47人案｜梁國雄陳情書：議員兩次行使否決權是民意依歸 成為階下囚但我毋怨

分享：

 

 

參與新東初選、經審訊後被裁定罪成的梁國雄，其代表資深大狀潘熙周二（27 日）早上完成求情陳詞。社民連其後發布梁的陳情書，梁指參與治運動和社會抗爭近 50 年，一直秉持改變社會不公，爭取民主自由、實現社會主義的理念，從沒放棄。

法官引社民連的「決議文」為證據，指該黨改變立場，成為裁定梁罪成的理由。梁在陳情書亦引同一文章內容，「我們不必寄望議會過半就能翻天覆地，亦不要因未能過半而感到灰心絕望」，無論是「35+」還是「35-」，最重要是持續弘揚抗爭不息的精神，爭取香港人最大的動員，共同改變不公不義的社會現狀。

梁續指，當初認為否決預算案屬《基本法》早已訂明的憲制權力，又指行政長官面臨下台的憲制危機，「必須經歷兩次立法會選舉的民意授權，缺一不可！」，而議員兩次行使否決權是民意依歸，「只是彰顯 200 萬遊行市民民意，順從 60 萬初選投票者民願」。

梁最後指，「權力歸於人民」是他終生信守的理念、從政的基礎，更是《中國憲法》對人民的莊嚴承諾，指「今天我雖然成為階下囚，但我毋怨。」

被告庭上求情報道
伍健偉親自陳情庭上紀錄　稱留港兌現向港人承諾　回答法官確認無悔意
47人案審訊　求情、裁決日報道一覽

梁國雄陳情書全文（由社民連發布）：

爭取民主　迎難而上
———35+初選案梁國雄向法庭呈交的陳情書

　　從我在70年代開始參與政治運動和社會抗爭，是一種出於改變社會不公的願望，爭取民主自由、實現社會主義，從沒放棄。一路走來近50年，黑髮變白頭，長毛成短毛，自由人淪為階下囚，我都是秉持這個理念行事。無論是一介草民還是立法會議員，我都是當仁不讓，透過制度內外各種抗爭，由示威遊行、議會拉布、司法抗爭，到五區總辭變相公投等，爭取政制民主和社會公義。

　　我就任立法會議員時，已經多次反對政府的《財政預算案》，抗議政府重富輕貧，賤視貧苦大眾，尤其在財政充裕，社會日漸高齡化時，拒絕在《預算案》中撥款設立「全民退休保障制度」。我未能推動政府改革，辜負全港160多萬長者，一直深以為憾！

　　我參與35+初選計劃，就是因為多年切身體驗，明白必須在立法會中與志同道合者取得過半數議席，才能有足夠壓力令政府推行惠及民生的社會政策。「五大訴求」中的實行行政長官及立法會雙普選，更是多年身體力行的目標；正如我所屬的組織社會民主連線在2020年6月的《決議文》所言：「我們不必寄望議會過半就能翻天覆地，亦不要因未能過半而感到灰心絕望」，無論是「35+」還是「35-」，最重要是持續弘揚抗爭不息的精神，爭取香港人最大的動員，共同改變不公不義的社會現狀。

　　我現在知悉法庭判我有罪的理由，我當初認為立法會議員否決《預算案》乃屬《基本法》早已訂明的憲制權力，《基本法》亦有處理「憲制危機」的程序，讓行政長官、政府官員和立法會議員一齊面對選民壓力，彼此作出適當的舉措和互動解決爭議。行政長官面臨下台的憲制危機，必須經歷兩次立法會選舉的民意授權，缺一不可！既然否決《預算案》有全體人民授意，行政長官為何不在立法會首度否決時順應民意，推行改革？若行政長官執迷不悟，仍然需要多一次人民授權，才會面對下台困局。因此，議員兩次行使否決權是民意依歸，只是彰顯200萬遊行市民民意，順從60萬初選投票者民願。

　　「權力歸於人民」是我終生信守的理念，從政的基礎，更是《中國憲法》對人民的莊嚴承諾！今天我雖然成為階下囚，但我毋怨。我堅信人民大於國家，人權高於政權，惟願港人莫失莫忘，爭取民主，守護公義！

梁國雄

二零二四年七月十五日

Fight for democracy Brave difficulties
——Statement of Leung Kwok Hung of 35+ primary election case

Since the 1970s, I started participating in political movements and social struggles. It was out of a desire to change social injustice, strive for democracy and freedom, and achieve socialism. I have never given up. Along the way for nearly 50 years, black hair has turned into white. Long hair has turned into short. A free man has become remanded. I still act with this faith in mind. Whether I am an ordinary citizen or a Legislative Councillor, I have always done my part to fight for political democracy and social justice through various struggles inside and outside the system, from demonstrations, filibusters, judicial struggles, to quasi referendum by way of resignation in all five constituencies, etc.

When I took office as a member of the Legislative Council, I had repeatedly opposed the government’s Budget to protest against the government prioritising the rich over the poor. The interest of poor people was looked down upon, especially when the Budget was abundant, and the population kept on aging. What was rejected was allocation of funds in the Budget for establishment of “Universal Retirement Protection Scheme”. I have always deeply regretted that I failed to promote government reform and disappointed more than 1.6 million elderly people in Hong Kong!

I participated in the 35+ primary election plan as I understood from my personal experience in many years that it is essential to obtain a majority of seats in the Legislative Council with like-minded people. This is the only way to put sufficient pressure on the government to implement social policies beneficial to people’s livelihood. Among the “Five Demands”, the implementation of dual universal suffrage for the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council has become a goal that has been practised for many years. As stated in the “Resolution” published by the League of Social Democrats, the organisation to which I belong, in June 2020: “We should not expect that by winning half of the seats in the Legislative Council, (we) would have earth-shaking (changes); and we also should not feel discouraged and hopeless if we fail to get half of the seats.” No matter “35+” or “35-”, the most important thing is to continue to carry forward the spirit of endless struggle. To strive for the greatest mobilisation of Hong Kong people jointly for a change of injustice and unrighteous social status quo.

I now know the reasons why the Court found me guilty. I originally considered that the Legislative Councillors’ vetoing the Budget was a constitutional power already stipulated in the Basic Law. There are procedures in the Basic Law dealing with “constitutional crisis”, making the Chief Executive, government officials and Legislative Councillors altogether face the pressure of voters so as to take appropriate measures and interact with each other to resolve disputes. For the Chief Executive facing a constitutional crisis of stepping down, it is a prerequisite to obtain the mandate of the public through two Legislative Council elections. Both are indispensable! Since the vetoing of the Budget is authorised by the public, why couldn’t the Chief Executive follow the public opinion and implement reforms when the Legislative Council vetoes (it) for the first time? If the Chief Executive remains stubborn, it requires another mandate from the people before he faces the dilemma of stepping down. Therefore, the veto power would only have been exercised twice based on the public opinion. It would only have demonstrated the public opinion of the 2 million marchers and complied with the wishes of the 600,000 voters in the Primary.

“Power to the people” is a belief that I have adhered to throughout my life, fundamental to my political career. It is also the solemn promise of the Chinese Constitution to the people! Although I am a prisoner today, I have no complaint. I firmly believe that the people are greater than the country. Human rights are higher than political power. I hope Hong Kong people never lose or forget, fight for democracy and uphold justice!

Leung Kwok Hung

15 July 2024

HCCC69/2022、HCCC70/2022

文章来源：法庭线