余若薇：治理不在權力，在於自我克制

---

彭定康得演講從孔子開始，那我就談談另一位中國哲學家——老子。老子曰：「治大國如烹小鮮。」（治理大國就像煮一尾小魚）那些喜歡中式蒸魚的人會明白這是什麼意思。蒸魚須火候剛好，略作調味，加上完美的時間控制。如果你在料理一條小魚的時候做太多功夫，反而會弄巧成拙，甚至可能讓魚刺卡在喉嚨中結束，成為一個危險且不愉快的經歷。我認為前任財政司司長夏鼎基爵士一定是老子的門徒，因為他提出了「積極不干預」這個說法。我知道這是為經濟政策而設的，但也反映了一些治理風格。前行政長官曾蔭權在任期間，將政策改為「小政府，大市場」。 現任行政長官梁振英則把政策改為「適度有為」，按照烹飪主題而言，這意味着他想染指於每一個餡餅，將「梁粉」指派到他的內閣，法定機構和大學。所以我想談談「不干預」。

一周前，當我被邀請成為曾鈺成最後的替補嘉賓（非常抱歉，如果你付500塊錢是為了來聽他的演講，而非我的），我被這個頭銜所吸引。 最後，我決定談「權力分立」。這當然是正確的術語，除了在政治上不正確外，因為我們北京領導人多次告訴我們，應該是「合作」而不是「分立」。2008年，時任國家副主席的習近平訪港提到，行政、立法和司法機構的「治理團隊」應該「真誠合作」。

權力的分立意味着有檢查和平衡的責任分工，使權力不會集中在一個分支。但在中國國務院發表的2014年白皮書中表示，「香港人民首先應該是愛國的⋯⋯愛國是香港管理者的基本政治要求」。而行政人員的定義包括行政，立法機關和司法機構。這引發公眾的抗議。香港大律師公會指出，「法官不應被視為『香港行政人員』或是執行政治規定的治理團隊的一部分。 」這使1,800名律師身穿黑衣舉行無聲遊行抗議。當時，它被解釋為一些翻譯毛病。但本月，全國人民法院法律事務委員會副主席張榮順在解釋「人大常委會釋義」時再次重複了同樣的觀點。然後呢？當有合作而非權力分立時會發生什麼？

彭定康的發言引起我的共鳴，他說：「不能改變任何事情，或不能產生大變化或改動的選舉是一場鬧劇。」我們都知道，無論是立法機關還是行政長官，香港的選舉終究可改動多少。這使我談到「鬧劇」這個詞語。不久前，當我們在電視上看到台灣議員搶麥克風和揮拳之際，我們曾經取笑他們；但當我們的立法會也遭遇更多這樣的暴力手段時，現在笑的是我們自己。一名副局長因某立法會議員搶去手中的文件而報警，另一位議員也因遭同一位議員投擲午餐肉罐頭而報警⋯⋯當我在立法會時，我們曾經堅持不讓警察進入立法會範圍。不要侵入我們的草坪。但近年來，立法局主席有多少次報警請警察進場處理？（不幸的是，Jasper不在這裏，無法回答這個問題）。

在過往美好的日子裏（我不是說當彭定康是港督的時候，我的意思是當我在立法會），我們至少要按時間表和程序來進行普選。 這是值得期待的。現在有了8.31全國人大常委會決定，所有的希望都被粉碎，選舉不能改變任何事情，所以立法會會議衰敗成鬧劇也不足為奇。

但我想回到我的主題「不干預」或「不侵入我的草坪」。在這裏，我們沒有議會中至高無上的地位，所以當法律有誤時，法院可以干預並告訴立法會主席嗎？不干預如何與檢查和平衡以及法治相一致？是的。首先，不干預並不意味着缺乏權力，這意味着法院行使自我克制，和尊重決策者得職責範圍。我們律師有一個花哨的術語，我們稱之為「審查寬容度」（margin of appreciation），根據適當的尊重決策者 – 無論是政府官員還是立法會主席。法官不能因意見不同而推翻官員或主席得決定，他只能在有限和特定的情況下進行干預；例如當決策者越權或律師口中「嚴重不合理」的情況。即使法院干預，也不能取代原先的決定，而是將問題交還給立法會重新審議。那麼在最近的宣誓風波中發生了什麼？

通過憲報，新的立法條款於10月1日開始。根據「立法會條例」，候任立法會議員除非發出相反的通知，否則即為就職。根據《基本法》第104條的規定，他們必須在就職時宣讀誓言。宣誓儀式安排在10月12日。其中兩位立法會議員的誓言造成了巨大的嘩然。細節不必斟酌。律政司司長指他們的宣誓無效，但立法會主席在咨詢法律意見後，裁定如果兩位議員要求，會允許他們再次宣誓。兩位議員的確提出要求，並獲安排在下次會議上。行政長官和律政司司長則提出司法覆核，以撤銷立法會主席的裁決。他們沒有得到阻止第二次誓言的臨時禁令。然而，建制派議員策動離席，使會議因法定人數不足而流會。法官區慶祥提早於週四聽取聆訊，但在他作出判決前一個星期，全國人民代表大會急於對《基本法》第104條提出所謂「釋法」（我把這個詞加上引號），但實際上是在補充「宣誓和聲明條例」以達至拒絕兩位議員有再次宣誓機會的效果。

釋法之後（我的意思是按時間順序），法官區慶祥頒布其裁決並撤銷了立法會主席的決定。 在他56頁的判決書中，他強調無論有沒有「釋法」，結果都是一樣的。我不在這裏辯論你應該相信他與否。 我想強調幾點，值得關注。

1.法院何時應當干預，何時不干預？底線在哪裏？在過往所有案件中，包括長毛就立法會主席決定停止「拉布」而提出司法覆核，也遭法院以權力分立為由拒絕干預，法官不應干涉立法會主席在內部事務上的決定。在宣誓事件中，法官仍然提到分權，但卻說這不是內部事務。內部事務到底如何界定？這讓我想起我在婚前與丈夫訂立的安排。我告訴他，將來他負責決策所有「大決定」，而我只負責做「小決定」；但我有權力解釋界定什麼是「大決定」。

法院必須少一點武斷。區慶祥沒有給予關於內部或外部事務邊界的定義。他說法院是最後的仲裁者。但正如我上面所說，這不是關於權力的缺乏。為什麼在這種情況下沒有適當的尊重？

2.第二點是責任分工。 當涉及到領土完整和國家的安全或穩定等問題時，自然是行政部門的責任。 當政府起訴其人民時，法院的作用是確保權利得到保護，法律得到遵守。 在56頁的判決書中，沒有提到這兩人是由超過58,000名選民投票產生的，也沒有提及《基本法》第26條適用於投票權和選舉權與否。法官在取消這兩人的資格之前，有責任平衡所有事實。 由於他沒有提及相關資訊，我們不知道選民的意見（如果有被考慮在內）在他的判決中佔多少分量。

3.這讓我談到第三點。在決定給他們第二次機會時，立法會主席毫無疑問考慮了政治因素。 正如耶穌所說的，「要把凱撒的事物歸於凱撒」。 讓總統處理政治。 法院沒有處理政治的裝備，這是另一個有「審查的寬容度」（margin of appreciation）的理由。

4.有一個說法指棘手的案件使法律無能為力，這意味着極端的案例是壞的先例。在這種情況下，事實是相當極端的，可能很容易引誘法院以兩人拒絕宣誓，不應再允許同等機會而結案。 但是區慶祥並沒有說這個決定是不合理的，必須擱置一旁。 人大激起了很多政治活動家，有十多個司法覆核在渠道，每一方都試圖DQ（disqualified: 這是取消資格的時代術語）另一個陣營。在這樣的情況下，法院應該謹慎，一旦走上干預的道路，它將可能成為一條不歸路。想像一下，每個案件的法官都試圖看看事實，並決定誓言是否莊嚴或真誠，但結果可能因人而異，特別是對政治立場的不同面向。

5.最後是生效日期。 在這個案件中，法官兩個空缺的辦公室在宣誓當日已是無效，而非判決日期。但如果在下一個案件中，最終判決是在議員宣誓就職並擔任職務後六個月或更久才提出呢？他或她當選時所得的票數會否受到認可？他或她必須退還所有的薪水和報銷嗎？ 再次使用烹飪作類比，對於「政治魚」而言，「司法烹飪」可能太慢了。

當我同意成為一個最後替補的講者，並採取這個主題，我知道我會惹來麻煩（不是因為我支持Jasper參選行政長官，也不是不想與彭定康一同參與論壇），但是因為這個案件一直在發展當中。當我被追問和催促準備我的演講時，我說我不得不等到星期五上訴法院就這件事的審理。上訴於昨天結束，但判決將保留到下週。所以我剛才說的可能有部分會在下週過時。但我可以放心地說，有一件事是永遠不會過時的，中央單一統治下的權力合作，對「一國兩制」是一場災難。 有時治理不是在於權力，而是自我克制。 我們祈求回到積極不干預主義，或者如果你想在政治上正確的話，用中文的說法是，「河水不犯井水」。

---

Lord Patten started with Confucius and I would like to follow with another Chinese philosopher Lao Zi (老子).    He said governing a big country is like cooking a small fish (治大國如烹小鮮).   Those of you who like steamed fish Chinese style will understand exactly what is meant.  The fire has to be just right, seasoning light, timing perfect and your hands gentle.   If you meddle too much with a small fish, you make a mess of it and may even end up with bones stuck in your throat, a most unpleasant if not dangerous experience.   I think our former Financial Secretary Sir Philip Haddon-Cave must have been a disciple of Lao Zi because he coined the term “positive non-interventionism”.   I know this is meant for economic policies but it does tell you something about the style of governance.  Donald Tsang when he became CE, changed this to “Small Government, Big Market”.   C Y Leung changed this to “appropriately proactive” which means, (following on with the cooking theme), he wants his finger in every pie, appointing what the papers call “Leung fans” to his cabinet, statutory bodies and also universities.

​

So I want to talk about non-intervention.   A week ago, when I was asked to be the last minute substitute for Jasper (I apologize if you paid 500 bucks to listen to him instead of me) I was tempted to give this as my title.  In the end I decided on “separation of powers” which is of course the correct term.   Except that this is politically incorrect, because we have repeatedly been told by our Beijing leaders that it should be co-operation rather than separation.  In 2008, when Xi Jinping came to Hong Kong, then as Vice President, he said that there should be “sincere co-operation” amongst the “governance team” of the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary.

​

You all know separation of powers means having check and balance and division of responsibilities so power would not be concentrated in one branch.  But in the 2014 White Paper, issued by the Chinese State Council, it is said that “The Hong Kong People who govern Hong Kong should above all be patriotic…loving the country is the basic political requirement for Hong Kong’s administrators”. And administrators are defined to include the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. This led to a public outcry.   The Hong Kong Bar Association said and I quote “judges are not to be regarded as part of ‘Hong Kong’s administrators’ or part of the governance team upon whom a political requirement is imposed”.   1,800 lawyers in black staged a silent march in protest.  At the time, it was explained away as some translation glitch.  But this same point was repeated again only this month by Zhang Rongshun (張榮順), the vice chairman of the NPC SC Legal Affairs Commission in his interpretation of the Interpretation by the NPC SC.   So what then?  What happens when you have co-operation rather than separation of powers?

​

One line in Lord Patten’s talk struck a chord with me – he said “elections that cannot change anything, or not very much, is a farce.”  We all know how much or how little Hong Kong elections – whether of the legislature or of the CE – can change.   That brings me to the word “farce”.    Not that long ago, we used to laugh at the Taiwan legislators when we see them on television grabbing microphones and throwing punches.  Now the laugh is on us.  Our legco has its fair share of grabbing and throwing.  One undersecretary made a report to the police because a legislator grabbed his file.  Another legislator made a report to the police against the same legislator for throwing luncheon meat.  When I was in Legco, we used to insist that police cannot enter the Legco precinct.  Don’t trespass on our turf.   But how many times did the Legco president have to call the Police in recent years? (Unfortunately Jasper is not here to answer that question).

​

In the good old days (I don’t mean when Chris Patten was governor I mean when I was in Legco), we were at least pressing for a time table and a road map to universal suffrage.  There was something to look forward to.    Now with the 8.31 NPC SC Decision, all hopes were dashed, and with elections that cannot change anything, it is hardly surprising that Legco proceedings sometimes degenerate into a farce.

But I want to come back to my theme about non-intervention or not trespassing on my turf.   Here we don’t have parliamentary supremacy, so surely the courts can interfere and tell the Legco president when he gets the law wrong? How is non-intervention consistent with check and balance and the rule of law?  It is.  First of all, non-intervention does not mean lack of power, it means the court exercising self-restraint, it means having respect for the decision maker in his or her area of responsibilities.   We lawyers have a fancy term for it, we call it “margin of appreciation”, according suitable deference to the decision maker – be it the government official or the Legco President.  A judge does not overrule the minister or the president because he disagrees with him, he interferes in limited instances; e.g. when the decision maker acted ultra vires (outside his power) or what lawyers call Wednesbury unreasonable (grossly unreasonable). And even when the court does interfere, it does not substitute his own decision, but remit the matter back for reconsideration.  So what happened in the recent oath saga?

By  gazette, the new legco term commenced on 1 October. As per the Legislative Council Ordinance, the legislators-elect take office (就任) unless they give notice to the contrary.  According to article 104 of the Basic Law, they have to take the oath upon assuming office (就職). The oath taking was arranged for 12 October.  Two of these legislators took their oath is such a way that it caused a huge uproar.  The details need not be gone into.   The Secretary said their oath taking was invalid.  But the President of Legco – after taking legal advice – ruled that they should be allowed to take the oath again if they requested it.  They did so request and this was scheduled for the following meeting.   The CE and the SJ launched a judicial review to quash the decision of the Legco President.  They failed to get an interim injunction to prevent the second oath taking.  However the pro-establishment legislators staged a walk out and the next meeting was aborted due to a lack of quorum.   The judge, Au J,fixed an early hearing date and heard arguments on the Thursday.   But the week before he gave judgment, the NPC SC rushed in to make an “interpretation” (and I put this word in quotation marks) purportedly of article 104 of the Basic Law but in effect supplementing local law, namely the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance as to what amounts to a refusal to take the oath and mandates that there is no second chance.

Following the Interpretation (no pun is intended, I mean sequentially in time), Au J gave his ruling and quashed the decision of the Legco President.  In his 56 page judgment, he emphasized that with or without the “Interpretation”, the result would have been the same.   I am not here to debate whether you should believe him or not.   I want to highlight a few points of concern.

1. When should the court intervene and when not?  Where is the line?  In all the previous cases, including Long Hair’s judicial review on the president’s decision to stop the filibustering, the court refused to intervene and said separation of powers, the judge should not interfere with the decision of the president in internal matters.   In the oath case, the judge still said separation of powers but said this was not an internal matter.   What is or is not an internal matter?  It reminds me of the arrangement I made with my husband before we got married.  I told him in future he would get to make all the big decisions whereas I only make the small decisions but I have the power to interpret what is or is not a big decision.   A court of law has to be a little less arbitrary.    Au J has not defined the boundaries of an internal or external matter.    He says the court is the final arbiter.  But as I said above, it is not about the lack of power.  Why is deference not shown in this case?

2. The second point is the division of responsibilities.  When it comes to matters such as territorial integrity and security or stability of the state, naturally that is the responsibility of the executive. When the government sues its people, the court’s role is to make sure that rights are protected and the law complied with.  In the 56 page judgment, there was no mention at all that these two were elected by more than 58,000 voters.  Nor of Article 26 of the Basic Law about the right to vote and the right to stand for elections.   The judge’s duty – before disqualifying these two – is to balance all facts.   Since he has made no mention, we do not know what weight, if at all, he accorded to the views of the electors.

3. And this brings me to the third point.   In deciding to give them a second chance, the Legco President no doubt took into account political considerations.     As Jesus famously said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s”.   Let the President deal with politics.   The court is ill equipped for it and that is another reason for the margin of appreciation.

4. There is a saying “Hard cases make bad law” which means extreme cases are bad precedents.  In this case, the facts are quite extreme and it may be easy and hence tempting for the court to say the two refused to take the oath and should not be allowed to do so again.  But Au J has not said that the decision is Wednesbury unreasonable and has to be set aside.  The NPC SC excited a lot of political activists.  There are about a dozen judicial reviews in the pipeline each side trying to DQ (that is the trendy term for disqualify) the other camp.     The court should be cautious that once it embarked on the road to intervention, it may become a road of no return.  Imagine the judge in each case trying to look at the facts and decide if the oath taker was solemn or sincere enough, a conclusion which may differ from one person to another, especially for different sides of the political fence.

5. Finally there is the effective date.   In this case, the judge said that the two vacated office and were disqualified on the date of the oath taking, not on the date of the judgment.  But what if in the next case, a final judgment is only rendered six or more months after the legislator has taken the oath and served meanwhile as a legislator?    Does his or her voting count or does he or she have to return all the salary and reimbursements?  Again using the cooking analogy, judicial cooking may be too slow for the political fish.

When I agreed to be a last minute stand in and take on this topic, I knew I would get myself into trouble (not because I want to run for CE like Jasper and does not want to be in the same forum as Lord Patten), but because this is a developing situation.  When I was being chased for my speech I said I had to wait till Friday for the hearing of the Court of Appeal on this matter.   The appeal has concluded yesterday but judgment is reserved till next week.  So what I just said may be partially out of date by next week.   But one thing I can safely say will never get out of date is this — co-operation of powers under the unitary rule of the central authorities is disastrous for “one country two systems”.  Sometimes with governance it is not about power but self-restraint.  We pray for a return to positive non-interventionism, or if you want to be politically correct, use the Chinese equivalent, may the river water not mix with well water (河水不犯井水).