吳亮星違反自然公義原則之二

(自標少札記)

上一篇文引發一些留言爭論在立法會抗爭的手法,我只能強調,我寫該文的著眼點在於吳亮星在處理投票議決的手法,而不是討論拉布是否有合理因由,或者拉布是對付不義的抗爭手段,我也不敢對何時剪布下甚麽定論。我的著眼點只是在於吳亮星閃電議決不當之處。

吳亮星閃電議決不當,並不表示拉布就理所當然,剪布就違反公義,不能夠把兩者混為一談。我以前寫過兩篇關於拉布的文章:拉布filibustering與剪布curtailing debate拉布上訴,法庭確認立法會主席有權剪布,在梁國雄司法覆核案,林文瀚法官判辭的其中幾段值得重溫:

54. There are provisions in the Rules which show it is not intended that the business of the Legislative Council should be thwarted by irrelevant and repetitious speeches or vexatious debates: Rules 36(5), 38 and 41(1), 45(1), 57(4). Given human ingenuity, written rules cannot deal with all the eventualities. History elsewhere demonstrates that measures like closure orders in the Parliament of the United Kingdom were adopted to meet such crisis before the making of any standing orders to such effect[1]. Of course, there are differences in the political landscape and circumstances in different jurisdictions. Historical developments elsewhere may not be applicable in Hong Kong.
55. As far as Hong Kong is concerned, in the context of our Basic Law, I do not see any room for suggesting that there is a constitutional right to filibuster. In the exercise of his authority to preside over meeting under Article 72, the President has a constitutional duty to ensure that proper conduct of business in the Legislative Council is not derailed. How such duty is to be performed, how the power of the President is to be exercised and the relationship between the President and the members as a whole (balancing the interests of different political Parties in the Legislative Council) are matters of politics.
56. The existence of powers to deal with irrelevant, repetitious or vexatious debates demonstrates that the right of a legislator to speak in meetings is not unchecked and therefore it is not possible to contend for an absolute constitutional right to speak. It also demonstrates that rulings by the President (or a chairman) often have the effect of regulating the right to speak in meetings. It needs hardly be said that proceedings in the legislature would come to halt if every decision having the effect of curbing or regulating a legislator’s right to speak is liable to be challenged in court on the ground that it curtails the immediate constitutional right of a legislator under Articles 73 or 75(2). Mr Lee’s constitutional argument cannot be right.
57. In light of my above conclusion on the proper interpretation of Articles 73(1) and 75, I do not think the rules cited by Mr Lee can give rise to a constitutional right to filibuster.

58. As regards the proper interpretation of Rules 34(6), 38 and 92, it follows from the principle of parliamentary privilege that these are matters for the Legislative Council and the President in the exercise of his authority under Article 72.

(Leung Kwok Hung and The President of the Legislative Council Of The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region HCAL 64/2012)

另外,我在拉布上訴一文粗畧講在民主西方社會對拉布的限制:

澳洲議會嚴格執行議員發言時間,故此無法拉布。就算在美國,參議院的議事規則(senate rule)可以投票方式來剪布,而眾議院則以限制辯論時間來防止拉布。香港有些人對個入權利用顯微鏡來放大,只見樹木不見森林。造反有理,置公眾利益不顧。看到反梁振英便隨即附和的人,應該退一步想一想,究竟是insight,抑或是loss of sight。

別講國際標準那類說話,空空洞洞盲目以為民主國家就可以任由議員在議會拉布是純屬美麗的誤會。也不要跟我辯論香港的立法會不是民主選舉產生所以情況不同那類説話,我不是搞政治的,很多事情我都似懂非懂,寧願不懂,所以想不出答案來。
廣告

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Facebook照片

您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Google+ photo

您的留言將使用 Google+ 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

連結到 %s