【學社市政立場書——開放直選,不二之選】(2017/11/13)

〈引言〉
澳門一直有悠久的市政傳統,八十年代開始,市民能透過直選選出市政議員,有限度地直接參與市政管理。特區成立後,兩個臨時市政廳被撤銷,並成立民政總署取以代之,可是政府久未履行憲制責任,根據《基本法》第95、96條設立非政權性市政機構,以撥亂反正、回應民意。直至最近才開始有關諮詢。社會大眾理解市政機構去政權性的歷史背景,然而,政府竟扭曲《基本法》條文,定下「不能選舉」的界線,推出特首全委任方案,抹煞了市政民主促進社區建設的可能性。
新澳門學社認為,開放直選產生市政機構的諮詢委員,並不違反《基本法》及其立法原意,以下是學社主張的方案和法理依據。
〈新澳門學社方案〉
《基本法》授予非政權性市政機構提供服務和提供諮詢意見的職能。學社主張,市政機構分成負責執行和提供服務的市政管理委員會,以及四個提供諮詢意見的分區市政諮詢委員會。
市政諮詢委員會的組成辦法:將全澳門劃分成北區、中區、南區及離島區,各自組成一個負責提供當區市政意見的諮詢委員會,而且,各區都必須開放直選產生市政諮詢委員。
〈符合《基本法》〉
學社方案涉及直選,但我們認為此舉並不違反《基本法》及其立法原意。
學社方案中的市政機構不會成為地方政權。《基本法》有關非政權性的條文,主要是針對澳葡時代市政廳的地方自治模式,並予以否定。過去市政廳具自治權,不受澳門政府控制。但我們並不要求回復過去地方自治的模式,而是維持特區一級政府架構。市政機構僅受特區政府委託提供市政服務,具體職務交由市政管理委員會執行。市政機構本身不得行使行政、立法、司法等國家權力,也無財政自主權,市政事務最終決策權仍在政府。
學社要求的是,分區的市政諮詢委員會須開放由市民直選產生。諮詢委員會不具行政決策實權,只負責提供諮詢意見。
必須強調的是,分區直選,並不等於實行地方自治或市政自治,仍需看由選舉產生的組織能否行使決策實權。《基本法》及相關歷史文獻並不否定以選舉方式產生負責諮詢的市政機構成員。況且,是否具政權性與選舉並無關係,有選舉不一定具政權性,具有政權性也不一定有選舉,目前政府的諮詢組織也有部分成員由選舉產生,而成員由委任產生的機關,也不妨礙其具有政權性。
基於上述理據,學社方案既完全符合《基本法》及其立法原意,也能達致充分尊重社區民意的民主目標。
〈開放直選的必要性〉
一直以來,民政總署對市政民意的回應力低下,雖然政府同時設有委任產生的分區諮詢委員,嘗試吸納社區意見。可是礙於其產生方式,委員會長期由大社團和既得利益集團壟斷,成效強差人意,委員與當區居民脫節,缺乏認受性和積極性。委員不用接受選舉洗禮,自然也不用回應民意和處理投訴,市民希望問責也無從入手,甚至連他們姓甚名誰也不知道。
澳門人需要的是由下而上的民意代表機制,只有直選才有可能促使市政機構成員具備充分的民意認受性,才能透過真正廣泛的居民參與,處理關乎民生的切身事務,令公共利益最大化。
學社主張把澳門劃分成四個區域,是為了產生更能專注該區事務的諮詢委員會,以免過度集中某一區的市政事宜,達至更好、更有效率的社會分工,盡力減輕特區政府和立法會的工作負擔。
〈結語〉
自2007年7月,新澳門學社發表的《民主政制發展方案》,已明確倡議分區直選市政機構成員。一直以來,學社與特區政府爭論應否按照《基本法》設立市政機構,前屆主要官員以「可設可不設」為由推塘責任。
10年後,正當公眾期待能藉此契機撥亂反正,推進社區民主和民生建設,政府卻居然推出全委任方案,這是「行政霸道」的極致。期間,政府代表多次偷換概念,將「委託」當成「委任」、將「引入選舉」當成「具政權性」。為了妨礙社區民意的有效傳達,無所不用其極,實在有負全澳市民的託付。
學社衷心期望,政府能夠儘快回復理性,在遵照市政機構屬非政權性質的前提下,迅速糾正全委任方案。為了實現分區直選市政機構,與民間社會同心同德、全力以赴。
————————————
The Only Real Choice is Openness
– Proposal for Future Municipal Organization by New Macau
Macau has enjoyed a long history of managing her own municipal businesses. Since 1980s part of the Municipal Assembly was directly elected, hence the Camara Municipal was partly accountable to the people. After the handover, IACM was established to replace the Provisional Municipal Councils. Article 95 and 96 of the Basic Law allowed the setup of a municipal organization without political power, however Macau SAR never prepared to fulfill the two articles until the current consultation. While the general public understand why the future municipal organization should be striped of political power, yet the regime expanded that definition and decided it was unconstitutional to have an elected municipal council. The all-appointed proposal by the government virtually kills off any possibility of progress by democratization.
New Macau is convinced an elected municipal consultation council would fully comply with the requirement of Basic Law.
Basic Law gives the municipal organization two major functions: to provide service and to consult. New Macau proposes that the organization should be consisted of an executive committee that provides service, and four local councils that consult.
Macau would be divided into districts of northern, central, southern and island and each would be served by its respective consultative council. All members of these councils shall be elected.
The New Macau proposal involves directed elected councilors while remaining fully constitutional.
Basic Law specifically prohibits Leal Senado style of local devolution, and municipal organization by the New Macau proposal would certainly not become a local government. The proposed executive committee serves under the commission of SAR government, no power was devolved because there is no second-tier government.
On the other hand, the local councils is fully elected by direct suffrage. These councils only serve consultative function. While there is no real power there is no threat to the legality. Basic Law and other relevant documents never explicitly prohibit election.
The New Macau proposal complies with the Basic Law and can achieve greater accountability of the municipal organization by democratization.
IACM has been criticized for inability to respond promptly to the community. There are fully-appointed district consultative committees but they are crippled by their lack of transparency and mandate. Members are often from pro-establishment organizations and very little was done to connect their work to local needs. Such committees enjoy low popularity as well as low productivity.
Macau needs a bottom up channel of popular voice, with elected councilors owing their mandate to the community working closely and promptly to everyday needs of the citizens. Only by that there can be real improvement in the quality of municipal services.
The proposed design of four local consultative councils ensures focus on their respective area and balance between them. Such division of labour would improve municipal services and greatly reduce burden of Macau government as well as Legislative Assembly.
New Macau has been advocating for a system of directly elected local municipal consultative councils. We specify such plan as early as our Political Reform Paper back in 2007.
Ten years has past and ten years the public has been longing for a chance to shake up the bureaucracy and to promote municipal services. For such high hope came government’s all-appointed proposal. Moreover the government chose to twist the words of law to rationalize their preference of non-elected council. That is a betrayal of their duty.