11/03/2020
聲明：回應 TVB 明珠台 政論節目 清心直説 褚簡寧 訪問主題：新當選的年輕區議員有何行動策略？ (07 - 01 - 2020)
匯政衛言 政治顧問 鄭文傑 Simon Cheng Man Kit / 區議員 何國豪 Edward Ho
問題：1.) 區議員應只關心區政嗎？2.) 區議會只關乎地區民生，不理全港政治？3.) 警方使用合理及必要武力回應示威者？4.) 為何不歡迎林鄭月娥前來對話和面談？5.) 支持「香港獨立」是否有違基本法？
一、區議員應只關心區政嗎？
不應該。本次區選的結果，充分反映選民支持示威抗爭的政治意向，並表達對政府暴力鎮壓民眾的不滿。區議員作為民意代表，有必要兼顧地區事務及政治訴求。 匯政衛言 及我方議員 何國豪 絕不畫地圍牢，定必跨越區政，全面為民發聲。
二、區議會只關乎地區民生，不理全港政治？
不正確。首先，區議員有「選舉」行政長官的資格，亦能夠左右立法會議席，法律賦予區議員直接涉及影響政治人事的權力。其次，區議會雖無實權，只是咨詢機構，但地區政策的總和即是香港政治的基礎，仍具有不可或缺的影響力。再者，公民教育及人權理念需要深耕细作，植根社區基層，政治權利意識的倡議是區議員實踐代議民主政治的必要使命。
三、警方使用合理及必要武力回應示威者？
絕不正確。警方所謂「社會穏定」、「公共安全」、「維護法治」的說法，是一種片面而扭曲的「律治」思想。民眾抗爭的因由，在於「立法」的過程不公，源自憲制的獨裁架構，以致「法律」的結果不義，執法的警務單位遇有公民抗命，即施展惡法賦予的合法暴力，淪為政權的打壓工具，卻又最直接地反映威權政府的暴烈本質。權力愈大、責任愈大，卻無從問責。市民終透過區選對警權濫暴表達憤慨，而那長期而隱性的制度暴力，才是導致社會躁動不安的根本原因。我們堅信，還政於民，才是警方和政府唯一適當且必要的回應。
四、為何不歡迎林鄭月娥前來對話和面談？
區議會理應歡迎行政長官及其他官員「紓尊降貴」前來與民意代表對話，但交流的前提是誠意和實效：一、是否準備好虛心面對民意的不滿甚至憤怒；二、是否能順應民意訴求，有作出實際改變的能耐和決心。没有以上兩點作為基礎，政府官員則不必大談「和解」、「溝通」，空擺公關姿態。
五、支持「香港獨立」是否有違基本法？
我方認為，政權的倒行逆施，令「一國兩制」走樣變形，令港人在和平及法治的框架上爭取民主感到絕望，才促使「港獨」的想法生根發芽，而政府必須為當前局面負有主要責任。正正為了維護基本法明訂的公民權利，我方才堅持「一國兩制」的憲制安排，憑此亦尊重與我不同的政治理念。我方認為，只有在立法及行動上具體與基本法相抵觸，才應被視為「違反基本法」。然而，世界各地均有明文規定修改憲法的條件及過程，基本法亦不例外，既然基本法容許修改，則當可議論風評，留優汰劣，去蕪存菁。因之，任何與基本法當前版本並不相同的想法和倡議，都應當被視為合法且正當，並作為言論自由的權利行使，而受到憲法及基本法的尊重和保障。
Straight Talk – TVB Pearl – Michael Chugani
What is the game plan of newly-elected young politicians?
Empowering Hong Kong Political Adviser Simon Cheng (Cheng Man Kit) / District Councilor Edward Ho (何國豪 Edward Ho)
1. District Councillors should just focus on district affairs?
No. People voted in this term clearly shown the mandate to the District Councillors that the political dissatisfaction to the government as a whole is the critical reason for pro-democrats to get elected. In the future, we will strive for the balance between district affairs and political advocacy as both of our duties as District Councillor Edward Ho and our political group – Empowering Hong Kong.
2. Is the District Council issue just local, not even political?
No. Firstly, the district council members can affect the electoral committee for the Chief Executive and five seats of the Legislative Council. Secondly, the district policy drafting is the foundation of the Hong Kong domestic policy as a whole, even though the District Council is just an advisory role to the district officers from the government, but still influential. Thirdly, civil education and human rights cause need to be well established from the very basic and district level, it is a must to shape public opinion for better democratization agenda for Hong Kong.
3. Police use proportional violence in response to protests?
It’s the few who make the law unfairly and undemocratically, once the pro-democracy protest happens, the police force can be a tool for political suppression for the sake of so-called “rule of law”, “social stability”, or “public security”. As now the government is not legitimate to govern, so the power of using “legal violence” on the people would be never ever legitimate. Much power the police have, much accountability from the police the people would demand. The public resentment to police brutality was clear to voice out through this district council election, so we should also carry out the people’s mandate that “it is the Tyrant, not the people, who cause the violence”.
4. Why Carrie Lam is not welcomed to have a meeting and dialogue?
Carrie Lam, as the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, is definitely welcomed to have a dialogue with new elected pro-democracy members of District Council only under the condition that she can humbly listen to the people’s anger to what the bad policy and divisive society she caused, and she has real ambition and even power to solve the massive dissatisfaction on the systemic violence which has been lasting for many years. Until now, we see no respect and even compassion to those protestors, most of them are also our voters and supporters. She is not welcomed not by most of the district councilors, but most of her own people.
5. Support independence? Does this idea violate the Basic Law?
The government distorted “One Country Two Systems” until at the point people see no hope to achieve democracy and to defend freedom within this constitutional system, to some of the people, “Hong Kong independence” becomes one of the alternative ways to imagine better Hong Kong out of this system. The government should take responsibility for this crisis. We support the framework truly respecting “One Country Two Systems”, so we are open to all forms of the idea which are crucial for Hong Kong to maintain its freedom of speech. All constitutions, including the basic law, are eligible to be amended in the due process, so the ideas which may not completely comply with the version of basic law today should be tolerated and even respected. An idea and advocacy for further amendment of the basic law should be regarded as legal and legitimate, only when the new law which contradicts the basic law and constitution, such as encroachment on civil liberty, has been made could be regarded as “breaking the basic law”.
