观察者社评：彭定康又发声，但他又错了

【本文英文稿由观察者网提供，于10月6号刊载于《赫芬顿邮报》，题为“Hong Kong’s Last British Governor Has Key Fact Wrong About Protests”。】

17年前，彭定康被迫放弃英国殖民地香港；现在，眼瞅着这座城市被卷入所谓的“雨伞革命”，他再度出招。

这位末代港督、现在的牛津大学校监（观察者网注：他还曾任BBC信托会主席，在BBC爆出多起丑闻后，以健康问题为由辞职。），5号在美国《世界邮报》上发表文章，将仍在持续的危机定义为一场关于香港民主的“争论”：

“香港被许诺的民主之路应该从何时何地开始？”“没有人曾告诉香港人，在保证给予他们的普选中，他们不能选择候选人。没有人曾说过，在中国共产党政府心中，伊朗是民主样板。全国人大的决定，实际上赋予中央对候选人的否决权。”

《赫芬顿邮报》网站截图

彭定康勋爵指控中国中央政府背叛了对香港的民主承诺，为了证明自己的观点，他提出了以下“证据”：

“其实，这不是中国当年的想法。早在1993年，中国的首席谈判代表鲁平（观察者网注：时任国务院港澳事务办公室主任）告诉《人民日报》，‘（普选方法）报全国人大常委会备案就可以，不必要中央同意。将来香港如何发展民主，完全是香港自治权范围内的事，中央不会干涉。’次年，中国外交部证实了这一点。”

答对了！中国作出了承诺，现在却没有履行它，毋庸置疑是有错的。好吧，一个小问题是，彭定康勋爵并非完全诚实。不，他并没有捏造上述证据——鲁平确实说过那些话。然而，鲁平讨论的事情与目前的争议根本是两码事。鲁平实际上指的是立法会选举，而非行政长官选举。

法治是香港核心价值中神圣不可侵犯的信条，无论是反对派还是彭定康都声称自己将捍卫它，因此，有必要看看法律到底是怎么说的。

立法会的产生

关于立法会的产生办法，香港的“小宪法”《基本法》中的“附件二”第三条是这样说的：

二〇〇七年以后香港特别行政区立法会的产生办法和法案、议案的表决程序，如需对本附件的规定进行修改，须经立法会全体议员三分之二多数通过，行政长官同意，并报全国人民代表大会常务委员会备案。

换言之，如果香港决定改变立法会的选举方法，需要完成四个步骤：1）三分之二的立委必须先通过法案；2）行政长官必须同意；3）向全国人大常委会报告新方案；4）人大常委会接收方案并备案。是的，正如鲁平所说、彭定康所引用的，中央在此过程中不会干涉。

行政长官选举则是另一回事

然而，行政长官选举——目前香港持续斗争的核心，是一个完全不同的问题。

关于行政长官的产生办法，《基本法》“附件一”第七条规定：

二〇〇七年以后各任行政长官的产生办法如需修改，须经立法会全体议员三分之二多数通过，行政长官同意，并报全国人民代表大会常务委员会批准。

如果香港要改变行政长官的选举办法，同样要完成四个步骤：1）三分之二的立委必须先通过法案；2）行政长官必须同意；3）向全国人大常委会报告新方案；4）人大常委会将必须决定是否批准方案。

换言之，人大在此过程中有合法的角色，并将一锤定音，决定如何选举香港行政长官。这是《基本法》所明确要求的法律行为，而不是彭定康所暗示的什么不光彩的招数。

彭定康引用鲁平的话，并将两个完全独立的选举混在一起，这往轻了说，是在误导读者，往重了说，则是不诚实的行径。

香港更像威斯敏斯特而非伊朗

彭定康居然好意思挑出审查候选人这一点，妄比香港与伊朗，值得指出的是，世界上最古老的民主制度并不符合彭定康及其香港朋友所追求的“普选”。英国首相既不是由所有选民“一人一票”选举产生，也不是由“公民提名”所提名的，而是由其所在的政党选出。

如果彭定康真心认定自己的主张就是香港应走的路，也许他该先在英国倡议。

（点击下一页，查看英文版）

Hong Kong’s Last British Governor Has Key Fact Wrong About Protests

Seeing that the city he was forced to give up 17 years ago is embroiled in the “Umbrella Revolution,” Chris Patten struck again.

In an article in The WorldPost, the last British colonial governor of Hong Kong defines the ongoing crisis as a “dispute about where Hong Kong’s promised path to democracy should take it, and when.” “No one told Hong Kongers when they were assured of universal suffrage that it would not mean being able to choose for whom they would vote. No one said that Iran was the democratic model that China’s Communist bureaucracy had in mind, with the Chinese government authorized to exercise an effective veto over candidates,” the current chancellor of the University of Oxford proclaimed.

Trying to prove this accusation of Hong Kong democracy betrayed by China, Lord Patten offered the following piece of evidence:

“In fact, that is not what China had in mind. As early as 1993, China’s chief negotiator on Hong Kong, Lu Ping, told the newspaper People’s Daily, ‘The [method of universal suffrage] should be reported to [China’s Parliament] for the record, whereas the central government’s agreement is not necessary. How Hong Kong develops its democracy in the future is completely within the sphere of the autonomy of Hong Kong. The central government will not interfere.’ The following year, China’s foreign ministry confirmed this.” Bingo! China made a promise and is now not honoring it. Guilty beyond doubt. Well, a tiny problem is that Lord Patten was not totally honest. No, the piece of evidence wasn’t fabricated - Lu Ping did say what he said. However, what Mr. Lu was discussing was something entirely different from what the current dispute is about. Mr. Lu was in fact referring to the elections of the Legislative Council and not that of the Chief Executive.

Since the sacred cow of the rule of law is among the core values of Hong Kong both the opposition and Lord Patten claim to be defending, it’s worth looking at what the laws actually say.

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

On the formation of the Legislative Council, Annex II, 3 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, reads:

With regard to the method for forming the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and its procedures for voting on bills and motions after 2007, if there is a need to amend the provisions of this Annex, such amendments must be made with the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the members of the Council and the consent of the Chief Executive, and they shall be reported to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress for the record.

In other words, there are four steps to follow if Hong Kong decides to change the election method of the legislature: 1) two thirds of the legislators have to pass a bill first; 2) the chief executive has to agree with the package; 3) the new method will then be reported to China; and 4) China will receive it for the record. And yes, China will not interfere in this process, as said by Mr. Lu quoted by Lord Patten.

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE IS ANOTHER MATTER

The election of the chief executive - the crux of the ongoing struggle in Hong Kong, however, is an entirely different matter.

On the selection of the chief executive, Annex I, 7 of the Basic Law states:

If there is a need to amend the method for selecting the Chief Executive for the terms subsequent to the year 2007, such amendments must be made with the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the members of the Legislative Council and the consent of the Chief Executive, and they shall be reported to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress for approval.

Again, there are four steps to follow if Hong Kong wants to change the election method of the chief executive: 1) two thirds of the legislators have to pass a bill first; 2) the chief executive has to agree with the package; 3) the new method will then be reported to China; and 4) China will have to decide whether to approve it or not.

In other words, China has a legitimate role to play in, and the final word on, deciding how the chief executive will be elected. This is a legal requirement stipulated in the Basic Law and not a dishonorable move by China as suggested by Lord Patten.

By quoting Mr. Lu and mixing the two entirely separated elections together, Lord Patten is misleading at least and dishonest at worst.

HONG KONG MORE LIKE WESTMINSTER THAN IRAN

While Lord Patten has the nerve of comparing Hong Kong to Iran in terms of vetting candidates, it’s interesting to note that the oldest democracy in the world doesn’t conform to the kind of universal suffrage Lord Patten and his friends in Hong Kong are pushing for. The prime minister of Britain is neither elected by “one person, one vote” from all the voters, nor nominated by “civic nomination,” but chosen by his or her own party.

If Lord Patten truly believes that should be the way to go in Hong Kong, perhaps he should start advocating at home first.