關於 court of justice中文 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【澄清唬爆米花教室：被大內宣淹沒的美國總統署名投書】

先說這篇沒有圖，因為太重要不能亂放圖

在歷史上，從沒有美國總統親自投書到中華民國的報紙。但是在109年10月22日，美國總統參選人拜登以「More Prosperous Future For Our Families」(定稿中文標題：為我們家庭更繁榮的未來)，以華人為主體，台灣人為核心訴求，投書聯合報系的世界日報，強調他願意與中國合作而非對抗，鄙棄川普的仇中獵巫，願意與華人聯手，但更重視台灣人的健保經驗，不願台灣人為美國火中取栗而是共同繁榮。

但在一片大奇特的大內宣中，美國總統參選人的投書竟然在台灣地區被忽視。且不說拜登明明在聲譽卓著的 IBD/TIPP民調持續領先，比起川普根本鼓吹台灣人火中取栗(你對抗，我賺軍火，去跟大陸人死嗑來增加我談判勒索本錢)。

拜登不只親自署名投書，還誠懇說明他對台灣/兩岸的四大重點，根本是史上最誠懇與重要的待遇。既然親綠親川普主流媒體不報，那福編來報。

★
一、拜登堅持稱台灣是 leading democracy (領導性的民主政體)，表示其無意支持台獨立場(不稱國家)

二、拜登大篇幅強調川普仇中、卸責不科學的推卸問題給中國，造成亞裔的困擾與災難，而這不是美國總統應為。(打了那些整天喊支那賤畜以為自己就會成為高等美國人的台灣地區背祖中國人的臉)

三、拜登大談健保對一般百姓重要性，表示他珍視台灣的健保經驗，也是未來與台灣的合作重心。

四、與其獵巫與仇中，他更重視與中國的合作，希望聯盟對世界更有幫助(雖然舉例醫療與氣候，但也只是舉例) 表示願意以兩大強權的合作，謀取更多世界利益。

其他我 不多說，請看原文與譯文。

#拜登給中華民國台灣與聯合報系的面子真的太大了
#聯合報系真正展現實力
#美國總統投書首中華民國系報紙
#大內宣只在意把我們當馬前卒的喇叭川普

為我們家庭更繁榮的未來／前副總統喬瑟夫．拜登

時局多艱，我們國家處在十字路口，正面臨疾病大流行、經濟大衰退，和一場將決定我們未來很長一段時間的選舉。

今年 我們看到美國最好的一面

今年，我們看到美國最好的一面引領我們向前：英勇的醫師、護士、日常雜貨商、餐館業主、必要行業工作者 — 而其中，包括許許多多的亞裔美國人。

今年 我們也看到美國最糟情況

但我們也看到最糟的情況：亞裔美國人誤因新冠病毒遭仇視的行為比比皆是，某種程度上，是因為川普總統發布的仇恨言論所致。亞裔美國人被責備、被唾罵、被攻擊；家園、商家和汽車被侮辱性標記破壞；年幼的孩童被刺傷，還有一名89歲的奶奶，在不斷升級的仇恨文化中遭人火焚。

這不該是我們原本的樣子。

亞裔美國人 使我們國家變強大

近兩個世紀以來，亞裔美國人使我們的國家變得強大 — 從掘金礦工，到加速我們崛起的鐵路和工廠工人，再到推動我們向前邁進的科學家、建築師、藝術家和企業家們。多年來，他們的勇氣、犧牲和成功，為美國夢注入動力，也讓美國穩為自由的燈塔與世界的希望。

川普卻不懂 傷了移民國價值觀

川普總統不懂這些。他帶頭攻擊我們作為移民之國的價值觀，甚至在我們的邊境，拆散成千上萬的孩童與父母。即便在這場大流行到來之前，我們的仇恨犯罪就已達到16年以來的新高。而如今，為了轉移自己抗疫失敗、未能保護我們國家的過失，無論是否因此導致上千反亞裔的種族歧視事件，他仍堅持把新冠病毒稱作「中國病毒」。

作為總統 我捍衛每人的美國夢

措辭很重要，總統措辭更為重要。作為總統，我將捍衛每個人的美國夢，讓每一勤奮努力的家庭，享有通向繁榮和美好未來的公平機會。我將反對任何形式的種族歧視，指示司法部優先處理仇恨犯罪，以彌合仇恨與分裂的傷口，而非煽風點火。

川普失敗 他讓我們的經濟崩盤

唐納德·川普早在今年1月就已知道新冠病毒的致命性，卻未採取任何行動。現在，超過22萬美國人因此失去生命，約3000萬人失去工作、工時和薪水，五分之一的小商家關門。川普失敗的領導力讓我們的經濟崩盤 — 他總統當得愈久，得以完全回歸正軌的時間也愈久。

我會控制疫情 讓我們重回生機

八個月過去了，川普仍然沒有(抗疫)計畫。而我有。

首先要擔起責任，努力控制疫情，讓我們重回生機。我將執行早在3月就擬定的計畫，擊敗新冠病毒。我將聽取科學家、專家的意見；保護我們的家庭；讓新冠檢測、治療， #以及最終的疫苗免費，並對所有人開放。

我會重建經濟 實質救助小商家

我將馬上開始重建更好的經濟，為數百萬遭受重創的小商家提供實質救助。他們是我們社區的生命線 — 但川普腐敗的復甦作法棄他們於不顧，只把紓困資金匯集到大公司手中。75%的亞裔小企業主，未能獲得任何首輪紓困金。這是錯誤的，我已要求確保員工在50人以下的小企業獲得紓困金，我也將增加他們獲得優惠和資金的長遠渠道，減輕阻礙移民業主的語言障礙。

我不會對年收40萬元以下者加稅

質言之，我的經濟復甦計畫將回報以工作，而不只是財富，將創造未來數百萬優薪工作。(信評機構)穆迪的獨立經濟學者發現，比起川普總統的作法，我的計畫會創造多出700萬的工作，以及超過1兆元的經濟增長。我也不會對任何年收入40萬元以下者加稅 —別懷疑。相反地，我還將確保超級富豪和大公司最終支付本應承擔的份額。

讓父母能付學費 讓醫保更平價

我一路走來，都在為工薪和中產家庭而戰；他們之中有許多勤勉奮鬥的移民，來到美國是為更好的生活。我將幫助父母有能力支付子女的優質教育、提高教師薪酬，並讓絕大多數家庭免費就讀公立學院。我將讓照顧年邁父母變得更容易，讓醫療保險更平價。川普現在要通過法院，廢除「可負擔健保法」，在一場致命大流行之中，剝奪數千萬人的醫療保險，這毫無道理。

與盟友並肩 深化與台灣的關係

同時，新冠病毒證明美國不能自外於世界。從重建我們最親近夥伴的關係開始，我們必須與其他國家攜手合作，應對影響我們所有人的國際挑戰。我們是一個太平洋強國，將與盟友並肩，增進我們在亞太地區共享的繁榮、安全與價值。這其中就包括深化與台灣這個居領先地位的民主政體、主要經濟體，以及科技重鎮的關係。台灣也是開放社會可以有效控制新冠病毒的閃亮典範。

更新領導力 符合美利益與中合作

我們應對中國的方式，會聚焦增強美國競爭力，再興國內優勢，並更新我們在海外的聯盟與領導力。我們將在符合美國利益的領域與中國合作，包括公共衛生和氣候變遷。

讓家庭團聚 修復破碎的移民系統

美國向來不只靠強大的國力，而是用身為榜樣的實力領導世界。要切實重現此景，我們也必須修復破碎的移民系統，讓家庭團聚，確保美國繼續吸引全球最出色與最聰明的人。

我將會傾聽 重塑我們熱愛的國魂

我競選是為讓美國更好的重建，重建美國作為一個充滿機會，團結和有全新開始的國家；一個由數代移民讓其強大的地方；一個所有人都能發聲、每張選票都有價值的地方。我將引領這些議題，更重要的是，我會傾聽。所以，請確保你今天將選票投出。

讓我們一起，重塑我們熱愛的國魂。

(世界日報華盛頓記者羅曉媛／譯)

More Prosperous Future For Our Families
by Former Vice President Joseph Biden for World Journal

These are tough times. Our country is at a crossroads, facing a pandemic, a recession, and an election that will decide our futures for a very long time.

This year, we've seen the best of America carry us forward: heroic doctors, nurses, grocers, restaurant owners, essential workers–including so many Asian Americans.

But we've also seen the worst: acts of hate against Asian Americans wrongly blamed for COVID-19, spurred on, in part, by hateful rhetoric from President Trump. They've been screamed at, spit on, and assaulted. Homes, businesses, and cars vandalized with slurs. Small children stabbed. An 89-year-old grandmother set on fire amid this rising culture of hate.

This is not who we are.

For nearly two centuries, Asian Americans have made our country strong–from the gold miners and railroad and factory workers who helped to power our rise; to the scientists, architects, artists, and entrepreneurs who are helping to drive us forward now. For years, their courage, sacrifices, and success have powered the American Dream and helped America stand as a beacon of freedom and hope to the world.

President Trump doesn't get that. He has led an assault on our values as a nation of immigrants, even tearing thousands of children from their parents' arms at our border. Hate crimes against people are at a 16-year-high, even before this pandemic. And now, to deflect blame for his failure to protect our nation from this crisis, he insists on calling COVID-19 the "China virus," no matter how many thousands of reported racist incidents against Asian Americans it encourages.

Words matter – and a president's words matter even more. As President, I'll defend the American Dream for everyone, so every hardworking family has the same fair shot at prosperity and a better future. I'll stand against racism in every form, directing the Justice Department to prioritize hate crimes, and working to heal the wounds of hatred and division, not fan the flames.

Donald Trump knew how deadly COVID-19 was back in January and did nothing to stop it. Now, more than 220,000 Americans are dead. Some 30 million have lost jobs, hours, wages. One in five small businesses have shut down. Trump's failed leadership has tanked our economy – and the longer he's president, the longer it'll take to get it fully up and running again.

We're eight months in, but Trump still has no plan. I do.

It starts with taking responsibility and doing the hard work to control this pandemic and get our lives back. I'll implement the plan I've laid out since March to beat COVID-19. I'll listen to scientists and experts; protect our families; and make testing, treatment, and any eventual vaccine free and available to everyone.

I'll get right to work building our economy back better – getting real relief out to millions of hard-hit small businesses. They're the lifeblood of our communities – but Trump's corrupt recovery passed them by, funneling funds to big corporations instead. Some 75% of Asian-owned small businesses weren't expected to get any first-round stimulus funds at all. It's wrong. I've called for ensuring small businesses with less than 50 employees get new relief funds. And I'll boost their long-term access to credit and capital, and work to ease the language barriers that can hold back immigrant entrepreneurs.

Through it all, my economic recovery plan will reward work, not just wealth, creating millions of good paying jobs of the future. Independent economists at Moody's found that my plan creates 7 million more jobs – and $1 trillion more in economic growth – than President Trump's would. And I won't raise taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000 a year – period. Instead, I'll make sure the super wealthy and big corporations finally pay their fair share.

I've fought my whole career for working and middle class families – so many of them hard-working immigrants who came to America in search of a better life. I'll help parents afford a quality education for their kids, boosting teacher pay and making public college free for most families. I'll make it easier to care for aging parents, and make health care more affordable. Trump is in court right now trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, stripping tens of millions of people of health coverage in the middle of a deadly pandemic. It makes no sense.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 is proof that the United States can't isolate itself from the world. We have to work with other nations to meet global challenges that impact us all, starting by rebuilding our relationships with our closest partners. We're a Pacific power, and we'll stand with friends and allies to advance our shared prosperity, security, and values in the Asia-Pacific region. That includes deepening our ties with Taiwan, a leading democracy, major economy, technology powerhouse – and a shining example of how an open society can effectively contain COVID-19. And our approach to China will focus on boosting American competitiveness, revitalizing our strengths at home, and renewing our alliances and leadership abroad. We'll work to collaborate with China when it's in our interest, including on public health and climate change.

America has always led the world not only with the example of our power, but the power of our example. To truly do that again, we also have to fix our broken immigration system, keeping families together and ensuring the United States continues to draw the world's best and brightest.

I'm running to build America back better, as a country of opportunity, unity, and new beginnings. A place made strong by generations of immigrants. A place where everyone has a voice and every vote counts. I'll lead on these issues, and more importantly, I'll listen. So please make sure you get your vote in today. Together we'll restore the soul of this nation we love.

#福編編譯? (編譯個鬼，是世界日報了不起！ 大內宣與遍地綠媒鬼遮眼)

各位，生成器也許已沒有用了。選管會一天就收到4500封電郵。看來，大家炸他電郵還是有點用的。

以下乃沈大師言為「內部AO提供範本」。的確是官話文章，請先仔細閱讀，才選擇是否發出電郵吧。

你還有5小時。

请广传，好人一生平安。

[#官方資訊] 早前分享了一位高級政務官朋友就《逃犯條例》爭議的感受，得到數千轉載，迴響十分熱烈，也有不少公務員私訊回應。本頁對象一直以黃藍以外的專業人士為主，雖然平日只分享國際視野資訊，但在關鍵時刻，也希望為一些平日對社會抽離的朋友，提供更多資訊參考。以下是我的另一位AO朋友擔心局勢惡化，希望以自己的方式真正為特區政府服務，因此以私人身份草擬的意見書，回應特區政府選舉管理委員會關於區議會選舉的官方諮詢，並使用了完美官僚理據、格式和文法，就DQ候選人提供了詳細意見。根據官方資訊，《逃犯條例》收到4500份意見書，其中3000份「贊成」，因此發出意見書並非毫無價值。這位AO表示，大家可以直接使用這格式，根據個人觀點加減內容直接電郵遞交，因為香港人大家都忙，這過程只需一分鐘，應該最符合成本效益。截止日期是7月10日或之前，請廣傳，好人一生平安。

10 July 2019

Chairman
Electoral Affairs Commission (EAC)
By Email: eacenq@eac.hk

Dear Chairman,

Public consultation on District Council Election proposed guidelines

I write to object to Chapter 3 of the Proposed Guidelines, as it gives Government an unjust, unfair, and unchecked power to disqualify any candidate during the nomination period by reason of Government’s own political motives.

Chapter 3.1 of the Proposed Guidelines says that : “Under the law, the validity of a candidate’s nomination is to be determined by the Returning Officer (RO). The EAC is neither empowered nor involved in the making of such decision and would not provide any advice on the decision made by the RO”.

Chapter 3.9(b) of the Proposed Guidelines describes the requirement by which a candidate must declare (through signing a “Confirmation Form” by the EAC) that he would uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR.

It is totally unclear whether a Confirmation Form duly signed by a candidate is itself sufficient to discharge the candidate’s duty to declare his willingness to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR when he is elected to the office.

Previous elections showed that an RO, who was a civil servant (pitched at Administrative Officer Staff Grade C / District Officer) appointed to the role of RO prior to the election, could make subjective and arbitrary judgment about a candidate’s state of mind and political orientation, with selective reference to some or a few past writings, speeches, statements, expression of opinions, posts in social media platforms in relation to the candidate, instead of merely looking at a Confirmation Form duly signed.

I find it outrageous to see that Ms. Anne Teng, then District Officer (Eastern) appointed to the role of RO in a legislative council by-election last year, could refuse to acknowledge a confirmation form signed by Miss Agnes Chow Ting and disqualify her, citing absurd and arbitrary reasons with reference to some of Miss Chow’s previous remarks or those of her political party, and without giving Miss Chow a fair opportunity to respond to those reasons uttered unreasonably by the RO.

The Proposed Guidelines shows that the EAC has failed its duty to introduce any additional safeguard or measures to plug this unreasonable, unlawful and unconstitutional loophole, which may still be freely exploited by any RO in the next election driven by bad faith and political motive.

It is unacceptable that the EAC could confess that it is “neither empowered nor involved in the making of such decision and would not provide any advice on the decision made by the RO” (Chapter 3.1). I question how the EAC can still “ensure that an election is conducted openly, fairly and honestly at all times” – its statutory duty enshrined in the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance - when it is not involved in scrutinising or monitoring the exercise of an RO’s power in disqualifying any candidate at the RO’s own political preference.

The Guidelines did not describe in detail how an RO could, on his or her own, research during the short nomination period the political belief and past sayings of any candidate. The Guidelines are also silent as to whether the RO would have received biased or secret advice from any agency such as Department of Justice, Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, Home Affairs Department, Information Services Department, etc., which may have compiled a detailed recollection of a candidate’s previous remarks in advance. It was suggested by some that such a compilation of speech or opinion records prepared by any agency other than the RO could have assisted the RO unlawfully in reaching a dangerous disqualification decision to deprive a candidate of the right to stand for the election.

I must remind the EAC that the right to stand for election is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. The United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 25 also states that “political opinion may not be used as a ground to deprive any person of the right to stand for election.”

I am disappointed to see that the proposed Guidelines have not offered anything substantive to protect a candidate from the RO’s unlawful interference in the election by disqualifying candidates he or she dislikes. The EAC must look at this carefully to see what it can do.

The current remedy about determining the lawfulness of an RO’s disqualification decision through an election petition to be adjudicated later by the court one or two years after the actual election is totally unsatisfactory, with the lapse of time which delays the timely delivery of a just outcome.

I stress that I object to Chapter 3 of the Proposed Guidelines in its entirety. I urge you to review all the processes described in Chapter 3 again and independently. In so doing, you must resist all political considerations wrongly dictated by the Chief Executive, Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, Department of Justice, or other government agency seeking to disturb the fairness and integrity of the forthcoming district council election.

Yours sincerely,

XXXX

更新：有熱心網友翻譯為中文版，並對原文作出修訂，請隨便share／修改：

10 July 2019

選舉管理委員會主席 鈞啓

選舉管理委員會主席鈞鑒： 關於區議會選舉活動建議指引公眾諮詢事宜

本人謹致函對建議指引第三章表達反對意見。建議指引第三章將賦予政府不公平、不公正以及不被箝制的權力，容許政府於提名階段取消香港市民的參選資格，以迎合政府自身的政治目的。

建議指引第三章第一部分（3.1）指：「根據法例，候選人的提名是否有效 ，完全是由選舉主任作出決定，選管會無權並一向沒有參與， 亦不會給予任何意見。」
建議指引第三章3.9(b) 要求候選人透過簽署選管會擬備的確認書表明他／她擁護《基本法》並保證對香港特別行政區效忠。

至於候選人是否能夠簽署確認書就能滿足擁護《基本法》並保證對香港特別行政區效忠的要求，建議指引對此完全沒有清晰交代。

過往選舉顯示，首長級丙級政務官／民政事務專員級別的公務員於選舉前獲委任為選舉主任，便能夠就候選人的思緒及政治取向作出主觀且隨意獨斷的決定，並只需揀選候選人往日曾經發表的文章、言論、宣言、意見表達、社交媒體帖文以及社交媒體專頁發佈關於對候選人的帖文穿鑿附會，當作輔證，而非僅以候選人是否有簽署確認書為單獨基礎作判斷。

去年立法會補選，時任東區民政事務專員鄧如欣獲委任為選舉主任，居然拒絕周庭小姐簽署的確認書，以周庭小姐及其所屬政黨昔日的言論去佐證選舉主任荒唐的理由，去褫奪周庭小姐的參選資格，並且沒有給予周庭小姐公平機會回應選舉主任的無理指控，實在令人憤慨。

由建議指引可見，選舉管理委員會並無引入任何措施或保障，去堵塞上述不合理、不合法、不合憲的漏洞。今後選舉主任依然可以使用此漏洞，依據其個人的政治目的或理念，惡意褫奪任何香港市民的參選資格。

選舉管理委員會於第三章第一部分（3.1）指：「根據法例，候選人的提名是否有效 ，完全是由選舉主任作出決定，選管會無權並一向沒有參與， 亦不會給予任何意見。」此點完全不可接受。當選舉管理委員會對選舉主任按其個人政治取向褫奪候選人參選資格的權力不作任何箝制、監察或審查， 又能如何履行其法定職責，「確保在香港舉行的選舉是以公開、公平和誠實的方式進行」呢？

建議指引並無對選舉主任如何可於短促的提名期內研究並審查任何候選人的政治理念及昔日言論有任何著墨。 建議指引亦未有論及選舉主任會否收到其他機構的秘密意見或者偏頗意見。上述的其他機構，例如律政司、內地及政制事務局、民政事務總署或政府新聞處等，可能預先詳細記錄相關候選人的昔日言論。據悉，上述由第三方準備的詳細記錄可能不合法地導致選舉主任作出褫奪候選人選舉資格的危險決定。

本人必須提醒選舉管理委員會，被選舉權是獲香港基本法及香港人權法案保障的基本權利。聯合國人權事務委員會第25號一般性意見亦指出：「不得以政治見解為由剝奪任何人參加競選的權利。」

本人對建議指引並未就保障候選人不被選舉主任按其個人喜惡褫奪資格，防止選舉主任非法干預選舉採取任何措施深感失望。選舉管理委員會必須詳細檢視自己對上述問題有何解決方法。

就選舉主任褫奪參選資格的合法性，目前透過選舉呈請，並於選舉完結一兩年後由法庭裁決的安排實在強差人意。當中所耗的時間令公義遲來。
本人對建議指引第三章完全反對。本人懇求主席重新並獨立審視第三章所包含的所有程序。在重新審視的時候，懇請閣下撇除並抗拒所有政治考量，尤其是來自行政長官、政制及事務內地局、律政司及其他政府機構企圖干預未來區議會選舉的誠信和公平性的政治考量。

敬祝 鈞安 XXXXXXXX 敬上

2019年7月9日

學習官僚語言其實好緊要

[#官方資訊] 早前分享了一位高級政務官朋友就《逃犯條例》爭議的感受，得到數千轉載，迴響十分熱烈，也有不少公務員私訊回應。本頁對象一直以黃藍以外的專業人士為主，雖然平日只分享國際視野資訊，但在關鍵時刻，也希望為一些平日對社會抽離的朋友，提供更多資訊參考。以下是我的另一位AO朋友擔心局勢惡化，希望以自己的方式真正為特區政府服務，因此以私人身份草擬的意見書，回應特區政府選舉管理委員會關於區議會選舉的官方諮詢，並使用了完美官僚理據、格式和文法，就DQ候選人提供了詳細意見。根據官方資訊，《逃犯條例》收到4500份意見書，其中3000份「贊成」，因此發出意見書並非毫無價值。這位AO表示，大家可以直接使用這格式，根據個人觀點加減內容直接電郵遞交，因為香港人大家都忙，這過程只需一分鐘，應該最符合成本效益。截止日期是7月10日或之前，請廣傳，好人一生平安。

10 July 2019

Chairman
Electoral Affairs Commission (EAC)
By Email: eacenq@eac.hk

Dear Chairman,

Public consultation on District Council Election proposed guidelines

I write to object to Chapter 3 of the Proposed Guidelines, as it gives Government an unjust, unfair, and unchecked power to disqualify any candidate during the nomination period by reason of Government’s own political motives.

Chapter 3.1 of the Proposed Guidelines says that : “Under the law, the validity of a candidate’s nomination is to be determined by the Returning Officer (RO). The EAC is neither empowered nor involved in the making of such decision and would not provide any advice on the decision made by the RO”.

Chapter 3.9(b) of the Proposed Guidelines describes the requirement by which a candidate must declare (through signing a “Confirmation Form” by the EAC) that he would uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR.

It is totally unclear whether a Confirmation Form duly signed by a candidate is itself sufficient to discharge the candidate’s duty to declare his willingness to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR when he is elected to the office.

Previous elections showed that an RO, who was a civil servant (pitched at Administrative Officer Staff Grade C / District Officer) appointed to the role of RO prior to the election, could make subjective and arbitrary judgment about a candidate’s state of mind and political orientation, with selective reference to some or a few past writings, speeches, statements, expression of opinions, posts in social media platforms in relation to the candidate, instead of merely looking at a Confirmation Form duly signed.

I find it outrageous to see that Ms. Anne Teng, then District Officer (Eastern) appointed to the role of RO in a legislative council by-election last year, could refuse to acknowledge a confirmation form signed by Miss Agnes Chow Ting and disqualify her, citing absurd and arbitrary reasons with reference to some of Miss Chow’s previous remarks or those of her political party, and without giving Miss Chow a fair opportunity to respond to those reasons uttered unreasonably by the RO.

The Proposed Guidelines shows that the EAC has failed its duty to introduce any additional safeguard or measures to plug this unreasonable, unlawful and unconstitutional loophole, which may still be freely exploited by any RO in the next election driven by bad faith and political motive.

It is unacceptable that the EAC could confess that it is “neither empowered nor involved in the making of such decision and would not provide any advice on the decision made by the RO” (Chapter 3.1). I question how the EAC can still “ensure that an election is conducted openly, fairly and honestly at all times” – its statutory duty enshrined in the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance - when it is not involved in scrutinising or monitoring the exercise of an RO’s power in disqualifying any candidate at the RO’s own political preference.

The Guidelines did not describe in detail how an RO could, on his or her own, research during the short nomination period the political belief and past sayings of any candidate. The Guidelines are also silent as to whether the RO would have received biased or secret advice from any agency such as Department of Justice, Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, Home Affairs Department, Information Services Department, etc., which may have compiled a detailed recollection of a candidate’s previous remarks in advance. It was suggested by some that such a compilation of speech or opinion records prepared by any agency other than the RO could have assisted the RO unlawfully in reaching a dangerous disqualification decision to deprive a candidate of the right to stand for the election.

I must remind the EAC that the right to stand for election is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. The United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 25 also states that “political opinion may not be used as a ground to deprive any person of the right to stand for election.”

I am disappointed to see that the proposed Guidelines have not offered anything substantive to protect a candidate from the RO’s unlawful interference in the election by disqualifying candidates he or she dislikes. The EAC must look at this carefully to see what it can do.

The current remedy about determining the lawfulness of an RO’s disqualification decision through an election petition to be adjudicated later by the court one or two years after the actual election is totally unsatisfactory, with the lapse of time which delays the timely delivery of a just outcome.

I stress that I object to Chapter 3 of the Proposed Guidelines in its entirety. I urge you to review all the processes described in Chapter 3 again and independently. In so doing, you must resist all political considerations wrongly dictated by the Chief Executive, Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, Department of Justice, or other government agency seeking to disturb the fairness and integrity of the forthcoming district council election.

Yours sincerely,

XXXX

更新：有熱心網友翻譯為中文版，並對原文作出修訂，請隨便share／修改：

10 July 2019

選舉管理委員會主席 鈞啓

選舉管理委員會主席鈞鑒： 關於區議會選舉活動建議指引公眾諮詢事宜

本人謹致函對建議指引第三章表達反對意見。建議指引第三章將賦予政府不公平、不公正以及不被箝制的權力，容許政府於提名階段取消香港市民的參選資格，以迎合政府自身的政治目的。

建議指引第三章第一部分（3.1）指：「根據法例，候選人的提名是否有效 ，完全是由選舉主任作出決定，選管會無權並一向沒有參與， 亦不會給予任何意見。」
建議指引第三章3.9(b) 要求候選人透過簽署選管會擬備的確認書表明他／她擁護《基本法》並保證對香港特別行政區效忠。

至於候選人是否能夠簽署確認書就能滿足擁護《基本法》並保證對香港特別行政區效忠的要求，建議指引對此完全沒有清晰交代。

過往選舉顯示，首長級丙級政務官／民政事務專員級別的公務員於選舉前獲委任為選舉主任，便能夠就候選人的思緒及政治取向作出主觀且隨意獨斷的決定，並只需揀選候選人往日曾經發表的文章、言論、宣言、意見表達、社交媒體帖文以及社交媒體專頁發佈關於對候選人的帖文穿鑿附會，當作輔證，而非僅以候選人是否有簽署確認書為單獨基礎作判斷。

去年立法會補選，時任東區民政事務專員鄧如欣獲委任為選舉主任，居然拒絕周庭小姐簽署的確認書，以周庭小姐及其所屬政黨昔日的言論去佐證選舉主任荒唐的理由，去褫奪周庭小姐的參選資格，並且沒有給予周庭小姐公平機會回應選舉主任的無理指控，實在令人憤慨。

由建議指引可見，選舉管理委員會並無引入任何措施或保障，去堵塞上述不合理、不合法、不合憲的漏洞。今後選舉主任依然可以使用此漏洞，依據其個人的政治目的或理念，惡意褫奪任何香港市民的參選資格。

選舉管理委員會於第三章第一部分（3.1）指：「根據法例，候選人的提名是否有效 ，完全是由選舉主任作出決定，選管會無權並一向沒有參與， 亦不會給予任何意見。」此點完全不可接受。當選舉管理委員會對選舉主任按其個人政治取向褫奪候選人參選資格的權力不作任何箝制、監察或審查， 又能如何履行其法定職責，「確保在香港舉行的選舉是以公開、公平和誠實的方式進行」呢？

建議指引並無對選舉主任如何可於短促的提名期內研究並審查任何候選人的政治理念及昔日言論有任何著墨。 建議指引亦未有論及選舉主任會否收到其他機構的秘密意見或者偏頗意見。上述的其他機構，例如律政司、內地及政制事務局、民政事務總署或政府新聞處等，可能預先詳細記錄相關候選人的昔日言論。據悉，上述由第三方準備的詳細記錄可能不合法地導致選舉主任作出褫奪候選人選舉資格的危險決定。

本人必須提醒選舉管理委員會，被選舉權是獲香港基本法及香港人權法案保障的基本權利。聯合國人權事務委員會第25號一般性意見亦指出：「不得以政治見解為由剝奪任何人參加競選的權利。」

本人對建議指引並未就保障候選人不被選舉主任按其個人喜惡褫奪資格，防止選舉主任非法干預選舉採取任何措施深感失望。選舉管理委員會必須詳細檢視自己對上述問題有何解決方法。

就選舉主任褫奪參選資格的合法性，目前透過選舉呈請，並於選舉完結一兩年後由法庭裁決的安排實在強差人意。當中所耗的時間令公義遲來。
本人對建議指引第三章完全反對。本人懇求主席重新並獨立審視第三章所包含的所有程序。在重新審視的時候，懇請閣下撇除並抗拒所有政治考量，尤其是來自行政長官、政制及事務內地局、律政司及其他政府機構企圖干預未來區議會選舉的誠信和公平性的政治考量。

敬祝 鈞安 XXXXXXXX 敬上

2019年7月9日