行政會議廢之可也

行政會議是一個甚爲無謂的機制,根據官方表述,它是「協助行政長官決策的機構」,並且「負責決定政策、向立法會提交法案以及草擬附屬法例」,而行政會議成員均「以個人身分提出意見」。

這是一個矛盾的表述,假如它是一個官方機構,它必然是代表社會整體利益而作出決策,故此不可能「以個人身分提出意見」;如要以「以個人身分提出意見」,那最佳途徑就是像我一樣開個博客,到時候他們想說什麽就可以說什麽。作爲政府機關,他們必須以公衆利益為依歸作出決策,也因此需要向公衆負責。故此,所謂「非官守成員」應該全部剔除。留下來就只有「官守成員」,那就是政府内部會議,他們想隨時開就隨時開,不用煞有介事的保留一個機關。

如果說政府想聽取非政府人士的意見,幫助決策,政府可以制定一些諫言機關,好像美國就有經濟顧問委員會(council of economic advisers),專門為經濟問題提出意見。這種機關並不左右行政決策,而且一定成員與主席一職要由議會通過提名才獲得正式任命,這樣就能受到議會的監察。現在的行政會議全數由行政長官任命,隨便的委任,不需要通過其他機構,這就會成爲一個利益分配的制度。

不看也不知,原來行政會議成員全都叫做「議員」,這是一個奇怪的説法。「議員」一詞是指立法機關議會中的成員,並不是參加某種會議的就可以叫「議員」。

This entry was posted in 體制, 政治與經濟 and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 則回應給 行政會議廢之可也

  1. Bill 說:

    行政會議成員,就算個別的叫,也應叫「成員」,可以從《宣誓及聲明條例》(Cap 11)的誓言用字看得到:
    第III部
    行政會議誓言

    我謹此宣誓:本人就任中華人民共和國香港特別行政區行政會議成員,定當擁護《中華人民共和國香港特別行政區基本法》,效忠中華人民共和國香港特別行政區,盡忠職守,遵守法律,廉潔奉公,為香港特別行政區服務。

    稱謂出錯是政府自己搞出來的。比較一下下面的誓言便可知道。

    第IV部
    立法會誓言

    我謹此宣誓:本人就任中華人民共和國香港特別行政區立法會議員,定當擁護《中華人民共和國香港特別行政區基本法》,效忠中華人民共和國香港特別行政區,盡忠職守,遵守法律,廉潔奉公,為香港特別行政區服務。

  2. mrtso1989 說:

    I thought the function of the executive council is to ensure the executive – led system. This can be achieved by inviting key legislators from the pro – government parties. Since those people have participated in the decision – making of the policies from the government, there is less chance to vote them down at the time they are presented to the legislature. The fact that Regina Ip or Starry Lee are members may help to indicate that.

    But yes, I also think there’s large discretion from chief executive to appoint the people that have supported him in the election campaign, making it a mechanism of transferring benefit.

    • 山中 說:

      Yes, it started as a quid pro quo under British rule, and it is so obvious now that it is an open and legit channel to transfer benefits. Why the so-called pro-democrats would not attack this system is unfathomable to me. Perhaps they want to transfer their own benefits some day?

      It does not allow different opinions in the executive branch, which is its cover anyway. No government would appoint dissidents to such agency and share government secret with them.

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

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 變更 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 變更 )

Facebook照片

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 變更 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 變更 )

連結到 %s