁護《基本法》,效忠香港特別行政區。
11月27日的立法會上,黨友容海恩議員替我向公務員事務局提出質詢,追問特區政府會否制訂相關政策及發布行政命令。可是時任公務員事務局局長羅智光一直迴避問題,沒有正面回答。
宣誓一小步 未來一大步
半年後,現任公務員事務局局長聶德權終於上周公開表示,特區政府正研究公務員是否需要宣誓效忠特區政府、宣誓形式、以及違反誓言將有何後果等等,並且將於本屆立法會休會前匯報研究進度。我認為特區政府願意踏出這一小步,例如公務員分階段或分批宣誓,為公務員操守嚴格把關,對將來的影響會是一大步。
|
|
台灣亂局隨時演化成「群眾鬥群眾」/ Taiwan's Chaos May Evolve into "Public Clashes" at Any Time
文章
由「反對國會擴權」觸發的台灣「青鳥行動」,經歷立法院外3 場大型集會後,一場自詡獨立於「藍綠白」之外的公民運動儼然成形,或成為與三黨抗衡的新力量。
活動發起者之一的「經民連」早前表明,接下來將以「台灣公民陣線」為名,倡議全台灣民眾站出來,「打造自由、平等、團結、永續的台灣共同體,作為突破當前民主困局總戰略」云云。具體做法是組織各區市民,與不同政黨、不同陣營立委、不同意見支持者對話。簡單來說,就是將議題帶入社區「深耕細作」。
「在地對話」效果未知,但此舉卻隨時引發群眾衝突,惹火燒身。
早前「反對國會擴權」集會期間,不少民間團體在台灣各地發起「青鳥行動」抗議。其中台中火車站一名21歲陸姓男子,疑因不滿青鳥成員發放文宣,企圖衝上講台遭民眾制止,陸男情緒激動下竟揮拳襲擊一名男子,畫面顯示穿黑衣的他疑似情緒失控出手傷人,更大喊「他竟敢罵我的傅崐萁(國民黨立法院黨團總召集人)」、「你們這些刁民」,其間不斷掙扎,場面一度混亂。
現時藍白陣營佔地區立委多數,國民黨地區支持者與日俱增;藍營支持者與青鳥行動成員爆發衝突,相信只是冰山一角。經民連所提倡的理念似乎過於理想化,假如控制不當,全台灣各地或會上演大規模「群眾鬥群眾」,造成社會大亂。
前立委邱毅早前被問到民進黨可動員群眾包圍立委,國民黨為什麼沒有動員支持者反制?他曾曖昧地表示:「國民黨不是不想,而是做不到。」似乎暗示藍營正蠢蠢欲動。
「青鳥行動」影響深遠,賴清德政府非但開局不順,更意外地開啟了三黨政爭,學運、公民運動等挑戰接踵而來。假如處理失當,隨時被質疑執政黨鼓動人民上街、當家鬧事,連「基本盤」支持者也保不住;未來4 年,台灣政局或愈見凶險。
Taiwan's "Bluebird Action" triggered by "Opposing Legislative ower Expansion" has taken the form of an independent civic movement distinct from the "Pan-Blue, Pan-Green, and Non-Partisan" alliances through three large rallies outside the Legislative Yuan.
One activity organizer, the "EDUnion" previously stated it will henceforth advocate for Taiwan citizens island-wide under the name "Taiwan Civil Coalition", proposing to "forge a freer, more egalitarian, united and sustainable Taiwanese community as the overall strategic breakthrough from the current democratic predicament." The concrete approach is to organize district citizens in dialogues with different political parties, camps and opinion supporters. Simply put, it is to "deeply cultivate" issues into communities.
The effects of "local dialogues" are unknown, but this risks accidentally sparking public conflicts and backfires.
During earlier anti-expansion rallies, many civic groups across Taiwan launched local "Bluebird Actions" to protest. In one event at the Chiayi Train Station, a 21-year-old surnamed Lu allegedly grew agitated after Bluebird members distributed materials, attempting to storm the stage and was stopped by citizens, whereupon in an emotional outburst he threw punches, injuring a man. Footage showed the man in black appeared to lose control and lash out, loudly shouting "How dare they curse my Food Brother" (KMT caucus whip Fu, Kun-Chi) and "You damn citizens", struggling amid chaos.
Currently KMT hold local legislative majorities island-wide, with growing blue camp local support. Clashes between blue supporters and Bluebird activists are likely just the tip of the iceberg. The EDUnion's advocated ideals seem overly idealistic - without proper control, major "public clashes" risk breaking out across Taiwan, sowing social turmoil.
Ex-legislative Chiu Yi previously answered whether DPP could mobilize crowds to besiege lawmakers, why doesn't KMT mobilize supporters in return? He ambiguously said "KMT doesn't not want to, but cannot do so." Implying the blue camp impatiently wants to act.
Bluebird's impact runs deep. Besides a rocky start, Lai Ching-te's government has inadvertently opened a multi-party power struggle, with student and civic movements mounting challenge after challenge. Improper handling risks accusations of instigating street actions as the ruling party, even losing "base" support. Taiwan's political atmosphere may grow ever more precarious in coming years.
|
|
垃圾徵費擱置誰應問責 / Who Should Be Held Accountable for Suspending the Municipal Solid Waste Charging ?
文章
5 月27 日,政務司副司長卓永興與環境及生態局長謝展寰出席立法會一個聯席會議時表示,考慮到公眾對垃圾徵費的實施有所疑慮、社會回收文化根基不足、現時回收配套設施未完善,加上現時實施計劃會使商界承受巨大壓力,因此決定再次暫緩實施計劃。
雖有環保團體表示失望,但社會普遍歡迎有關決定。有傳媒關注政府將如何處理與指定膠袋供應商簽訂的合約,會否涉及賠償;已購入的指定膠袋又該如何處置,擔心處理不當會變相浪費公帑。亦有將矛頭指向謝展寰局長,認為局長需要問責。我認為垃圾徵費計劃遭擱置是對整個香港社會的重要教訓,不應只針對謝局長個人。
社會就如何實施垃圾徵費計劃已討論十多年。特區政府早於2005 年提出《都市固體廢物管理政策大綱(2005-2014)》,並建議於2007 年立法推行計劃,但計劃經多輪公眾諮詢及試行後,直至2012 年方由時任環境局長黃錦星前來行政會議及立法會向一眾議員簡介。
政府當時解釋,香港每日人均都市固體廢物棄置量逾萬噸,堆填區容量接近飽和,而位於石鼓洲的焚化爐需到2025年底方能啟用,屯門曾嘴的第二個焚化爐當時未有定案。局方希望透過垃圾徵費,配合回收措施、其他政策法規及宣傳教育,把垃圾棄置量逐步減少40% 至45%。由於海外有成功實施的例子,加上局方預計實施後,每戶每月的徵費將不超過10 元,當時行會及立法會都支持通過法例。
後來,包括法例對固體廢物的定義太廣、未能完全釐清法律責任及家居空間細小,難以存放回收物等各項執行上的問題浮現,讓我們反思法案委員會在審議法例時確有考慮不周的地方,輕視了計劃的執行難度。
垃圾徵費遭擱置讓行政、立法機構乃至全社會都上了深刻的一課。接下來,我們應改變思路,聚焦思考如何透過鼓勵並增加誘因以達至源頭減廢的目標。
Who Should Be Held Accountable for Suspending the Municipal Solid Waste Charging ?
On May 27, when Deputy Chief Secretary for Administration Cheuk Wing-hing and Secretary for Environment and Ecology Tse Chin-wan attended a joint meeting of legislative panels, they announced that considering public concerns about implementing the waste charging scheme, insufficient foundation for social recycling culture, and incomplete supporting recycling facilities currently, as well as the huge pressure the current implementation plan would place on businesses, the decision was made again to suspend the plan.
While environmental groups expressed disappointment, society generally welcomed the decision. The media was concerned about how the government would handle contracts signed with designated bag suppliers, whether compensation would be involved; and how to dispose of designated bags already purchased, fearing improper handling would be a de facto waste of public funds. Some also pointed fingers at Tse, believing he should be held accountable. I think suspending the waste charging plan is an important lesson for the whole of Hong Kong society, and the focus should not just be on Mr. Tse personally.
Society has discussed how to implement the waste charging plan for over a decade. The HKSAR government proposed "The Policy Framework for the Management of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) (2005-2014)" as early as 2005, and proposed legislation to implement the plan in 2007, but after multiple rounds of public consultation and trials, the plan was not introduced to the Executive Council and Legislative Council by then Secretary for the Environment and Ecology Wong Kam-sing until 2012.
The government explained back then that Hong Kong's daily per capita disposal of municipal solid waste exceeded 10,000 tons, with landfills nearly saturated, while the incineration plant in Shek Kwu Chau would not be operational until the end of 2025, and the second incineration plant in Tuen Mun had yet to be confirmed. The department hoped to gradually reduce waste disposal by 40-45% through waste charging combined with recycling measures, other policies and regulations as well as publicity and education. As there were successful overseas precedents, and the department estimated households would pay no more than $10 per month after implementation, both the Executive Council and Legislative Council supported passing the bill at the time.
However, issues arose later in implementation such as the definition of solid waste being too broad in law, legal responsibilities not being fully clarified, and limited home space making it difficult to store recyclables. This reflected the Bills Committee could have given more thorough consideration during legislation, underestimating the difficulty of implementation.
Suspending the Municipal Solid Waste Charging has given the administration, legislature and whole society an invaluable lesson. Going forward, we should change our thinking and focus on exploring ways to incentivize and encourage source reduction through encouragement rather than compulsion.
|
|
Retired banker Stephen Roach is no prophet of Hong Kong
文章
Retired banker Stephen Roach seems to have carved out a new career as a prophet of Hong Kong. During his recent trip to Hong Kong, he continued to indulge in a talkfest on the city, making predictions about its future, spilling comments made by his old friend Laura Cha in private conversations, and rebutting the HKSAR government’s clarifications as worrisome denials.
Yet despite having made multiple trips to Hong Kong in recent years, Roach’s remarks betray the same shallowness and short-termism as befit a stockbroker, writing off investments when the going gets tough.
It is true that Hong Kong is facing some tough economic headwinds because of geopolitical uncertainty and structural problems. But its future is bright, because Hong Kong is working hard to restructure its economy.
Hong Kong is undergoing an economic transformation accelerated by integration with mainland cities in the Greater Bay Area (GBA). Guangdong’s service economy has improved so much after a three-year lockdown that hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong people are drawn to GBA cities during weekends and holidays for shopping and entertainment, in the same way that swarms of mainland tourists flocked to Hong Kong for shopping and enjoyment of Hong Kong’s city life a decade ago.
Greater Bay Area cities have a tradition of helping each other. Now, integration is helping us to resolve a longstanding problem concerning the elderly, among others. Much greater travel convenience is enabling our elderly to retire in better living conditions in the mainland, with financial support from the HKSAR government. More benefits to the economy and the livelihood of the people emanating from integration are on the way.
Our relationship with mainland cities in the Greater Bay Area is a win-win proposition. Mainland cities welcome our tourists, while we open our doors to their industrious workers to replenish our ageing workforce, technicians and engineers to fill our science and technology parks under construction, and top talent in diverse fields to enhance the human capital of our city. With strong support from mainland China, Hong Kong will never lack the resources we need to enhance our talent pool and technological capabilities.
A person does not begin to understand Hong Kong’s future without grasping the context in which Hong Kong moves forward. Hong Kong is a unique city with its freedoms and openness guaranteed under the “One Country, Two Systems” arrangement. We are a part of China, no different from Guangzhou and Hangzhou, and we have a moral and constitutional duty to protect the sovereignty, security and developmental interests of our country.
It is baffling that a well-travelled person like Mr. Roach keeps harping on our national security laws. Don’t the US have national security laws? They have plenty. Didn’t the governments of Australia, United Kingdom, and Singapore, just to name a few, upgrade their national security laws in recent years to guard against “foreign power interference” and “hostile state threats”?
Why can’t Hong Kong install national security laws to protect the security of its motherland and restore order and stability? Police in the US cleared students who staged pro-Palestinian protests after a short period of camping and occupation. Hong Kong residents suffered months of violence and destruction before our police moved in, and they accomplished their tasks without causing any fatal injury, an unimaginable feat in western countries. I hope Mr. Roach will stop pointing a finger at us but turn a blind eye to the national security obsession and rough law enforcement methods of his country.
I think Mr. Roach is stuck in the era of the old Hong Kong, when people could make a fast buck speculating on the property and stock markets. It is no bad thing for property prices to moderate, and for investors to reflect deeply on where real value lies. China does not stand still, nor does Hong Kong.
China is transitioning to a new economic model and so is Hong Kong. Mr. Roach’s rant about Hong Kong losing its old magic is irrelevant to our future. I hope Mr. Roach would wake up to this, and stop getting too carried away by the attention he is getting by pretending to be a prophet of Hong Kong.
|
|