【亞洲究竟何時才會通過同性婚姻?】(中譯)
Foreign Policy 於日前(11/30) 刊出專文報導台灣婚姻平權法案進程,文章以伴侶盟發起「婚姻平權革命陣線」,於 2014/10/5 彩虹圍城行動中,群眾把婚姻平權四個大球推入立院作為開頭。精要勾勒了近年來台灣婚姻平權發展簡史,並詳盡分析了目前法案風雲詭譎的政治情勢,報導也委婉但明確點出,婚姻平權法案的通過與否,正在考驗著蔡總統的領導能力與政治誠信。
原文 參見
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/30/marriage-equality-in-taiwan-isnt-a-done-deal-tsai-ing-wen-legislation-lgbt-taipei/?wp_login_redirect=0
作者/LINDA VAN DER HORST
2016年11月30日
中文翻譯:Tasha Chang
標題:When Will Asia Finally Have Same-Sex Marriage?
亞洲究竟何時才會通過同性婚姻??
Taiwan is on the verge of becoming the first Asian government to legalize marriage equality. But the public is deeply divided.
台灣即將成為亞洲第一個同性婚姻合法化的國家,但輿論仍高度分歧。
In October 2014, a crowd at an LGBT rights rally in Taipei, one of many, lobbed four large red balloons emblazoned with the Chinese characters for marriage equality into the fenced courtyard of Taiwan’s legislature. At that time, a comfortable majority of Taiwanese supported same-sex marriage; a number of polls in the self-governing island of 23 million indicated as much, with one showing as many as 71 percent in favor. But several initiatives to amend the law to achieve marriage equality, first mooted in 2003, have not been successful. Two years later, three marriage equality bills now sit on legislators’ desks; although international media have been quick to announce that Taiwan stands on the cusp of being the first government in Asia to achieve marriage equality, the island’s public seems deeply divided. In the latest poll on the subject, released on Nov. 29, 46 percent of respondents supported marriage equality, while 45 percent opposed it. Meanwhile, Taiwan’s lawmakers and its civil society have been more cautious than recent headlines in Western media suggest.
2014年10月,在架起拒馬的立法院外,有一大群為了同志權益發聲的群眾,高推著四顆分別寫著「婚」、「姻」、「平」、「權」四字的紅色大球,推往立法院的方向。當時,在有著2,300萬人口的台灣,有絕大多數民眾都支持婚姻平權,幾個民意調查也顯示同樣的結果,其中有個調查的支持度甚至還高達71%。然而,最早於2003年所發動,接續欲修法以達成婚姻平權的數個提案,最後都無疾而終。兩年後,三套版本的婚姻平權法案現正擺在立法委員的案前等待審議。雖然國際媒體迅速下了判斷宣告台灣即將成為亞洲第一個達成婚姻平權的國家,但台灣的民意似乎仍高度分歧。最近一次於今年11月29日公布的一份調查指出,46%的受訪者支持婚姻平權,另有45%的受訪者表示反對。同時,相較於西方國際媒體樂觀的報導走向,台灣的立法委員與公民社會的態度反而較為小心謹慎。
Island-wide marriage equality initiatives have been unsuccessful in spite of growing support over decades. Even without national legislation, many local governments in Taiwan now allow same-sex couples to participate in collective weddings and to record their partnership in household registries across the island, although neither action confers any legal rights.
過去數十年,即便婚姻平權的支持度越來越高,推動婚姻平權的行動卻屢遭挫敗。雖然中央尚未立法保障同志權益,台灣有許多地方政府已開放同性伴侶參與聯合婚禮並開放同性伴侶註記,然無論是聯合婚禮還是同性伴侶註記,皆未能給予同性伴侶法律上的權利。
To many, the election of President Tsai Ing-wen and her Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in January portended a broader, deeper change. Tsai openly made statements that appeared to support marriage equality during and after her campaign. In an October 2015 Facebook video posted to coincide with Taipei’s annual LGBT pride parade, Tsai exclaimed, “Everyone is equal before love.” A year later, she posted a photo on her Facebook page showing a rainbow, adding that her “belief has not changed” post-election. In August, Tsai appointed the first transgender official in government, Audrey Tang, as executive councilor for digital policy, which looked like another step toward acceptance of different gender norms.
對於許多人來說,現任總統蔡英文與其所屬政黨民主進步黨(民進黨)在一月總統大選的勝選,預告了更大幅度、更深程度的改變。無論是在選舉期間或當選後,蔡英文數次公開發表支持婚姻平權的文章。2015年10月,為響應臺北的年度同志大遊行,蔡英文的臉書發表了一支影片,影片中的蔡英文說道:「在愛之前,大家都是平等的。」一年過後,她在臉書上發佈了一則彩虹橫跨天際的照片,補充道:「雖然我的身分變了,但是我相信的價值沒有改變」,強調選後立場沒有改變。今年八月,蔡英文內閣任命首位跨性別官員唐鳳擔任政務委員,督導數位經濟與開放政府。此舉看來又是另一個接納不同性別典範的舉措。
Since Tsai took office this May, pressure has been building on her to deliver.
自蔡英文五月就任後,要求實現承諾的壓力升高
Since Tsai took office this May, pressure has been building on her to deliver. Yet she has never explicitly promised that her administration would push for same-sex marriage legislation, and critics have feared that once in office, she would find herself unable to follow through on her progressive rhetoric. The party that Tsai leads, the DPP, “has neither devoted sufficient resources to communicate the issues of marriage equality nor to reconcile differences within the party,” Victoria Hsu, who heads the nonprofit Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights (TAPCPR), told Foreign Policy.
蔡英文自今年五月就任後,要求她實現承諾的壓力不斷升高。然而,蔡英文卻從來沒有公開承諾她的行政團隊會推動婚姻平權的立法,批評者認為,一旦就任,蔡英文就無法堅持實現她過往曾發表過充滿進步性的言論。非營利組織台灣伴侶權益推動聯盟理事長許秀雯向《外交政策》表示,「蔡總統所領導的民進黨一直沒有真正投注夠多的資源在婚姻平權議題之上,或去溝通與化解黨內歧見。」
It was therefore a setback when Justice Minister Chiu Tai-san announced in August that his ministry still intended to introduce its own same-sex partnership bill — but only in 2017, after studying the impact of such a law on Taiwanese society. (In Taiwan, ministries can introduce bills into the legislature.) The effort dates back to the previous, more socially conservative Kuomintang (KMT) administration of Ma Ying-jeou and is an attempt to compromise between supporters of marriage equality and religious groups opposed. Proposing a separate law for same-sex partnership is politically easier, as it leaves the institution of marriage as currently constituted unchanged.
於是,當法務部長邱太三在八月宣布,經過研究相關法律對於台灣社會的影響,法務部仍傾向在2017年推出同性伴侶法時(台灣的行政部門可自行推出法案送進立法院審議),對於同志社群來說是一大挫敗。推行同性伴侶法可溯及較為保守的國民黨馬英九政府當權時期,用意在面對支持婚姻平權的群眾與反對婚姻平權的宗教團體中取得妥協。對於當政者而言,推動同性伴侶專法因未修改現行婚姻制度,在政治上的壓力較小。
In the absence of strong top-down leadership on the issue from Tsai, momentum for the bills currently under consideration has come from the bottom up. Audrey Ko, the chief editor of Womany, an online media outlet focused on gender issues and LGBT rights, says a stigma remains for gays and lesbians in Taiwan, one her company seeks to dispel. Other organizations, such as the Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBT) Hotline Association, perform peer counseling and advocacy work. Even corporations are chipping in; in March, McDonald’s released a commercial in which a son comes out to his father in one of its restaurants. (The father accepts it.)
缺少蔡英文「從上而下」貫徹的領導力,對於三個版本婚姻平權法案的支持聲量多來自「由下而上」的力量。關注性別與同志議題的線上媒體女人迷總編輯柯采岑表示,臺灣的同志族群還是被污名化,而女人迷就是想要破除此種污名;其他的組織例如台灣同志諮詢熱線協會則提供同志諮詢服務與倡議。企業也紛紛響應婚姻平權的議題。今年三月,在麥當勞發表的電視廣告中,有一個兒子在麥當勞向自己的父親出櫃(而父親也接受他了)。
This summer, a number of Taiwanese pop artists organized a benefit concert to raise awareness for marriage equality; tickets sold out in minutes. Pop superstar Jolin Tsai performed a lesbian-themed song for the occasion. In the music video for the song “We’re All Different, Yet the Same,” she makes the case for marriage equality by describing the plight of a woman whose partner of more than 30 years is hospitalized; the woman is unable to sign a consent form for emergency surgery because she is legally not a spouse or family member.
今年夏天,有多個臺灣流行音樂藝人組織了一場為婚姻平權而唱的公益演唱會,演唱會門票一開賣就在幾分鐘內售罄。流行樂天后蔡依林在該場演唱會中也演出以女同志為主題的歌。在她的「不一樣又怎樣」的MV中,描述了一對相守30年的女同志伴侶,其中一位因病住院,然她的伴侶卻無法在她需要進行緊急手術時簽署手術同意書,因為她的伴侶並不具有配偶或是親屬的身份。
A real-life version of this tragedy triggered public outcry and reinvigorated support for marriage equality. On Oct. 16, 67-year-old French professor Jacques Picoux fell to his death from the top of a 10-story building in Taipei, police said. He is thought to have committed suicide after depression caused by the death of his partner due to cancer; Picoux was unable to make medical decisions for his partner in his final days, as Picoux had no legal status. In a response to this outcry, legislators from the DPP and the KMT, as well as the caucus of the New Power Party (NPP), a young activist organization, all introduced similar marriage equality bills.
此種悲劇的真實案例引發了社會上強烈的抗議聲浪,推動婚姻平權運動更進一步。在今年10月16日,據警方表示,67歲的法國籍教授畢安生(Jacques Picoux)從位於台北的10樓住家一躍而下身亡。據悉,他有可能是因長期伴侶因癌症過世所引發的憂鬱症而自殺。當畢安生的伴侶在癌症末期時,因他沒有法律地位而無法替伴侶做醫療決定。為了回應關於婚姻平權的呼聲,民進黨與國民黨的立委以及由年輕的社運組織所組成的時代力量的黨團都推出了類似的婚姻平權法案。
All three proposals would amend the Taiwan Civil Code to open marriage to same-sex couples, but they differ in how to do so. DPP legislator Yu Mei-nu’s proposal introduces a general provision extending to same-sex couples the right to marriage, as well as other family law rights that accompany married status. But it leaves further gendered language across the civil code intact. The proposals of KMT legislator Hsu Yu-ren and the NPP would make references to “husband and wife” and “father and mother” gender-neutral throughout all relevant civil code provisions. These latter two proposals have great symbolic meaning, because they remove a heterosexual presumption from the code, but the legal effect is likely no different than Yu’s proposal.
這三個提案都主張修改民法將婚姻制度對同性伴侶開放,但對於如何開放則各有其詮釋。民進黨尤美女的版本採用一概括條款(註:新增民法971-1條)使同性配偶適用夫妻、父母子女等相關權利義務,但保留了民法中「性別化」的法律用語,未加修改。國民黨立委許毓仁與時代力量黨團的版本則將「夫妻」、「父母」等現行民法中的用語性別中立化。許毓仁與時代力量的版本,將異性戀預設的用語「性別中立化」而具有重大的象徵性意義,但若在法律適用結果而論,三個版本並無太大差異。
There is still a long legislative road to travel before Taiwan can become the first Asian government to legalize same-sex marriage. The bills passed their first reading on Nov. 17, but the DPP caucus whip has said the proposed bills will next be reviewed on Dec. 26. During the review process, any legislator can introduce a competing same-sex partnership act. Even if the bills were to enter a second reading, they could still face a boycott and be removed from the agenda. The bills will only become legislation after passing three readings.
臺灣要成為亞洲第一個將同性婚姻合法化的國家,仍有一大段立法之路要走。婚姻平權三版本的民法修正案都在今年11月17日通過了立法院一讀,而民進黨黨團總召表示,下一次審議的時間為12月26日。在審查過程中,任何一位立法委員都可以提出同性伴侶法作為對案。即便三個版本的婚姻平權法案進入了二讀,也還是有可能面臨杯葛而無法排進立法院的議程中。這三個版本的法案要通過三讀才有可能正式成為法律。
As these bills went through their first reading in the legislature this month, thousands of people protesting against marriage equality, and only several hundred rallying for it, gathered on Taipei’s streets.
當三個版本的法案本月在立法院通過一讀後,上千名反對婚姻平權的民眾走上台北街頭集結,當天支持婚姻平權而上街的民眾僅數百人。
As these bills went through their first reading in the legislature this month, thousands of people protesting against marriage equality, and only several hundred rallying for it, gathered on Taipei’s streets. Opposition to marriage equality in Taiwan largely comes from small but well-organized and vocal conservative religious groups. Four people reportedly even managed to storm into the legislative meeting room, shouting that the “legislators are monsters” and would want to change Taiwan “into an AIDS island.”
這三個版本的法案本月都在立法院通過一讀,為此,上千名反對婚姻平權的民眾走上台北街頭集結,然當天上街支持婚姻平權的民眾卻只有數百人。在台灣,大部分反對婚姻平權的民眾來自規模小但組織嚴密且發言聲量大的保守宗教團體。據報載,甚至有四名反對修法的民眾嘗試要衝進立法院司法及法制委員會的會議室,高喊著:「立委都是怪獸」、台灣要變「愛滋島」。
It is hard to tell whether the legislature will pass a same-sex marriage bill this time, says Hsu of TAPCPR, partly because of internal opposition within the DPP and KMT. (The NPP caucus fully supports its bill but only holds five seats in legislature.) Tsai has reiterated that the bills are “clear evidence” marriage equality has support across all parties. But even Yu, who introduced the DPP bill, says she is only cautiously optimistic about the chances of passing a marriage equality law.
台灣伴侶權益推動聯盟理事長許秀雯表示,現在沒有辦法預知立法院是否會通過婚姻平權法案,情勢走向如何,真的很難說。因為主要政黨國民黨及民進黨的立委雖然都有提出婚姻平權民法修正案,但這兩個黨裡面也都有反對者(時代力量雖然全黨都支持婚姻平權,在立法院內也只有五個席次)。蔡英文總統數度表示,不同版本婚姻平權法案的推出,即為此議題獲得跨黨派支持的「明證」。然而,即便是推出民進黨版本婚姻平權法案的尤美女立委也表示,對於婚姻平權是否能過關成為法律,她仍只抱持審慎樂觀的態度。
Outside lawmakers’ offices, the battle for public support continues. If anything, it seems to be waning precisely at the time when it will be most needed. “More and more people are confessing that they love gays but that they don’t support same-sex marriage,” said Ko, because they believe allowing same-sex partners to get married will harm traditional family values. She is therefore unsure whether Taiwan will manage to pass a bill in the next year. At least, Ko added, “people are talking [about it], and it is not a taboo anymore.”
在立法委員的辦公室外,爭取民意支持的戰爭仍未停歇。若真要說,此時此刻婚姻平權運動最需要的是什麼?大概就是更多的支持。女人迷總編輯柯采岑表示,「有越來越多人坦白表示,他們愛同志但是不支持婚姻平權」,因為他們認為,若同性伴侶可以結婚,將損害傳統家庭價值。」她也說,不確定臺灣能否在明年內通過婚姻平權法案。她補充:「但至少,大家都開始討論(婚姻平權法案)了,這再也不是禁忌了。」
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過62萬的網紅Bryan Wee,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「consideration law中文」的推薦目錄:
- 關於consideration law中文 在 許秀雯 律師 Facebook
- 關於consideration law中文 在 本土研究社 Liber Research Community Facebook
- 關於consideration law中文 在 Bryan Wee Youtube
- 關於consideration law中文 在 Travel Thirsty Youtube
- 關於consideration law中文 在 スキマスイッチ - 「全力少年」Music Video : SUKIMASWITCH / ZENRYOKU SHOUNEN Music Video Youtube
- 關於consideration law中文 在 【合同法】什么是合同法里的对价?(上) What is consideration ... 的評價
consideration law中文 在 本土研究社 Liber Research Community Facebook 八卦
想立法局有直選?Sorry, 你的民意已被塗改~
【民意塗改液:從88直選「浩鼎門」到8.31政改諮詢】
1988年2月,港英公佈《代議政制今後的發展白皮書》(《白皮書》),正式對88立法局直選宣判死刑。早前有傳媒報道,英國曾和中國在1987年尾簽訂秘密協議,推翻88直選,以求換取中方同意將直選寫入《基本法》。隨著文件逐漸解封,更多關於88直選夭折一事的細節逐漸曝光,當中原來還包括中方直接修改《白皮書》內容,英方甚至默許中方「建議」篡改公眾諮詢結果,以合理化否決88直選,猶如30年後上演的「浩鼎門」事件:瞞著香港人,將文件交給不應交給的人,越俎代庖,直接修改。
香港立法局在1985年首度引入間選議席,及後港英政府在1987年發表《一九八七年代議政制發展檢討綠皮書》,諮詢市民對於1988年引入直選議席,取代間選議席的意見,目的為探索如何在香港進一步發展民主(the views of the community on whether the system of representative government should be further developed in 1988)。然而,1988年2月公布的《白皮書》以「實行時間上有歧見」(On the question of whether a directly elected element should be introduced in 1988 opinion was, however, sharply divided) 為由,拒絕在當年9月的第二屆立法局選舉中加入直選議席。結果香港人在1991年才能一嚐直選的滋味,拖慢整個香港民主化進程,當時距離主權移交只剩下僅僅六年。
88直選夢告吹,英方內部深知記者必定問到「中方有否干涉」的問題。根據英國解密檔案,在公布《白皮書》前夕,英方內部準備應對傳媒的回應口徑(line to take)中,將「中國有否干涉」視為首要問題,甚至先於「為何沒有88直選」等相關質問,可見英方事實上很擔心被外界得知中方確有干涉。
策略上,英方將與中方關於香港政制改革的互動定性為「恆常交流」,包括強調「中英雙方常就共同關心事務定期交流」、「中方一直被知會(kept informed)香港人有關綠皮書相關事宜的意願」、「禮節上,在白皮書公布前數日,會將預印本交給中方(as a matter of courtesy, advance copies handed over a few days before publication in Hong Kong)」等。表面看來,英方似乎只會「知會」中方,中方沒有參與整個決策過程。
表面上知會 實質上干涉
然而翻看解密檔案,英方與中方的「交流」遠遠大於「禮節性」。首先,英方內部相關重視中方意見,甚至早在《白皮書》公布前一個月,英方駐華大使伊文思已經將《白皮書》草稿最關鍵兩章的預印稿(advance copy)--「直接選舉立法局議員的問題」(Direct Elections to the Legislative Council) 和「今後的發展」(The way forward),轉交給時任中英聯絡小組中方首席代表柯在鑠,好讓中方高層可以就此「給予意見」。
事實上,英方交給中方的並非所謂「預印本」,時間亦不是對外宣稱的「公布前數日」,事實上港督衛奕信採取「等埋中方」態度,將其視之為需要中方事先審閱的草稿。根據英國解密檔案,港督衞奕信甚至表明,英方完成白皮書草稿文件後,須盡快提交文件給中方(as soon as possible),好讓中方有充足的時間讓回應(sufficient time to react),同時要留時間讓自己可以根據中方的意見去修改內容。
當然,為免中方花過長時間修改,衞奕信建議以《白皮書》「需要時間付印」為理由,建議要求中方在1月最後一周前回覆,換言之,英方在公布前一個月已經將草稿交給中方,而且預留近半個月讓中方「審閱」,反映衞奕信期望將中方對《白皮書》內容直接提出的意見,納入最終稿內。
眼見對家如此「鬆章」,中方自然喜出望外。伊文思在1988年1月15日向中方轉交《白皮書》草稿文件後的一星期(1月22日),柯在鑠便與伊文思在電話中表示,中國外交部及「其他有關當局」(other authorities concerned)感謝英方「善意」(gratitude)。重要的是,我們在檔案中看到中方的角色不是單純英方所宣稱的「被知會」,而是有實質角色,參與修改英方的「草稿」,當中柯在鑠強調中方看到有兩個「技術位」(”Technical points”,原文加引號),「希望英方參詳」(for the British side's consideration)。
英方對於中方投桃報李亦深感大悅,甚至直言中方比預期中更加「合作及實際」(helpful and realistic),認為這反映中方相當滿意英方處理有關白皮書的手法。英方內部亦深知一旦此舉曝光,無異是一場「政治關公災難」,故特地叮囑港英政府萬萬不可讓香港人知道中方能有此厚待(privileges):不單可以率先閱讀《白皮書》草稿,甚至可動筆修改港英政府的政策文件,篡改香港民意。
民意不似預期怎麼辦?直接塗改吧!
至於中方兩點修訂是什麼?所有修訂集中《白皮書》第三章「直接選舉立法局議員的問題」,其中一點是「政制如何過渡」相關段落的中文翻譯。相關段落提到,政制發展要有助97年政權交接,故要考慮到基本法起草委員會執行《聯合聲明》規定。中方閱畢,認為原文「將於明年公布的《基本法》諮詢稿」(the text to be published next year for consultation),應改成「《基本法》的最新擬稿」(The latest draft of the Basic Law)。這裡主要是《基本法》草案的中文翻譯問題,衞奕信認為中方所建議字眼較原稿更準確(more accurate),故決定按照中方建議修改。
不過,英方認為中方建議的第二點修訂更加實質(rather more substantial),當中涉及有關香港社會對於引入直選的意見。根據英方原稿,英方談到當時民意匯集處(Survey Office)所收集到的意見時指出,香港民意「稍稍傾向支持」在選舉團(見註一)之上引入直選成分(Slight preference for having direct elections in addition to, rather than instead of, the present system of indirect elections by an electoral college),但英方認為難以在地方選區中容許「直選」與「間選」兩套不同選舉方法並行,故建議1991年才將「10席直選取代10席間選」 (註二),變相否決在88年推行直選。
中方看畢英方原稿後,認為民意結果與已經談好的決定-即否決88直選-有所出入(inconsistency),建議英方將「民意「稍稍傾向支持」在選舉團之上引入直選成分」刪去。
然而,衞奕信認為,即使民意與最終決定有衝突,但政府有責任記錄相關觀點(recorded trend of public opinion),否則「政治上顯得不合理」(would not make political sense to fail to record views on this point),皆因衞奕信認為,英方就其他議題諮詢社會時,往往都會將主流或非主流觀點臚列出來。換言之,英方的考慮主要是「程序公義」。
不過,衞奕信雖然嘴巴說得漂亮,他最後都建議刪去「稍稍傾向支持」的字眼,改為「總的來說,提交意見人士⋯⋯支持在選舉團之上加入直選」(on balance those who commented were in favour ⋯⋯ of having direct elections in addition to, rather than instead of, indirect elections by an electoral college),以免外界認為民調結果與最後決定的差異太明顯(make the contrast less stark)。
明眼一看,兩個版本對於「香港是否接受直選制度」的陳述其實差異甚大。中方認為,在原來版本當中,支持一方稍稍多過反對,變相反映社會對於「是否保留間選」沒有太明顯取態,不能成為港英「88年不搞直選」的理由,故在新版本中,香港在中方要求、英方配合的情況下,將社會對於「保留間選」一半半的意見刪去,直接篡改民意,「被塑造」成支持保留間選制度。
「全面管治權」早已實踐
「浩鼎門」事件反映港英「前六四」時期對於中方的態度,亦令我們重新認識主宰香港前途的中英聯合聯絡小組在過渡時期的角色。「前六四」時期的中英角力往往由衞奕信等「親華派」所主導,主張與中方和諧溝通,而非對抗,結果英方透過有意無意的積極配合中方,在實質操作上形成「中英共治」的局面,並非中英聯合聯絡小組向外聲稱的「磋商,討論政權交接事宜」。恰恰由於中英雙方共謀,變相將港英政府文件交給別國政府事先審議,容讓中方在主權移交前夕已經在香港伸展其影響力,中央對香港的「全面管治權」其實早已實踐。
換個角度而言,88直選「浩鼎門」事件曝露中方一直對待民意的態度,一旦面對「民意不似預期」情況,往往要求將「唔啱心水」的民意刪去,從而營造「政府獲得社會大多數人支持」的假象。這點相信香港人經歷主權移交20年,一點也不陌生。
主權移交後兩地權力關係轉移,令人不禁擔心過去中英之間的「浩鼎門」事件日益成為「新常態」。在過去,即使是權力相對平衡的中英兩國處理香港政制問題時,英方已經會讓中方修改重要的政策文件,時至今日,一國兩制下的中港關係已貶成「中央-地方」、中環及西環分裂成「兩個權力中心」的從屬關係。
大家可以設想一下,在京官日夜高唱對港「全面管治權」、「三權合作」之際,現今的特區政府會否一如既往,直接將重要的政策文件交予西環過目和修改?2014年的政改三人組所做的公眾諮詢所收集的民意,有沒有交給中方「和諧」掉?若果香港仍然沒有檔案法,當時香港對於普選的民意如何地被處理,恐怕難以重見天日。
註一:1985年首屆立法局選舉有24席非官守議席,分別由「選舉團」及功能組別產生,各選12席,當中「選舉團」由區議會、市政局、臨時區域議局(「區域市政局」前身)的所有議員組成,互選產生12席。
註二:港英政府當年決定在1991年將12席地方選區議席,當中10席改成直選產生,另外兩席(市政局及區域市政局)設成特別組別,撥入功能組別。
參考資料:
相關檔案來自英國國家檔案館 FCO40/2396 Review of Representative Government (Courtesy to The National Archives)
https://goo.gl/qFUBkx (暫只供參加香港前途研究計劃朋友借閱)
FCO40/2397 Review of Representative Government
https://goo.gl/zNUoZj (暫只供參加香港前途研究計劃朋友借閱)
FCO40/2398 Review of Representative Government
https://goo.gl/5Qusdd (暫只供參加香港前途研究計劃朋友借閱)
代議政制今後的發展白皮書
https://goo.gl/MFu1dt
White Paper: The Development of Representative Government: The Way Forward
https://goo.gl/Vn2Tce
consideration law中文 在 【合同法】什么是合同法里的对价?(上) What is consideration ... 的八卦
... <看更多>