關於 general affairs office中文 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

轉載Chenchen Chen fb
🛠《大家來找碴welcome strict proofreader 》

看到Christopher Chen附在獨立觀察的連結，披露日本記者黑木亮著手調查東京知事小池百合子的埃及開羅大學學歴史，所以整理了文章一半的中英對照如下，另外一半預期周末整理好再另外貼新版。

大家可以比較東京知事和她的大貴人(埃及前副首相Dr Hatem)如何促使她主張她1976年確從埃及開羅大學畢業的做法。台灣媒體不敢報導此日本疑似假學歷的新聞，倒是刷了很多東京知事抗疫好棒棒的中文報導－想必是要洗嬰粉的腦「會做事就好了，學歷有什麼重要」哈哈😄⋯⋯

✳️原文連結： https://jbpress.ismedia.jp/articles/-/60643

🔥偽造大學學位的指控困擾東京都知事小池百合子（Vol.4）
Allegations of fake university degree haunt Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike (vol.4)

💥自從現任東京都知事小池百合子（Yuriko Koike）於1992年成為國會議員以來，一直有謠言流傳稱，小池百合子（Koike）文飾美化她的學歷。
Ever since the incumbent Governor of Tokyo, Yuriko Koike became a Member of Parliament in 1992, rumors have been circulating that Koike embellished her academic credentials.

小池聲稱自己曾自開羅大學畢業，但是如果以阿拉伯語為母語的人去聽她的阿拉伯語，那麼她公開身為開羅大學畢業生的學歷，似乎就顯得更加可疑了。
Koike claims to have graduated from Cairo University but if an Arabic speaker listens to her Arabic, her published academic credentials as a Cairo University graduate seems more than dubious.

[我有]強有力的證據可以證明她偽造學歷，例如由室友提供的證詞－有紀錄片可查的證詞；小池的自相矛盾的說法表明，儘管第一年不及格，她仍然在四年之內畢業，她的初階程度阿拉伯語，以及關於畢業論文的謊言，和她拒絕向東京都議會提交畢業文件的頑強行為。
There are strong evidence about her fake academic credentials such as testimony by the flatmate supported by documentary evidence, Koike's self-contradictory statement in her book to have graduated in four years despite failing her first year, her rudimentary Arabic, her lie about the graduation thesis and her stubbornness in refusing to submit her graduation documents to the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly.

身為一個通曉阿拉伯語並從埃及大學（開羅美國大學的中東研究專業）畢業的人，我自有一種任務感，因此我決定對這些指控進行調查。 經過兩年的調查，我找不到任何證據，甚至沒有一絲一毫的最低線索，可以證明小池是從開羅大學畢業的。
Feeling a sense of duty as someone who learnt Arabic and graduated from an Egyptian university (MA, Middle East Studies from the American University in Cairo), I decided to investigate the allegations. After two years of investigation, I could not find any evidence, nor even the slightest hint that Koike graduated from Cairo University.

在這個共由六大部組成的文章中，我詳細介紹了我的調查結果。這裡是第四部的內容：
In this six-part article, I present the results of my investigation in detail.Here is the fourth part of it;

💥小池有符合[埃及大學]轉學資格嗎？
Was Koike eligible to transfer?

"小池在她的書中和其他地方聲稱，她於1972年10月開學以一年級（新鮮人）生身分進入開羅大學。
Koike claims in her books and other places that she entered Cairo University as a first year student (freshman) in October 1972.

但是，她室友在＂假簡歷”紀錄片中說：“小池是於1973年10月以二年級學生身分進入開羅大學。
However, in the ""Fake CV"" the flatmate says, ""Koike entered Cairo University in October 1973 as a second year student.

「小池高興地對我說：“我父親先請當時的哈特姆博士，當時也是埃及副首相，還兼任文化和信息部長，依據我在關西學院大學－是一間日本兵庫縣的私立大學－所上課的幾個月[學程]，加上另外在開羅美國大學的上語言課程的幾個月，一起調整合併當成是我在開羅大學就讀的第一學年[學程時間]。」
Koike happily told me ‘My father asked Dr. Hatem, then Egypt's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Culture and Information, to swap my few months at Kwansei Gakuin University, a private university in Hyogo prefecture, and a few months at the language course at the American University in Cairo for the first year at Cairo University. ‘

「哈特姆博士接受了這一要求。此外，我的學雜費和申請費全免除了。 」
‘Dr. Hatem accepted the request. In addition, my tuition and admission fees have been waived’ .

這顯然是寫在室友1972年11月19日給她在日本母親的信中的。根據“假簡歷”該部分陳述的內容，她(室友)大部分信都附有信件日期和郵戳。 如果是這樣，他們這些人都將會被埃及法院起訴。
This is apparently written in the flatmate’s letter to her mother in Japan dated 19 November 1972. According to the ""Fake CV"" most of her letters were dated and postmarked. If so, they will be admissible to court."

呈現在“假簡歷”的內容中，含當時也正在埃及另一所大學就讀的另一名日本女性，她說，她對小池當時可以轉入開羅大學二年級就讀感到驚訝。 我(作者：黑木亮)所採訪過的另一位開羅大學的日本畢業生也記得：小池當年是[直接]轉入開羅大學二年級。
In the ""Fake CV"" another Japanese woman who was attending another university in Egypt at the time says she was surprised that Koike had transferred in the second year at Cairo University. Another Japanese graduate of Cairo University whom I interviewed also remembered that Koike had transferred to the second year."

然而，轉學到包括開羅大學在內的埃及國立大學訂有嚴格的規定。為了進行轉學，學生必須在另一所大學獲得與埃及國立大學課程相同或相似的內容和學習時數的學分，並且必須獲得一定程度的成績。 開羅大學轉學中心辦公室向我證實了這一點。
However, strict rules are in place to transfer to Egypt's state universities, including Cairo University. In order to transfer, a student must have earned credits at another university with the same or similar content and number of hours as the Egyptian state university’s curriculum and must have earned a certain number of grades. This was confirmed to me by the Central Transfers Office of Cairo University.

例如，在2016-17學年，如果學生希望：
－轉學到工程或醫學學院，則必須從其他大學獲得至少imtiyaaz（優秀）成績。
－轉學實務研究學院，則必須從其他大學獲得至少jaiid jiddab(非常好)的成績。
－轉學理論學習研究學院，則必須從其他大學獲得至少jaiid (好)的成績。
In the case of the 2016-17 academic year, for example, students are required to have at least imtiyaaz (excellent) grade from other university if the student wishes to transfer to the Faculty of Engineering or Medicine and at least jaiid jiddan (very good) grade in the case of faculties of practical study and at least jaiid (good) grade for those of theoretical study.

前面如曾經提到的記者，達莉亞·施貝爾（Dalia Shibel）這樣告訴我：“在埃及，國立大學和私立大學是兩個完全不同的系統。即使您在開羅的美國大學學習了10年並獲得了必要的學分，您還是必須從開羅(國立)大學的一年級學生重新開始。這是我國的法律”。 因此，像小池這樣沒有在另一所大學讀完一年（也沒有獲得任何學分）的人是完全不可能被核准轉學的。
The aforementioned journalist Dalia Shibel told me that ""In Egypt state universities and private universities are two completely different systems. Even if you study at the American University in Cairo for 10 years obtaining necessary credits, you have to start as a first year student in Cairo University. This is the law of our country"". Therefore it is totally impossible that a person like Koike who has not finished a year at another university (and has not earned any credits) would be allowed to transfer."

小池最多只在關西學院大學學習了幾個月。 她在開羅的美國大學CASA那裡學習阿拉伯語只是一所語言學校，不提供任何學分或學位。 如果像一些日本人指出的那樣，小池真果真是在1973年轉入開羅大學第二年級的話，那不過是欺詐性的轉學而已。 這意味著她從一開始就沒有資格畢業。
Koike only attended Kwansei Gakuin University for several months at most. CASA at the American University in Cairo where she learnt Arabic is just a language school and does not offer any credits or degrees. If, as some Japanese people point out, Koike actually transferred to the second year at Cairo University in 1973, that is nothing but a fraudulent transfer. That means she was not eligible for graduation from the beginning.

💥關於小池入學許可的問題並沒有得到答案
No answer to the question about Koike’s admittance

2019年，有51人因以慈善機構樂捐名義為幌子，賄賂美國一個組織而受到起訴，該組織通過提升名人和其他人的孩子的SAT（大學才能測驗）分數，以欺詐手段允許他們的子女因此能夠進入著名的大學。
In 2019, 51 people were prosecuted in the United States for paying bribes under the guise of charity to an organization that allows celebrities and others to increase their children's SAT (college aptitude test) scores and fraudulently admit them to prestigious universities.

其中一位女演員費利西蒂·霍夫曼（Felicity Huffman）曾出演電視劇《欲望師奶(台灣翻譯)》，被判處14天監禁，並於去年10月在加利福尼亞州的女性監獄中被監禁。 霍夫曼的女兒索菲亞（Sophia）尚未上大學，據報導他將重考SAT。
One of them, actress Felicity Huffman, who starred in the TV drama Desperate Housewives, was sentenced to 14 days in prison and was incarcerated last October in a women's prison in California. Huffman's daughter Sophia has not enrolled in college and is reported to be retaking the SAT.

斯坦福大學以’非合法入學申請’為由，開除一名中國學生，原因在於他的父母為了可以濫用體育贊助(入學)名額，使他得以註冊該校學習課程，向該(同一)組織支付了650萬美元。
Stanford University expelled a Chinese student, whose parents paid $6.5 million to the organization for misusing a sports endorsement slot to enroll in the program, citing irregularities in submissions.

由於小池似乎未達到轉學入埃及國立大學的要求，因此我致信小池，詢問小池是在1972年還是1973年被錄取，但未得到任何答复（有關我詢問的信件內容，以及小池回應的所有完整文件，將在此報告的稍後部分中顯示）。
As Koike does not appear to have fulfilled the requirements for transferring to a state university in Egypt, I sent a letter to Koike, to ask whether she was admitted in 1972 or 1973 but received no response (the full text of my questions to and response from Koike will appear later in this report).

開羅大學是阿拉伯世界著名的大學之一，醫學，工程學，經濟和政治學係有許多優秀的埃及學生。 但是，該校在全球地位並不是很高。
Cairo University is one of the prominent universities in the Arab world and there are many excellent Egyptian students in the Faculties of Medicine, Engineering, and Economics and Political Science. However, its global standing is not very high.

在英國Quacquarelli Symonds Ltd.發布的2020年QS世界大學排名中，開羅大學在全球排名521-530，在埃及排名第二，與日本的熊本大學和長崎大學相當。 埃及最好的大學是開羅的美國大學（私立和美國認可大學），在世界上排名第395（與日本神戶大學並列）。 埃及排名第三的是艾因沙姆斯大學，亞歷山大大學和阿修特大學（所有國立大學），在世界範圍內排名第801-1000。
In the 2020 edition of the QS World University Rankings published by Quacquarelli Symonds Ltd. in the United Kingdom, Cairo University ranks 521-530 in the world and second in Egypt, on par with Kumamoto University and Nagasaki University in Japan. The best university in Egypt is the American University in Cairo (private and American-accredit university) which ranks 395th in the world (tied with Kobe University in Japan). Third place in Egypt are Ain Shams University, Alexandria University, and Assiut University (all state universities) which rank 801-1000th in the world.

💥小池與Abdel-Kader Hatem博士的關係
Koike’s Connections with Dr. Abdel-Kader Hatem

協助小池進行了“可能是欺詐性轉學＂的埃及政客的名字出現在“假經歷”這部分的內容中。 這個室友證明，小池在1973年通過著名的埃及政治家阿卜杜勒·卡德爾·哈特姆博士的關係轉入開羅大學二年級。
The name of an Egyptian politician who assisted Koike's possible ""fraudulent transfer"" appears in the ""Fake CV"". The flatmate testifies that Koike transferred to the second grade at Cairo University in 1973 through the connections of Dr. Abdel- Kader Hatem, a prominent Egyptian politician."

Hatem於1917年生於亞歷山大。他畢業於軍事學院和開羅大學。 他參與了1952年的埃及革命（是一個推翻君主制的政變，次年埃及共和國成立），當時他是在由Gamal Abdel Nasser中校領導的自由軍運動中的一名年輕成員。
Hatem was born in Alexandria in 1917. A graduate of the Military Academy and Cairo University. He participated in the Egyptian revolution in 1952 (a coup to overthrow the monarchy which was followed by the foundation of the republic the following year) as a young member of the Free Officers Movement led by then Lieutenant Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser.

他於1957年成為國民議會議員，總統府副部長，1959年廣播電視國務部長，1962年文化部長，國家指導和旅遊部長，1971年副首相兼文化信息部長 ，曾任全國專業委員會常務理事兼埃及-日本友好協會主席。 他於2015年去世，享年97歲。
He became a member of the National Assembly in 1957, Deputy Minister in the Presidential Office, Minister of State for Radio and Television in 1959, Minister of Culture and Minister of National Guidance and Tourism in 1962, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Culture and Information in 1971, then longtime General Supervisor of the Specialized National Councils and President of the Egyptian-Japanese Friendship Association. He died in 2015 at the age of 97.

1974年2月，當時掌控文化和信息的副首相，哈特姆，以正式外賓的身份訪問了日本，並會見了日本首相田中角榮，副首相三木武夫，並參觀了皇宮與天皇會面。 1982年，他被日本政府授予＂旭日東昇頭等大勳章”。
In February 1974, Hatem, who was then the Deputy Prime Minister in charge of Culture and Information visited Japan as an official guest and met Japan’s Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka, Deputy Prime Minister Takeo Miki and visited the Imperial Palace to meet the Emperor. In 1982 he was awarded the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun, First Class by the Japanese government.

"在1974年Hatem訪日之際，日本駐埃及大使Tsutomu Wada在1974年2月12日給日本外交大臣的正式電報中寫道：“埃及政治的最新發展，哈特姆副首相的職位（曾擔任首相的代理者）得到了進一步鞏固，正如我經常報導的那樣，埃及副首相在6名媒體記者的陪同下訪問日本，這是非同尋常的，這清楚地表明了哈特姆博士的權力，並表明了他認為這次訪問的重要性。”
On the occasion of Hatem's visit to Japan in 1974 the Japanese Ambassador to Egypt Tsutomu Wada wrote in an official telegram dated 12 February 1974 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan ""As a result of recent developments in Egyptian politics the position of Deputy Prime Minister Hatem (who had been acting as a substitute for the Prime Minister) has been further strengthened as I have often reported. It is remarkable for an Egyptian Deputy Prime Minister to visit Japan accompanied by 6 media reporters and that clearly shows Dr. Hatem’s power. It also shows how important he thinks this visit is."""

"哈特姆的阿拉伯文傳記《阿卜杜勒·卡德·哈特姆日記-十月戰爭政府首腦》於2016年在開羅出版（由埃及記者易卜拉欣·阿卜杜勒·阿齊茲撰寫）指出，哈特姆與中曾根康弘保持著良好的關係， 自1954年起擔任日本前首相，中曾根將當時的在校學生，小池百合子－他朋友的女兒，介紹給哈特姆，哈特姆照顧小池，小池稱哈特姆為教父，並給了小池零用錢， 每月14埃及鎊。(小池在《長袖和服的金字塔攀登》第250頁上寫道，她每月從埃及政府獲得12英鎊的獎學金）。
🌐Chenchen註：Furisode是日本年輕未婚女性穿著的最正式的和服風格－以長袖為其特色，小池應是以Furisode做為自己的意象代名詞，唯美的描繪她以一介日本年輕嬌嬌女，如何在陌生的中東環境－埃及地，逐步攀登權力金字塔。中東地區非常保守，不但男尊女卑，金字塔也不容許遊客任意攀登，更何況是穿著舉步維艱的長袖正式和服，所以小池以一個浮誇的畫面來增飾自己在埃及留學生活的映象。
The Arabic-language biography of Hatem “The Diary of Abdel-Kader Hatem - Head of the October War Government"" published in Cairo in 2016 (written by an Egyptian journalist Ibrahim Abdel Aziz) states that Hatem had been on good terms with Yasuhiro Nakasone, former Prime Minister of Japan, since 1954 and that Nakasone introduced Yuriko Koike to him, a student at that time, as the daughter of his friend. Hatem took care of Koike. Koike called Hatem a god-father, and he gave Koike an allowance of 14 Egyptian pounds a month (Koike wrote on page 250 of “Furisode Climbing the Pyramid"" that she received a scholarship of 12 pounds a month from the Egyptian government)."

Abdel-Kader Hatem與中曾根康弘
Abdel-Kader Hatem with Yasuhiro Nakasone

"另一方面，小池於1985年出版的書《音譯：Onna女性 no 的Jinmyaku-Zukuri人脈建立 (（我如何以女人的身分經營人脈關係）》指出，她的父親（小池裕郎）很早就認識中曾根。她本人是在小學時代即已見到中曾根，在每個冬天，中曾根都向家人送去了一堆在中曾根選舉區群馬縣產的韭菜，並與他的兄弟一起吃了。
On the other hand Koike's book, ""Onna no Jinmyaku-Zukuri (How I made personal connections as a woman)"" published in 1985 states that her father (Yujiro Koike) had known Nakasone for a long time. She herself first met Nakasone when she was an elementary school student, every winter Nakasone sent her family a bunch of leeks produced in Gunma prefecture, Nakasone’s electoral district, and she ate them with his* brother." 🌐*Chenchen註：應該是She ate them with HER brother.,,

1973年10月6日，埃及爆發了十月戰爭（Yom Kippur War）。 埃及和敘利亞軍隊對部署在蘇伊士運河和戈蘭高地的以色列部隊發動了進攻，試圖奪回1967年六日戰爭（六月戰爭）中以色列佔領的領土。
🌐Chenchen註：這是知名的第四次以阿戰爭，後來引發第一次石油危機，各界認為這是阿拉伯國家在二戰之後，第一次聯手反對西方帝國主義。維基百科：贖罪日戰爭，又稱第四次以阿戰爭、齋月戰爭、十月戰爭...起源於埃及與敘利亞分別攻擊六年前被以色列佔領的西奈半島和戈蘭高地。戰爭的頭一至兩日埃敘聯盟佔了上風，但此後戰況逆轉。至第二周，敘軍退出戈蘭高地。在西奈，以軍在兩軍之間攻擊，越過原來的停火線蘇伊士運河。直到聯合國停火令生效為止，以軍甚至包圍了埃及的主力部隊。 https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E8%B4%96%E7%BD%AA%E6%97%A5%E6%88%B0%E7%88%AD

On 6 October 1973, the October War (Yom Kippur War) broke out in Egypt. Egyptian and Syrian forces launched an attack on Israeli forces deployed in the Suez Canal and Golan Heights in an attempt to recapture territory occupied by Israel in the Six Day War (June War) in 1967.

"為了支持埃及和敘利亞，阿拉伯石油輸出國組織（OAPEC）將石油價格提高了1.4倍，並引發了第一次石油危機。 日本被OAPEC視為“不友好”國家之一，由於採取了削減石油供應的措施，日本遭受了經濟危機。 日本政府派副首相三木武夫和前外交大臣小坂健太郎等人前往沙烏地阿拉伯，埃及和阿爾及利亞，要求這些國家將日本改變為“友好國家”類別（所謂的“石油乞討外交”）。 。
In support of Egypt and Syria, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC), raised oil prices by 1.4 times and caused the First Oil Crisis. Japan was considered one of the ""unfriendly"" countries by OAPEC and suffered an economic crisis as a result of measures to cut oil supplies. The Japanese government sent Deputy Prime Minister Takeo Miki and former Foreign Minister Zentaro Kosaka and others to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Algeria to ask those countries to change Japan to a ""friendly country"" category (the so-called ""oil begging diplomacy"")."

(待續...或是直接點原文連結)
https://jbpress.ismedia.jp/articles/-/60643

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