即時點評:《明報》專欄首次「開天窗」 李柱銘劉進圖高下立見

鐵娘子密件披露:英曾爭97年立即選舉產生特首

2014-1-14 04:29
字體: A A A

香港人曾一直以為,按照《基本法》,主權移交後10年,亦即到2007年,就能夠普選行政長官;到後來全國人大常委會在其「決定」文件中稱,2017年「可」普選行政長官;到最近有關篩選、公民提名的討論,真正的普選還是看似這麼近,卻那麼遠。但其實,據戴卓爾夫人基金會網站披露的機密文件顯示,英方曾一度爭取讓香港在1997年立即選舉產生行政長官,惟最終未能成功

《852郵報》翻查戴卓爾夫人基金會從英國國家檔案館取得的解封文件,發現有多份文件都有提及,英方欲爭取在1997年選舉產生行政長官。但是,由於爭取未能成功,最終只能以同意1997年後行政長官「通過選舉或協商產生」,來換取中方同意行政機關須向立法機關負責。

1984年9月19日,外相首席私人秘書艾博雅(Leonardo Appleyard)在外相賀維的同意下,以賀維名義向首相戴卓爾夫人提交一份記錄。內文提到,在憲制方面,英方未能成功游說中方在1997年立即選舉產生行政長官。內文並指,已令行政局同意,此已是英方所能爭取到的最大成果。【註1】

同一天,行政局非官守議員會見戴卓爾夫人。據解封的發言稿,首席非官守議員鍾士元在會面時指出,非官守議員的意見並非常常得到接受,但大家一直為着保持香港繁榮穩定的目標而團結。「我們相信今天所得的是合理的協議,是所能達致中的最好的,也是我們能夠憑良心向香港人推薦。」【註2】

而據另一份關於該次會面的資料,則指出中方反對直選和對代議機構的發展有戒心,是已知的事,但中方已同意在協議中定明1997年後設立選舉產生的立法機關。「連中方的默許都沒有的情況下落實直選,是不可能達至的事。」【註3】

將時間再推早一點,9月11日,英國駐北京大使伊文思致倫敦外交部的一份電文中指出,他曾與中方的國務委員兼外交部長吳學謙討論。就憲制安排方面,吳學謙已得悉英方準備接受中方的立場,行政長官會以選舉或協商的方式產生,而中方經小心考慮後,準備以接受英方的兩個要求去回應,即協議的附件1將訂明立法機關會以選舉過程產生,以及行政機關須向立法機關負責。【註4】

電文封面有署名「CDP」的手寫意見,指出「這是另一向前的重大一步。他們接受我們就憲制方面提出的要求」。當時戴卓爾的私人秘書,是外交部借調到首相府的外交官Charles David Powell。【註5】

再推早一點,9月8日,伊文思電文倫敦,指他曾跟周南討論。周南指出中方的立場非常堅決。中方提出,在協議訂明行政長官應由選舉或協商產生。【註6】至於立法機關,則在「理論層面」應該由選舉產生,至少長遠如是,但未知到1997年之時的客觀因素是否合適。

而在2天之前(即9月6日),賀維在他致戴卓爾夫人的一份文件中,則指出中方拒絕在關於1997年政府架構方面,承諾任何超越「通過選舉或協商產生」行政長官的說法。他們拒絕指明立法機關將選舉產生,或行政機關須向立法機關負責。賀維指出,選舉產生的立法機關是香港特區未來自治的根本,必須強烈要求。他因此認為,英方應準備接受中方就行政長官產生辦法的立場作交換。【註7】

雖然行政長官和臨時立法會在1997年都是由「選舉」產生,但選民基礎僅為推選委員會的400人。即使至今,立法會仍有一半議席屬功能界別。《聯合聲明》和《基本法》雖訂明行政機關須向立法會負責,但北京和特區當局都強調須行政主導,立法會無法有效監督制衡。而行政長官普選,則在主權移交的20年後,仍可能會在有篩選、有入閘無出閘的小圈子模式下達至。英方的「成功爭取」,和中方的承諾,究竟何時能真正兌現?

註1:原文為「On constitutional arrangements, we did not succeed in persuading the Chinese that the Chief Executive of Hong Kong should be elected immediately in 1997 (although the agreement does leave open the possibility that he might be so elected). But throughout the negotiations we have had the closest consultations with the Executive Council. We have brought them to accept at each point that we had achieved the maximum that was possible from the Chinese.」

註2:「We believe that what we have today is a reasonable agreement, the best that can be achieved, and one which we can commend to the people of Hong Kong in good conscience.」

註3:「The Chinese are known to be opposed to direct elections and generally wary of the development of representative institutions. But they have agreed that the Agreement should provide for an elected legislature after 1997. It will be impracticable to introduce direct elections without at least the tacit acquiescence of the Chinese.」

註4:「Wu noted from your message that we were prepared to accept the Chinese position that the Chief Executive of the SAR should be selected by election or consultation. After careful consideration, the Chinese side were prepared in return to agree to the two requests in your message, ie: (a) that the text of Annex 1 should state that the legislature should be selected by an elective process (semicolon) and (b) that the executive authority should be accountable to the legislature.」

註5:「This is another big step forward. They have accepted our points on the constitutional arrangements;」(「big step forward」和「our points on the constitutional arrangements」都有畫線。)

註6:「Zhou said that the Chinese position was firm. The structure of the future SAR government would be stipulated in the Basic Law. The Chinese proposed that the agreement should state that the chief executive should be chosen by election or consultation. This was reasonable, because it would in practice be difficutl(原文串法) to pre-determine the method by which he should be chosen.」

註7:「Next is the question of constitutional arrangements. The Chinese are refusing to commit themselves on the structure of government after 1997 beyond saying that the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong SAR should be chosen “by election or consultation”. They have refused to specify that the legislature will be elected or the executive authority should be answerable to the legislature. We see an elected legislature as fundamental to the autonomy of the future Hong Kong SAR and must press for it strongly. Here I proposed saying that we should be prepared to accept the Chinese line that the Chief Executive could be chosen by election or consultation in return for a statement that the legislature should be elected and that the executive should be answerable to it.」

請支持我們持續發展,透過PayPal或其他方法贊助我們!
金額:
分類:|發表於2014年1月14日 上午4:29

發表評論

讀取中…
陳頌紅網誌│我們誰沒愛過人渣?