specified意思的八卦，Yahoo名人娛樂都在討論

(admin)
已寄出付款通知電郵給會員，請在本周五前辦理網上付款；不好意思，由於報名人數太多，部分報名者向隅了，你們將列入後補名單，並會在日內發出通知電郵。除了歌迷會購票服務，大家亦可以於稍後透過信用卡優先訂票和公開售票方式購買其他價格之門票，詳情請留意官方公布。謝謝各位支持！
We already sent email to confirm ticket ordering, please made payment before this Fri. Due to the overwhelming response, we are sorry that we cannot offer tickets to all applicants. In addition to the arrangements on purchasing tickets through the Fanclub, you can try other means such as credit card priority ordering to buy tickets at other price range. We will soon announce more details. Thx for the support!

(admin)
#SoulboyLightsUp香港站
【專享會員購票 Fanclub Premium Members Pre-order】
歌迷會為專享會員提供"Soulboy Lights Up香港站" 指定門票預購服務，9月9日晚上8時起開放網上報名及付款！會員請先登入官網"歌迷會"專區了解訂票詳情：http://khalilfong.com/fanclub/notice/
The Fanclub is making special arrangements for club premium members to pre-order specified tickets of Soulboy Lights Up Concert in Hong Kong. Application & transaction will start from 20:00pm 9 Sept, 2013. Please logon the Fanclub page of official website for details: http://khalilfong.com/fanclub/notice/

ultra vires

【回覆選舉主任的追問】（Please scroll down for English version）

（選舉主任於11月28日下午四點的追問： https://goo.gl/unqfuP ）

我們剛才已經回覆選舉主任，內容如下。感謝法夢成員黃先生協助，大家可參考他的文章：

村代表唔係《基本法》第104條所列既公職喎！
https://bit.ly/2AuHXKD

全文：

「
袁先生:
就你於 2018 年 11 月 28 日來函，現謹覆如下:

█(一)鄉郊代表選舉主任無權提出與確保提名有效無關的問題

1. 我認為你並無權力提出與確保提名有效無關的問題。謹闡釋如 下‥

2. 《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條規定，「除非提名某人為鄉郊地 區的選舉的候選人的提名表格載有或附有一項由該人簽署的聲明，示明該人會擁護《基本法》和保證效忠香港特別行政區，否則該人不得 獲有效提名。」

《選舉程序(鄉郊代表選舉)規例》第 7(3)條則規定，為了「令[選 舉]主任信納 ... 提名是有效的」，「選舉主任可要求獲提名為候選人的人提供提名表格沒有涵蓋而該主任認為需要的資料」。

3. 區慶祥法官在「陳浩天案」處理過《立法會條例》及 《選舉管 理委員會(選舉程序)(立法會)規例》下的類似條文。即使退一萬步，假設區慶祥在該案中所陳述的法律屬正確(即選舉主任擁有調查候選人 政治信念的權力，而這並無違反人權)，「陳浩天案」中有關立法會選 舉的邏輯，亦不可能同樣適用於鄉郊代表選舉。

區慶祥法官考慮過他所認為的立法歷史後(包括籌委會 1996 及1997 年區生認為對立法會選舉方式具約束力的決定)，將《立法會條 例》第 40(1)(b)(i)條解讀為是為了執行《基本法》第 104 條而訂立， 所以裁定選舉主任在該條下有權調查候選人實質上是否真誠擁護《基 本法》及效忠中華人民共和國香港特別行政區。

但鄉郊代表並非《基本法》第 104 條中列出的'high office holders of the HKSAR'(「陳浩天案」判詞第 42 段;即「行政長官、主要官員、行政會議成員、立法會議員、各級法院法官和其他司法人員」)。即使是人大常委會 2016 年 11 月 7 日通過對《基本法》第 104 條的解釋， 亦僅指「[第 104 條]規定的宣誓 ... 是參選或者出任該條所列公職的 法定要求和條件。」

4. 再者，立法會在訂立《村代表選舉條例》(2014 年改稱《鄉郊代表選舉條例》)時，完全並無如訂立《立法會條例》時般，考慮或 討論過當中第 24 條下有關聲明規定的內容，背後更無任何有約束力 的決定，要求村代表/鄉郊代表須擁護《基本法》及效忠中華人民共 和國香港特別行政區。

反而時任民政事務局局長何志平 2002 年在動議二讀《村代表選舉條例草案》時清晰地指出，「本條例草案的目的，是為村代表選舉 制定法律條文，以確保選舉公開、公平和公正，並符合《 香港人權法案條例》和《性別歧視條例》的要求」(2002 年 10 月 9 日立法會 會議過程正式紀錄頁 64)。

5. 無論如何，即使區慶祥法官亦須承認，任何有關的聲明規定， 必須從選舉、被選權等基本權利的背景下理解(「陳浩天案」判詞第 80 段)。在缺乏類似所謂立法歷史和《基本法》條文的支持下，實在 難以接受《村代表選舉條例》/《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條具有 跟《立法會條例》第 40(1)(b)(i)條一樣的效力(假設第 24 條本身是合 憲的話)。

法律上，選舉主任只可為了相關賦權條文的目的行使其法定權力:

'Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended . . .'
- Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 at para 19 per Lord Bingham quoting

Wade and Forsyth.

(亦可參考 Wong Kam Yuen v Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing [2003] 2 HKC 21 (HKCFI) at para 21 per Hartmann J.)

在這方面，《選舉程序(鄉郊代表選舉)規例》第 7(3)條的目的，是確保提名屬有效。如果《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條在正確的理解 下，並無強制候選人實質上證明自己擁護《基本法》和保證效忠中華 人民共和國香港特別行政區，亦即提名的有效性，並不依賴候選人的 實質政治信念，《規例》第 7(3)條自然就不可能賦權選舉主任作出與 此有關的提問，否則他或她行事的目的，就是法律並無授權、亦無預 見(假設《立法會條例》具此效果)的政治審查，而非確保提名的有 效性。

故此，我認為你並無權力提出與確保提名有效無關的問題。

█(二)回應提問(a):你認為我沒有正面回答你的問題，我並不同意你的說法，因為你的問題帶着錯誤的假設。你的問題假設「自決前 途」只能為一個特定機制，因此才有所謂主張香港獨立是否其中一個 「選項」的錯誤設想。然而，正如我昨日的回覆所指，「我提倡或支 持推動《基本法》和政制的民主化改革，包括但不限於修改《基本法》 158 及 159 條，作為中共封殺真普選後，港人自決前途的目標」;與 此同時，我沒有主張「香港獨立」。

█(三)回應提問(b):你在今日的回信中指「並沒有要求你就其他人的行為或主張表達意見」，不過，提問(b)的意思正是要求任何人若 希望成為鄉郊代表選舉候選人，不單自己不可主張港獨，也要明確地 反對甚至禁止其他參選人有相關主張。我認為這個要求違反《基本法》 及《香港人權法案條例》對言論自由的保障，亦顯然超出《鄉郊代表 選舉條例》對參選人的要求。

請你儘快就我於 2018 年 11 月 22 日提交的提名表格、11 月 27 日的回覆及上述的答覆，決定我的提名是否有效。若你需要其他的補充資料，請以電郵聯絡我。我就你的查詢保留一切權利。

2018 年 11 月 28 日
二零一九年鄉郊一般選舉
元崗新村選舉參選人
朱凱廸
」

【Reply to More Questions from Returning Officer】

Mr. Yuen,

I hereby reply to your letter dated 28 November:

█(1) Returning Officer of Rural Representative Election has no power to make any inquiries not made with a view to ensuring the validity of nomination

1. I consider that you have no power to make any inquiries insofar as they are not made with a view to ensuring the validity of my nomination. My reasons are as follows.

2. Section 24 of the Rural Representative Election Ordinance provides that “[a] person is not validly nominated as a candidate for an election for a Rural Area unless the nomination form includes or is accompanied by a declaration, signed by the person, to the effect that the person will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”

On the other hand, section 7(3) of the Electoral Procedure (Rural Representative Election) Regulation provides that, “in order [for the Returning Officer] to be satisfied … as to the validity of the nomination”, “[t]he Returning Officer may require a person who is nominated as a candidate to furnish such information which is not covered by the nomination form as that Officer considers necessary”.

3. In Chan Ho Tin v Lo Ying Ki Alan [2018] 2 HKLRD 7, Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung (“Au J”) considered similar provisions in the Legislative Council Ordinance and the Electoral Affairs Commission (Electoral Procedure) (Legislative Council) Regulation. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the law as stated by Au J in that case were correct (namely that a Returning Officer has the power to inquire into the political beliefs of a candidate, without violating human rights), it is clear that the reasoning as applied in the case of Chan Ho Tin, which relates solely to Legislative Council elections, cannot be extended by analogy to Rural Representative Elections.

Having considered what he thought to be the legislative history (including two Resolutions passed by the Preparatory Committee for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 1996 and 1997 respectively which Au J believed to be binding), Au J interpreted section 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Council Ordinance as having been enacted for the purpose of implementing Article 104 of the Basic Law, and decided on that basis that the Returning Officer had under that section the power to inquire whether a candidate, as a matter of substance, genuinely upholds the Basic Law and pledges allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

The important distinction, however, is that rural representatives are not those “high office holders of the HKSAR” listed in Article 104 of the Basic Law (Chan Ho Tin at para 42; namely “the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary”). Even the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, in its Interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law adopted on 7 November 2016, merely states that ‘the legal requirements and preconditions [contained in Article 104 are] for standing for election in respect of or taking up the public office specified in the Article.’

4. Further, unlike when enacting the Legislative Council Ordinance, the Legislative Council in enacting the Village Representative Election Ordinance (renamed in 2014 the Rural Representative Election Ordinance) never discussed nor gave any consideration whatsoever to the content of the requirement of declarations, still less to binding resolution of any sort which would compel Village Representatives (now Rural Representatives) to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

What the then Secretary for Home Affairs, Patrick Ho Chi-ping, did clearly pointed out, in moving the Second Reading of the Village Representative Election Bill in 2002, is that “[t]he purpose of the Bill is to bring Village Representative (VR) elections under a statutory framework in order to ensure that they are conducted in an open, fair and honest manner and that they are consistent with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance and the Sex Discrimination Ordinance” (Legislative Council, Official Record of Proceedings (9 October 2002) at p 90)

5. In any event, even Au J has had to concede that any relevant requirement of declarations “must be viewed against the involvement of the fundamental election right” (Chan Ho Tin at para 80). Here, in the absence of similar so-called legislative history or Basic Law provisions in support, it is difficult to accept that section 24 of the Village Representative Election Ordinance (now the Rural Representative Election Ordinance) is intended to have the same effect as section 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Council Ordinance (on the assumption that section 24 were not unconstitutional).

In law, the Returning Officer may only exercise her statutory powers for the public purpose for which the powers were conferred:

'Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended . . .'

- Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 at para 19 per Lord Bingham quoting Wade and Forsyth.

(See also Wong Kam Yuen v Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing [2003] 2 HKC 21 (HKCFI) at para 21 per Hartmann J.)

In this regard, the object of section 7(3) of the Electoral Procedure (Rural Representative Election) Regulation is to ensure that a candidate’s nomination is valid. If, properly construed, section 24 of the Rural Representative Election Ordinance does not have the effect of compelling candidates to prove, as a matter of substance, that they uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, then the validity of the nomination does not turn on the substantive political beliefs of the candidate. Section 7(3) of the Regulation, in turn, logically cannot have empowered the Returning Officer to make inquiries in this connection, for otherwise the Officer would be acting for the purpose of political screening, which is neither authorised nor envisaged by law (assuming that the Legislative Council Ordinance does, by contrast, have this effect), rather than of ensuring the validity of the nomination.

Accordingly, it is my considered view that you have no power to make any inquiries insofar as they are not made with a view to ensuring the validity of my nomination.

█(2) In answer to question (a): you take the view that I have not directly answered your question, but I do not agree, because your said question carries mistaken assumptions. Your question assumes "self-determination" can only take the form of one designated mechanism, and hence the mistaken hypothesis on whether Hong Kong independence constitute an "option" for such mechanism. However, as stated in my reply yesterday, "I advocate or support moving for democratic reform of the Basic Law and the political system, including but not limited to amending articles 158 and 159 of the Basic Law, as a goal for the Hong Kong people in determining their own future after the Communist Party of China banned genuine universal suffrage"; at the same time, I do not advocate for "Hong Kong independence".

█(3) In answer to question (b): You stated in your reply today "did not require (me) to express opinion on other people's actions or propositions", but the meaning of question (b) is precisely a requirement on anyone, if they wish to become eligible as a candidate for Rural Representative elections, not only to not advocate for Hong Kong independence themselves, but must also clearly oppose or prohibit other nominees in having related propositions. I am of the view that this requirement violates the protections on freedom of speech under the Basic law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, and clearly exceeds the requirements imposed by the Rural Representative Election Ordinance on persons nominated as a candidate.

Please confirm as soon as possible the validity of my nomination based on my nomination form submitted on 22 November 2018 and my replies to your questions dated 27 November 2018. Should you require other supplemental information, please contact me via email. I reserve all my rights in relation to your inquiry.

基本上一個經濟學家蠢到認同「對富人課重稅」可以解決貧富差距時，這個人的經濟學已經失格到極點，連最基礎的價格理論都堪憂。

先前我已經舉過知名經濟學家Deirdre N. McCloskey評價「21世紀資本論」作者Piketty連基本需求定律掌握都是不足的，竟然不理解供給會隨著稀缺程度增加而反應。（note that Piketty, trained in France and MIT, does not understand supply response to increasing scarcity.）

此論點的敗筆還有：

1. 真正的富人財富構成足夠的經濟規模聘僱專業團隊逃稅，而中產階級則無。追殺富人的財產結果就是鉅富者脫產他國，負擔不起逃稅成本的中產階級遭殃。

看看法國已經失敗的實驗案例，多少富人放棄法國籍。甚至連FB創辦人之一都放棄美國籍入新加坡。

2. 遭殃的中產階級產出意願會大幅衰退，看看冨樫義博在最新的日本Jump漫畫雜誌50週年紀念刊上的真情告白：「在他連載初期及最後，心情在4年間有著如此濃厚的改變。因為稅金有70%左右被拿走，所以1天工作20小時等於14小時在做白工；一想到這，就很想在深夜跑出去，如果當時有駕照那就糟了」、「自己的身體、生活及思想都是分離崩解的狀態，因此對於JUMP賣出653萬部並沒有太多的感…」

https://www.ettoday.net/news/20180316/1131998.htm

冨樫義博超高人氣的幽遊白書與HunterXHunter肯定讓他排得入日本收入最高Top10作家之一，當然跟世界真正的鉅富還有一大段差距，但連這樣的作家都對於70%稅金耿耿於懷，頻頻犯懶病犯到成為「休刊王」，連中文世界都出現「富奸 = 偷懶」這樣的使用法。

其實一兩年前，冨樫前助手就曾出書描述當年剛剛擔任助手時，雙方約好在某車站，冨樫老師來接他。他只看到一個40幾歲模樣憔悴的中年男子走來，沒想到他就是其實年方20幾歲的冨樫！才幾年的漫畫創作生產，就已經如此折耗這個人的健康。此外冨樫的長年腰痛無法久坐也是有名的。

重稅怎樣消滅優秀人士的生產意願，冨樫義博正是實例！往往富人重稅的實施後果，只是在剝削這群高產出高收入中產階級。

Piketty這類蠢蛋竟然相信「重稅是解決方案」？蠢到無以復加！還「頂尖經濟學家」哩？！ 朱敬一教授顯然自己腦袋也不清楚了。

3. 政府課稅後的無效率浪費，以及多出來的稅金產生的尋租獲利空間，恐怕才是政客們如此汲汲營營、不管經濟活力受損也要幹的真正原因！

4. 再補充一點：如巴菲特這些鉅富宣稱應該開徵富人稅，其實是都只是「吃豆腐般地政治正確表態」。

如果巴菲特、Bill Gates這些人都認為自己錢太多，大可裸捐給政府。嘿！偏偏這群人明知政府如何無效率、政客如何鯨吞蠶食稅金。他們才不幹哩！

《朱敬一教授，學術研究觀點並不是世界各國趨勢》

朱敬一教授說：『用「家庭收支調查」分析所得分配，是舊的方法；新的國際趨勢，確實是用財政部所得稅結算資料去分析所得分配。包括法國皮凱提、美國薩伊茲、英國艾金森等頂尖經濟專家，全球數十國加入的WTID網站，都是用所得稅資料分析所得分配不均。真正需要用功的，不是黃國昌，而是那些緊抱著「無法掌握極端分配情況」的粗疏數據，做錯誤分析，又喜歡對外大放厥詞的人。』

不好意思，朱敬一教授，您真的搞錯了。請您仔細看一下WTID網站，WTID是World Top Income Database的縮寫，在2011年由Piketty等所倡議成立，目前主要是由十幾個專家所組成的所得研究團體。

請注意那個Top，表示什麼？最高所得。因為目前的家戶調查法仰賴最高所得者誠實說出他們的收入，可是最高所得者往往不願意說出自己的收入狀況，因此有人主張使用所得稅分析來找到他們真正的財富。Piketty他們很清楚，使用所得稅資料無法看到低收入族群的狀態，所以一開始主攻最高收入所得。

WTID後來演變成World Wealth and Income Database (WID)，希望能夠成為更全面的財富分配資料庫。可是一直到2015年12月為止，WID還停留在Top Income。WID到現在仍然沒有提出全面所得分配調查的方法論。請問朱敬一教授，您是憑什麼宣稱自己超越WID，能夠使用所得稅分析低收入者？

主計總處強調的就是，您所用的方法不能夠掌握低收入戶的狀態，因為他們不見得有所得稅資料。證據就是，WTID資料庫一開始就排除中國，因為它們的財稅資料不完整。世界各國政府目前的主流也不是用WTID。請問朱敬一教授，您宣稱新的國際趨勢是WTID，證據何在？

朱敬一教授，我知道您非常推崇Piketty的學說，也時常拜讀您的經濟論述。但如果為了個人研究喜好，就將某一派的學術研究觀點扭曲為世界各國政府趨勢，我實在對您感到失望。就如同您自己所說：真正需要用功的，是那些緊抱著「無法掌握極端分配情況」的粗疏數據，做錯誤分析，又喜歡對外大放厥詞的人。

─

參考連結：

朱敬一挺黃國昌，頂尖經濟專家都是以所得稅來分析所得分配
http://www.storm.mg/article/90254

The World Wealth and Income Database - WID - Paris School of Economics
http://www.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/…/the-world-wealth-inc…

The World Wealth and Income Database
http://www.wid.world/#Introduction:

《黃國昌打臉主計總處？馬政府不告訴你的無限大所得差距！》
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207734475055851

─

順便附上聯合國開發計劃署(UNDP)的人類發展報告中，使用前後20%相除衡量所得差距的資料，數據來源是世界銀行。

Income quintile ratio | Human Development Reports
http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/income-quintile-ratio

Income quintile ratio

Ratio of the average income of the richest 20% of the population to the average income of the poorest 20% of the population.

Source: HDRO calculations based on data from World Bank (2013a).

Data in the tables are those available to the Human Development Report Office as of 15 November, 2013, unless otherwise specified.