【學苑專訊】基本會員黃冬怡早前兩度致函原選委會，投訴部分候選普選評議員提名違反選舉守則，理應無效。常務秘書柯文俊今日終回覆，指其投訴欠理據，故予以駁回。
黃就原選委員公布的選候人名單提出投訴，理據在於個別動議人（Proposer）及和議人（Seconder）提名多於一位候選人參選評普選評議員席位，違反2009年版本選舉守則Section V) Article 3)「Each proposer and seconder shall nominate only one nominee for one post.」的規定。
柯回覆指，他們的委員會按「立法原意」（legislative intention），裁定其投訴欠缺理據（not with grounds），故駁回有關投訴。柯指，其委員會認為「post」應解為「vacancy」；換句話，現有10個普評席位，每名動、和議人理應可以提名最多10人，故駁回黃的投訴。回覆中，柯未有提及選委會是否曾就投訴召會討論。
按照選舉守則Section XV) Article 1) ，選舉守則解釋權在選舉委員會。（原文：The interpretation of this regulation shall rest with the Committee.）按照選舉守則Section XVI) Article 1)，選舉守則的任何修定須經評議會三分之二大多通過。（The Regulation shall not be amended except by a motion carried by a two-thirds majority votes at a Council meeting.）原選委會將「post」解釋為「vacancy」，明顯與條文的用字有分別，未知是否合乎「interpretation」的定義。
以下為柯文俊回覆全文：
Dear Ms. Wong,
Re: Dismissal of election complaint for Annual Election 2013
1. I am writing on behalf of the Union Elections Committee, HKUSU Council, Session 2012 in response to your complaint lodged to our Committee dated 14 January 2013.
2. In short, your complaint concerns about whether some of the nominations for Popularly Elected Union Councillors (“PC”) are valid under the Union Election Regulation (the “Regulation”). In the following part, reasons will be provided as to why your complaint is not with grounds and ought to be DISMISSED.
A. Legislative intention of the restriction in the Regulation
3. Under the rationale of current electoral system for Annual Election, each proposer and seconder shall only nominate candidate(s) up to the maximum number of vacancies for each sort of officer bearers. For example, since there is only one post for Union President, each proposer and seconder can only nominate maximum one candidate for it. Nominations of 2 candidates for Union presidency by same proposer and seconder do not only cause the change of electoral method (preference voting to be used instead of showing confidence to candidates) but also beyond political and common sense (since only one place available).
4. However, in case of multiple vacancies for the same type of officer bearer (such as PC), with 10 vacancies in total, each proposer and seconder shall be allowed to nominate 10 Full Members of the Union for PC election in maximum and it is for the electors to decide if these candidates can be elected or not. There is no reason to set a restriction for each proposer and seconder to nominate only one candidate in PC, which is the reasoning alleged by you. Our Committee regards that the Election Regulation is not intended to restrict Full Members’ rights to propose and second only one candidate in maximum for election of PC and ‘post’ shall therefore be confined to mean each particular vacancy for any official under Union Constitution Section VI Article 1.
5. In our Committee’s belief, the restriction in the Regulation for not allowing each proposer and seconder to nominate for more than one nominee for one post is to avoid each proposer and seconder to nominate candidates exceeding number of vacancy, which in essence causes competition between candidates and changes the electoral method to preference voting.
6. Having 10 posts for PC election, only if each proposer and seconder nominates 11 or more PC candidates (which is over the maximum number of PC vacancies), the nominations would be invalid.
B. Conclusion on your complaint
7. Based on the above reasons, since each proposer and seconder has not nominated more than 10 candidates for all 10 posts available in PC election, NO nomination received by our Committee is invalid. As a result, your complaint shall be DISMISSED.
Regards,
Or Man Chun
Chairperson
Union Elections Committee
HKUSU Council
Session 2012
