前文提到，工黨議員韋雅蘭（Angela Rayner）憑高中輟學學歷成為新一任英國副首相，引來外界的關注。回顧歷史，英國歷屆政府只有8 位首相未獲得大學學位，而韋雅蘭更是唯一一位學歷為高中輟學的副首相。
有支持者認為，韋雅蘭能透過選舉一躍成為英國政府的二把手，既體現了民主制度中「主權在民」（popular sovereignty）的核心理念，亦證明了即使階級制度森嚴如英國，基層人民仍可憑藉自己的才能實現向上流動，反映出英式民主制度的優越性。但我認為韋雅蘭的任命非但未能體現英國政制的優點，反而進一步揭示了其制度的缺陷。
英國選舉採用單議席單票制，每個選區只有一個議席並以多數制決定勝負。在多黨競爭的情况下，很容易出現候選人在未獲得多數票的情况下當選。加上英國是按註冊選民數量，而非實際人口數量去劃分選區，導致選舉結果更容易向兩大黨傾斜。在這種扭曲選制下誕生的議員是否真的具有民意授權，是個值得商榷的問題。其次，英國內閣大臣的任命除考慮議員自身能力外，亦取決於其在政黨內的站隊，投機成分相當大。
韋雅蘭之所以能在2015 年首次進入下議院後，在翌年就迅速獲任命為影子內閣大臣，主要得益於她在2016 年工黨內訌時堅定站隊時任黨魁郝爾彬。實際上，英國政界都對韋雅蘭的晉升速度之快感到驚奇。當她在2023 年9 月影子內閣重組時獲委任為影子副首相一事，就引起了外界的激烈討論。
不過，副首相本身僅是一個非常設職務，任命與否全憑首相意願。由於沒有法定權力，副首相的實質權力及職能往往會視乎擔任者而有所差異，其主要職務更多時候是代替首相前往下議院接受議員質詢，屬於無所任大臣（minister without portfolio）的一種。我相信韋雅蘭是由於缺乏足夠的專業知識去處理其他部門的工作，才獲委任為副首相。
當一國的副首相是由一位才幹未受考驗，又無足夠民意授權的議會新兵擔任，又如何能顯示出英國的制度優勢？
The Perfect Embodiment of the Flaws in the British System
As mentioned earlier, Labour Party member Angela Rayner became the new UK Deputy Prime Minister with only a secondary education background, drawing public attention. Looking back in history, only 8 out of the UK's prime ministers did not have a university degree, while Rayner is the only deputy prime minister with an educational background of dropping out of high school.
Some supporters believe that Rayner's ability to rise through elections to become the UK government's second-in-command embodies the core idea of "popular sovereignty" in a democratic system, and proves that even in a strictly class-based system like the UK, grassroots people can still achieve upward mobility through their own abilities, reflecting the superiority of the British democratic system. However, I believe Rayner's appointment does not demonstrate the advantages of the UK political system, but further reveals its flaws.
The UK uses the single-seat single-vote constituency system for elections, with each constituency having only one seat decided by plurality voting. In a multi-party competition environment, candidates can easily win without obtaining a majority of votes. Coupled with the UK delineating constituencies based on registered voter numbers rather than actual population, the election results are more likely to tilt towards the two major parties. Whether MPs elected under such a distorted electoral system truly have a mandate from the people is debatable.
Furthermore, the appointment of UK cabinet ministers depends not only on the individual's capabilities but also on their positioning within the political party, with a high degree of opportunism.
The main reason Rayner was able to be appointed as a shadow cabinet minister in 2016, just a year after first entering the House of Commons in 2015, was because of her staunch support of then Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn during the Labour infighting in 2016. Actually, the speed of Rayner's rise surprised many in UK politics.
When she was appointed as Shadow Deputy Prime Minister in September 2023 during a reshuffle of the Shadow Cabinet, it sparked intense public discussion.
However, the role of Deputy Prime Minister itself is a non-permanent position determined by the Prime Minister's discretion. Due to its lack of statutory powers, the actual authority and functions of the Deputy Prime Minister can vary depending on the individual, with the main duties often being to replace the Prime Minister in responding to questions from MPs in the House of Commons - equivalent to a minister without portfolio. I believe Rayner was appointed as Deputy Prime Minister because she lacked sufficient professional knowledge to handle work in other departments.
How can the appointment of a deputy prime minister of a country who is an inexperienced new MP without sufficient democratic mandate demonstrate the advantages of the UK system?
US president-elect Donald Trump’s decisive victory over Vice-President Kamala Harris, the Republican Party’s control of Congress and strong backing from his appointees on the US Supreme Court will make him the most powerful US president in recent history.
He is coming into office with the unreserved support of the world’s richest man, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index – tech mogul Elon Musk – who has just been named to lead a new department of efficiency. The massive power Trump now wields has sent shock waves across the US and around the world.
Although Beijing took care not to drop any hint of its preference, a triumphant Trump return and all that it means for the future of Sino-US relations appeared to have been within China’s calculations.
On November 8, Xia Baolong, the director of the Hong and Macau Affairs Office, convened a meeting with 29 Hong Kong business and industrial leaders, in addition to Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu and other senior officials, in Shenzhen, Guangdong province. The timing seems to have been carefully chosen to take stock of the US election results.
Trump unleashed more tremors by announcing the appointment of a motley crew of hardliners and acolytes to important cabinet and ambassadorial positions. When news broke that Trump was mulling the appointment of prominent China hawks, Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Michael Waltz, to the positions of secretary of state and national security adviser respectively, the Hang Seng Index plunged 580 points.
Rubio sponsored the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019. This landmark statute requires US government departments to assess Hong Kong’s political developments as a precondition for continuing the city’s unique status under US law. The act laid the groundwork for stripping Hong Kong of special treatment in the US and imposing sanctions on the city.
After Beijing enacted a law to safeguard national security in Hong Kong in June 2020, then-president Trump swiftly signed the Hong Kong Autonomy Act into law in July 2020 and slapped sanctions on Hong Kong almost a month afterwards. Trump’s skewed vision of Hong Kong posing a national security threat, shared by many in Congress, including Rubio, can only fill Hong Kong with grim forebodings.
At the meeting in Shenzhen on November 8, Xia said that Hong Kong is undergoing a profound change, both internally and externally. His remarks were a clear signal of Beijing’s deep concerns about the impact of the Trump administration on China, not least Hong Kong, a small but highly externally oriented economy which depends heavily on trade and the free flow of capital, information and people.
Xia sent pointed messages to both government officials and business representatives at the meeting. He warned government officials that “Hong Kong cannot rely solely on its traditional advantages by relying on just one trick”.
He urged Hong Kong to enhance its tourism appeal by taking advantage of its beautiful coastline, enchanting islands and cultural assets. Xia also encouraged government officials to invest more in science and technology.
Xia reportedly urged business leaders not to be “bystanders”, but active participants in the government’s programmes to bolster Hong Kong’s development as a premier aviation hub, seaport and trading port.
Beijing has come to Hong Kong’s rescue many times, sending tourists, capital and good-quality companies for listing in Hong Kong’s stock market. China has helped Hong Kong weather many storms.
Despite the importance President Xi Jinping has attached to Hong Kong’s success under “one country, two systems”, can a reinforced partnership between the central government, Hong Kong and big business adequately keep the city Trump-proof?
Even patriotic businessmen must do tough number-crunching before they deploy their capital to support government projects and quite rightly so. If they end up depleting their capital as the result of investing recklessly in financially non-viable projects, they would not be doing the nation, including Hong Kong, any good.
Luckily, after years of work on the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Innovation and Technology Cooperation Zone, the end of the tunnel is finally in sight. The first batch of development at the jointly run technology park at the Lok Ma Chau Loop is expected to be completed in phases starting later this year.
The park will enable Hong Kong to build centres of excellence in research and development (R&D), combining the abundant technological resources of Shenzhen with Hong Kong’s global financial and business expertise.
Another bright spot is the progress made in leapfrogging biomedical research. The government has launched a new scheme for local registration of drugs and medical devices. The Health Bureau is working with Shenzhen to set up a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area clinical trial collaboration platform to expedite clinical trials and expand R&D networks. Hong Kong companies will be able to access bio-samples from other places that are part of the Greater Bay Area development zone.
The infrastructure to jump-start technological development is finally taking shape. Despite growing more sluggish than before, Hong Kong does not lack capital, talent or global connectivity.
The only trouble with the new Trump administration is that there are too many unknowns. How will Elon Musk function in the Trump administration? Will he be a full-time efficiency tsar or continue to wear many hats? Who would have the most influence on Trump – anti-China, anti-free trade hardliners or pragmatic entrepreneurs?
As the line-up of key officials in Trump’s administration takes shape, only time will tell what his real agenda is. In the meantime, like other parts of the world, Hong Kong must Trump-proof itself by staying calm and strong.
中譯本 : 北京和大型企業可保護香港免受特朗普影響嗎？
美國當選總統唐納德.特朗普（Donald Trump）決定性地擊敗副總統哈里斯.賀錦麗（Kamala Harris），共和黨控制了國會，並得到美國最高法院大法官的強力支持，使他成為近代最有權力的美國總統。
據彭博億萬富翁指數顯示，他將在上任時獲得世界上最富有的人——科技大亨伊隆·馬斯克（Elon Musk）的全力支持，馬斯克剛被任命負責領導一個新的效率部門。特朗普現在所擁有的巨大權力在美國乃至全球引起了震撼。
雖然北京小心翼翼地沒有透露其偏好，但一個凱旋而歸的特朗普以及這一切對中美關係未來意味著的影響似乎已經在中國的考量之中。
11月8日，國務院港澳事務辦公室主任夏寶龍在廣東省深圳市召集了29名香港商界和工業界領袖、行政長官李家超和其他高級官員舉行了一次會議。這次會議的時間看來是精心選擇，總結美國選舉結果。
特朗普宣布任命一批強硬派和信徒擔任重要的內閣和大使職位，進一步震憾外界。有消息傳出特朗普正在考慮任命著名的中國鷹派參議員馬可·魯比奧和眾議員邁克爾·瓦爾茲分別擔任國務卿和國家安全顧問時，恆生指數下跌了580點。
魯比奧推動了2019年的《香港人權與民主法案》。這部具有里程碑意義的法律要求美國政府部門在繼續根據美國法律賦予該城市獨特地位的前提下，評估香港的政治發展。這部法案為剝奪香港在美國的特殊待遇以及對該市實施制裁奠定了基礎。
在北京於2020年6月實施了維護香港國家安全的法律後，當時的總統特朗普於2020年7月迅速簽署了《香港自治法案》，並在將近一個月後對香港實施了制裁。特朗普對香港構成國家安全威脅的扭曲看法得到了眾議院眾多人士的共鳴，包括魯比奧，這將不免使香港充滿陰霾。
在11月8日深圳的會議上，夏寶龍表示，香港正在經歷內外的深刻變化。他的言論清楚地表明了北京對特朗普政府對中國，尤其是對高度依賴貿易、資金、信息和人員自由流動的香港這樣一個小而高度外向型經濟體所帶來影響的深切擔憂。
夏在會議上向政府官員和商界代表發出了明確的訊息。他警告政府官員說，“香港不能僅僅依靠傳統優勢，僅僅依賴一招”。
他提及香港可通過利用其美麗的海岸線、迷人島嶼和文化資產來增強其旅遊吸引力。夏還鼓勵政府官員在科學技術方面進行更多投資。
據報導，夏敦促商界領袖不要成為“旁觀者”，而應成為政府計劃中支持香港發展成為一流航空樞紐、海港和貿易港口的積極參與者。
北京曾多次援助香港，派遣遊客、資本和優質企業在香港股市上市。中國幫助香港度過了許多風雨。
儘管習近平主席對“一國兩制”下香港成功的重要性給予了高度重視，但中央政府、香港和大型企業之間加強合作是否足以使這座城市免受特朗普的影響呢？
即使是愛國商人在支持政府項目之前也必須進行艱巨的經濟數據分析，這是非常正確的。假如他們因為在財政上不可行的項目上投資而最終耗盡了他們的資本，那對國家，包括香港，都不會有好處。
幸運的是，在長年致力於深港創新科技合作區之後，隧道的盡頭終於看到了曙光。預計將從今年底開始分階段完成在落馬洲環繞區共同運營的科技園區的首批開發工作。
這個園區將使香港能夠建立研發（研發）卓越中心，將深圳豐富的技術資源與香港的全球金融和商業專業知識相結合。
另一個亮點是在跨越生物醫學研究方面取得的進展。政府已推出了一項新計劃，用於本地藥物和醫療器械的註冊。醫務衞生局正與深圳合作建立廣東-香港-澳門大灣區臨床試驗合作平台，以加快臨床試驗進程並擴大研發網絡。香港企業將能夠獲得來自大灣區發展區域其他地方的生物樣本。
推動科技發展的基礎設施終於初具雛形。儘管增長速度比以往緩慢，但香港並不缺乏資本、人才或全球聯繫。
新的特朗普政府唯一的問題是有太多未知數。埃隆·馬斯克將如何在特朗普政府中發揮作用？他會成為全職效率專家，還是繼續身兼多職？誰將對特朗普產生最大影響 - 反華、反自由貿易的強硬派，還是務實的企業家？
隨著特朗普政府主要官員陣容的確定，只有時間才能揭示他真正的議程。與此同時，就像世界其他地區一樣，香港必須通過保持冷靜和堅強，來使自己免受特朗普的影響。
11月19日，我和議員黨友 黎棟國 Lai Tung Kwok 、 陳家珮 Judy Chan 、 何敬康 Adrian Ho 就控煙政策與香港吸煙與健康委員會代表會面。
吸煙與患上癌症及慢性疾病有直接的關係，是全球疾病負擔的第二大風險因素。在香港，吸煙不但每年導致近 7,000 人死亡（包括接近 700人為不吸煙人士因接觸二手煙而引致），更造成龐大醫療開支及生產力損失。因此，政府目標在2025年將吸煙率降至7.8%，並長遠達至「無煙香港」。為了推行此目標，政府於今年6月公布新一期禁煙措施，包括十項控煙短期措施。當中，全面禁止另類吸煙產品（即包括電子煙及加熱煙等）備受關注。
委員會代表表示曾邀請市民進行街頭訪問及測試在吸食水煙後體内一氧化碳水平的變化，結果發現不少受訪者都認為吸水煙是社交娛樂的行為，而且普遍輕視了水煙的禍害。就此，我和議員黨友向委員會代表反映不少成年煙民早已吸煙多年，要以這類高壓的「禁令」逼令其戒煙難度極高，希望委員會能從源頭入手，加強戒煙的教育及宣傳工作，一方面預防年輕人養成吸煙習慣，另一方面鼓勵已有吸煙習慣的煙民戒煙，從而實現「無煙香港」的目標。
美國總統大選結果塵埃落定。選舉前，不少民調認為特朗普與賀錦麗在支持度上「叮噹馬頭」，是次選舉的競爭將會異常激烈。更有人大膽預測，雙方可能因為互相指控對手選舉欺詐所引發的法律糾紛，導致選舉結果遲遲無法出爐。然而，大選最後卻以特朗普橫掃7 個搖擺州，取得312 張選舉人票，輕鬆大勝賀錦麗告終。此外，共和黨還贏得參議院的多數席位（53 對46）；眾議院方面，截至11 月11 日共和黨已奪得435 席中的214 席，預料可取得眾議院控制權。美國是一個三權分立的國家：立法權力歸於國會、行政權力歸於美國總統，而美國最高法院擁有終極司法權。特朗普勝選並幫助共和黨取得兩院控制權，加上在上個任期中任命了三位保守派的最高法院大法官，使特朗普能罕有地控制「三權」，而致「三權分立」的制衡機制在未來四年失效。
據各大美媒報道，民主黨大選慘敗後，黨內各方迅速互相指摘。美國眾議院前議長佩洛西在11 月8 日的一個播客節目分析，民主黨敗選的主因在於總統拜登退選太晚，導致民主黨來不及舉行初選，以致缺乏競爭，難以選出比賀錦麗優秀的候選人。選戰的過程突顯賀錦麗是一個弱勢的候選人，演辭及辯論都經過高度排練，她在電視辯論的表現只不過是中規中矩，反映她未曾經歷真正考驗。此外，賀錦麗的政綱有着濃重的拜登影子，缺乏個人特色及魅力。比方說，賀錦麗強調婦女墮胎權，但與奧巴馬夫人米歇爾（Michelle Obama）在女權主義上的演說相比，她的演說缺乏感染力，未能如預期般贏得女性選民的廣泛支持。她的競選拍檔副總統候選人沃爾茲（Tim Walz）在面對特朗普副手萬斯（J.D. Vance）時，對於萬斯提出的許多批評和攻擊顯得缺乏準備，力有不逮。
除候選人個人的原因外，美國當前的政治經濟環境以及民主黨的選舉策略失當，亦使賀錦麗的選戰慘敗，嚴重影響民主黨未來發展。下期拆解民主黨敗選的其他原因。
Kamala harris's Crushing Defeat
The dust has settled on the results of the U.S. presidential election. Before the election, many polls indicated that Trump and Kamala harris were neck and neck in terms of support, suggesting that the competition in this election would be exceptionally fierce. Some even boldly predicted that legal disputes stemming from mutual accusations of electoral fraud could delay the election results. However, the election concluded with Trump sweeping 7 swing states, securing 312 electoral votes and easily defeating Kamala harris. Additionally, the Republican Party also won the majority of seats in the Senate (53 to 46). As of November 11th, the Republican Party has secured 214 out of 435 seats in the House of Representatives, expected to gain control of the House.
The United States is a country with a separation of powers: legislative power belongs to Congress, executive power to the President, and the Supreme Court holds ultimate judicial power. Trump's victory and the Republican Party's control of both chambers, coupled with his appointment of three conservative Supreme Court justices in the previous term, have allowed Trump to unusually control all three branches of government, rendering the system of "checks and balances" ineffective for the next four years.
According to reports from major U.S. media outlets, following the Democratic Party's disastrous defeat, various factions within the party quickly began blaming each other. Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, in a podcast on November 8th, analyzed that the main reason for the Democratic Party's defeat was Biden's late withdrawal from the race, leading to a lack of competition as the Democrats did not have enough time for primaries to select a more outstanding candidate than Kamala harris. The campaign process highlighted Kamala harris's weaknesses as a candidate; her speeches and debates were highly rehearsed, and her performance in televised debates was only average, reflecting her lack of real testing. Furthermore, Kamala harris's policy platform bore a strong resemblance to Biden's, lacking personal characteristics and charm. For example, while Kamala harris emphasized women's abortion rights, her speeches lacked the inspirational power compared to Michelle Obama's feminist speeches, failing to garner widespread support from female voters as expected. Her running mate, Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz, appeared unprepared in facing many criticisms and attacks from Trump's running mate, J.D. Vance.
In addition to personal reasons for the candidates, the current political and economic environment in the U.S. and the Democratic Party's flawed election strategies also contributed to Kamala harris's crushing defeat, severely impacting the future development of the Democratic Party. Stay tuned for further analysis on other reasons for the Democratic Party's defeat in the next installment.