-韓台選舉大不同之4.15韓國的立委選舉-
下週三是韓國第21屆國會選舉
也就是台灣的立委選舉
今天南氏的選舉公報收到了
台灣和韓國的選舉方式有些不同
-
📍候選人的號碼登記
在台灣是用抽籤的
在韓國則是以黨席次和姓名順序
總統所在的執政黨是1號
在野黨第一大黨是2號依序排列
無黨籍則是姓名筆畫
所以不用抽籤🤪🤪🤪
-
📍事前投票&海外投票
韓國無論是總統或是國會議員
都有事前投票的機制
為了當天不能參加投票的人
會在選舉公報上告知
可以前往哪裡投票
這次事前投票則是4/10-4/11 06:00-18:00
在海外的韓國人
也可以透過當地的辦事處或大使館
進行提前投票
-
📍選舉公報的形式
剛剛拆開選舉公報
竟然就是一堆宣傳單(圖4)
沒有黑白大表格整理
這簡直就是降低人民閱覽的興致
😂😂😂
但一樣有一張通知書(圖2)
記載投票所和需要攜帶的文件
只要帶身分證就可以了
-
其實我覺得韓國政府還蠻硬的
學校以及公家機關考試都一再延期
國會議員選舉倒是怎樣都不改
不知道這是原則還是政治利益一位☝️
-
오늘 제21대 한국국회의원선거의 선거공보를 받았어요.
한국의 선거방식과 대만 하는 것이랑 차이 좀 있어요.
대만 후보자 순위는 항상 추첨으로 결정해요.
그리고 대만의 선거관리위원회는 보통 모두 후보자의 개인정보와 정견을 한 표로 정리하고 나눠줬어요.
게다가 한국은 사전투표와 해외투자가 있지만 대만은 겨우 선거 당일만 투표를 할 수 있어요.
역시 나라마다 다 달라요.
-
📍單字來一下
여당-執政黨
야당-在野黨
국회의원-國會議員
선거공보-選舉公報
후보자-候選人
-
#헤이녀녀일상 #국회의원 #선거공보 #한국어 #한국 #시골남녀의대한생활 #election2020 #congress #korea #korean #parliament #mp2020
「congress parliament不同」的推薦目錄:
- 關於congress parliament不同 在 鄉下南妞的台韓戀總和시골남녀의대한생활 Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於congress parliament不同 在 姚松炎 Edward Yiu Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於congress parliament不同 在 Translators Anonymous Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於congress parliament不同 在 國立台東高中104學年度第下學期第2次段考高一公民與社會考卷 的評價
- 關於congress parliament不同 在 公民監督國會聯盟(公督盟) - Home | Facebook 的評價
- 關於congress parliament不同 在 We are Facebook | Ninety One 的評價
congress parliament不同 在 姚松炎 Edward Yiu Facebook 的最讚貼文
ultra vires
【回覆選舉主任的追問】(Please scroll down for English version)
(選舉主任於11月28日下午四點的追問: https://goo.gl/unqfuP )
我們剛才已經回覆選舉主任,內容如下。感謝法夢成員黃先生協助,大家可參考他的文章:
村代表唔係《基本法》第104條所列既公職喎!
https://bit.ly/2AuHXKD
全文:
「
袁先生:
就你於 2018 年 11 月 28 日來函,現謹覆如下:
█(一)鄉郊代表選舉主任無權提出與確保提名有效無關的問題
1. 我認為你並無權力提出與確保提名有效無關的問題。謹闡釋如 下‥
2. 《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條規定,「除非提名某人為鄉郊地 區的選舉的候選人的提名表格載有或附有一項由該人簽署的聲明,示明該人會擁護《基本法》和保證效忠香港特別行政區,否則該人不得 獲有效提名。」
《選舉程序(鄉郊代表選舉)規例》第 7(3)條則規定,為了「令[選 舉]主任信納 ... 提名是有效的」,「選舉主任可要求獲提名為候選人的人提供提名表格沒有涵蓋而該主任認為需要的資料」。
3. 區慶祥法官在「陳浩天案」處理過《立法會條例》及 《選舉管 理委員會(選舉程序)(立法會)規例》下的類似條文。即使退一萬步,假設區慶祥在該案中所陳述的法律屬正確(即選舉主任擁有調查候選人 政治信念的權力,而這並無違反人權),「陳浩天案」中有關立法會選 舉的邏輯,亦不可能同樣適用於鄉郊代表選舉。
區慶祥法官考慮過他所認為的立法歷史後(包括籌委會 1996 及1997 年區生認為對立法會選舉方式具約束力的決定),將《立法會條 例》第 40(1)(b)(i)條解讀為是為了執行《基本法》第 104 條而訂立, 所以裁定選舉主任在該條下有權調查候選人實質上是否真誠擁護《基 本法》及效忠中華人民共和國香港特別行政區。
但鄉郊代表並非《基本法》第 104 條中列出的'high office holders of the HKSAR'(「陳浩天案」判詞第 42 段;即「行政長官、主要官員、行政會議成員、立法會議員、各級法院法官和其他司法人員」)。即使是人大常委會 2016 年 11 月 7 日通過對《基本法》第 104 條的解釋, 亦僅指「[第 104 條]規定的宣誓 ... 是參選或者出任該條所列公職的 法定要求和條件。」
4. 再者,立法會在訂立《村代表選舉條例》(2014 年改稱《鄉郊代表選舉條例》)時,完全並無如訂立《立法會條例》時般,考慮或 討論過當中第 24 條下有關聲明規定的內容,背後更無任何有約束力 的決定,要求村代表/鄉郊代表須擁護《基本法》及效忠中華人民共 和國香港特別行政區。
反而時任民政事務局局長何志平 2002 年在動議二讀《村代表選舉條例草案》時清晰地指出,「本條例草案的目的,是為村代表選舉 制定法律條文,以確保選舉公開、公平和公正,並符合《 香港人權法案條例》和《性別歧視條例》的要求」(2002 年 10 月 9 日立法會 會議過程正式紀錄頁 64)。
5. 無論如何,即使區慶祥法官亦須承認,任何有關的聲明規定, 必須從選舉、被選權等基本權利的背景下理解(「陳浩天案」判詞第 80 段)。在缺乏類似所謂立法歷史和《基本法》條文的支持下,實在 難以接受《村代表選舉條例》/《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條具有 跟《立法會條例》第 40(1)(b)(i)條一樣的效力(假設第 24 條本身是合 憲的話)。
法律上,選舉主任只可為了相關賦權條文的目的行使其法定權力:
'Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended . . .'
- Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 at para 19 per Lord Bingham quoting
Wade and Forsyth.
(亦可參考 Wong Kam Yuen v Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing [2003] 2 HKC 21 (HKCFI) at para 21 per Hartmann J.)
在這方面,《選舉程序(鄉郊代表選舉)規例》第 7(3)條的目的,是確保提名屬有效。如果《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條在正確的理解 下,並無強制候選人實質上證明自己擁護《基本法》和保證效忠中華 人民共和國香港特別行政區,亦即提名的有效性,並不依賴候選人的 實質政治信念,《規例》第 7(3)條自然就不可能賦權選舉主任作出與 此有關的提問,否則他或她行事的目的,就是法律並無授權、亦無預 見(假設《立法會條例》具此效果)的政治審查,而非確保提名的有 效性。
故此,我認為你並無權力提出與確保提名有效無關的問題。
█(二)回應提問(a):你認為我沒有正面回答你的問題,我並不同意你的說法,因為你的問題帶着錯誤的假設。你的問題假設「自決前 途」只能為一個特定機制,因此才有所謂主張香港獨立是否其中一個 「選項」的錯誤設想。然而,正如我昨日的回覆所指,「我提倡或支 持推動《基本法》和政制的民主化改革,包括但不限於修改《基本法》 158 及 159 條,作為中共封殺真普選後,港人自決前途的目標」;與 此同時,我沒有主張「香港獨立」。
█(三)回應提問(b):你在今日的回信中指「並沒有要求你就其他人的行為或主張表達意見」,不過,提問(b)的意思正是要求任何人若 希望成為鄉郊代表選舉候選人,不單自己不可主張港獨,也要明確地 反對甚至禁止其他參選人有相關主張。我認為這個要求違反《基本法》 及《香港人權法案條例》對言論自由的保障,亦顯然超出《鄉郊代表 選舉條例》對參選人的要求。
請你儘快就我於 2018 年 11 月 22 日提交的提名表格、11 月 27 日的回覆及上述的答覆,決定我的提名是否有效。若你需要其他的補充資料,請以電郵聯絡我。我就你的查詢保留一切權利。
2018 年 11 月 28 日
二零一九年鄉郊一般選舉
元崗新村選舉參選人
朱凱廸
」
【Reply to More Questions from Returning Officer】
Mr. Yuen,
I hereby reply to your letter dated 28 November:
█(1) Returning Officer of Rural Representative Election has no power to make any inquiries not made with a view to ensuring the validity of nomination
1. I consider that you have no power to make any inquiries insofar as they are not made with a view to ensuring the validity of my nomination. My reasons are as follows.
2. Section 24 of the Rural Representative Election Ordinance provides that “[a] person is not validly nominated as a candidate for an election for a Rural Area unless the nomination form includes or is accompanied by a declaration, signed by the person, to the effect that the person will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”
On the other hand, section 7(3) of the Electoral Procedure (Rural Representative Election) Regulation provides that, “in order [for the Returning Officer] to be satisfied … as to the validity of the nomination”, “[t]he Returning Officer may require a person who is nominated as a candidate to furnish such information which is not covered by the nomination form as that Officer considers necessary”.
3. In Chan Ho Tin v Lo Ying Ki Alan [2018] 2 HKLRD 7, Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung (“Au J”) considered similar provisions in the Legislative Council Ordinance and the Electoral Affairs Commission (Electoral Procedure) (Legislative Council) Regulation. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the law as stated by Au J in that case were correct (namely that a Returning Officer has the power to inquire into the political beliefs of a candidate, without violating human rights), it is clear that the reasoning as applied in the case of Chan Ho Tin, which relates solely to Legislative Council elections, cannot be extended by analogy to Rural Representative Elections.
Having considered what he thought to be the legislative history (including two Resolutions passed by the Preparatory Committee for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 1996 and 1997 respectively which Au J believed to be binding), Au J interpreted section 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Council Ordinance as having been enacted for the purpose of implementing Article 104 of the Basic Law, and decided on that basis that the Returning Officer had under that section the power to inquire whether a candidate, as a matter of substance, genuinely upholds the Basic Law and pledges allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.
The important distinction, however, is that rural representatives are not those “high office holders of the HKSAR” listed in Article 104 of the Basic Law (Chan Ho Tin at para 42; namely “the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary”). Even the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, in its Interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law adopted on 7 November 2016, merely states that ‘the legal requirements and preconditions [contained in Article 104 are] for standing for election in respect of or taking up the public office specified in the Article.’
4. Further, unlike when enacting the Legislative Council Ordinance, the Legislative Council in enacting the Village Representative Election Ordinance (renamed in 2014 the Rural Representative Election Ordinance) never discussed nor gave any consideration whatsoever to the content of the requirement of declarations, still less to binding resolution of any sort which would compel Village Representatives (now Rural Representatives) to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.
What the then Secretary for Home Affairs, Patrick Ho Chi-ping, did clearly pointed out, in moving the Second Reading of the Village Representative Election Bill in 2002, is that “[t]he purpose of the Bill is to bring Village Representative (VR) elections under a statutory framework in order to ensure that they are conducted in an open, fair and honest manner and that they are consistent with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance and the Sex Discrimination Ordinance” (Legislative Council, Official Record of Proceedings (9 October 2002) at p 90)
5. In any event, even Au J has had to concede that any relevant requirement of declarations “must be viewed against the involvement of the fundamental election right” (Chan Ho Tin at para 80). Here, in the absence of similar so-called legislative history or Basic Law provisions in support, it is difficult to accept that section 24 of the Village Representative Election Ordinance (now the Rural Representative Election Ordinance) is intended to have the same effect as section 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Council Ordinance (on the assumption that section 24 were not unconstitutional).
In law, the Returning Officer may only exercise her statutory powers for the public purpose for which the powers were conferred:
'Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended . . .'
- Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 at para 19 per Lord Bingham quoting Wade and Forsyth.
(See also Wong Kam Yuen v Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing [2003] 2 HKC 21 (HKCFI) at para 21 per Hartmann J.)
In this regard, the object of section 7(3) of the Electoral Procedure (Rural Representative Election) Regulation is to ensure that a candidate’s nomination is valid. If, properly construed, section 24 of the Rural Representative Election Ordinance does not have the effect of compelling candidates to prove, as a matter of substance, that they uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, then the validity of the nomination does not turn on the substantive political beliefs of the candidate. Section 7(3) of the Regulation, in turn, logically cannot have empowered the Returning Officer to make inquiries in this connection, for otherwise the Officer would be acting for the purpose of political screening, which is neither authorised nor envisaged by law (assuming that the Legislative Council Ordinance does, by contrast, have this effect), rather than of ensuring the validity of the nomination.
Accordingly, it is my considered view that you have no power to make any inquiries insofar as they are not made with a view to ensuring the validity of my nomination.
█(2) In answer to question (a): you take the view that I have not directly answered your question, but I do not agree, because your said question carries mistaken assumptions. Your question assumes "self-determination" can only take the form of one designated mechanism, and hence the mistaken hypothesis on whether Hong Kong independence constitute an "option" for such mechanism. However, as stated in my reply yesterday, "I advocate or support moving for democratic reform of the Basic Law and the political system, including but not limited to amending articles 158 and 159 of the Basic Law, as a goal for the Hong Kong people in determining their own future after the Communist Party of China banned genuine universal suffrage"; at the same time, I do not advocate for "Hong Kong independence".
█(3) In answer to question (b): You stated in your reply today "did not require (me) to express opinion on other people's actions or propositions", but the meaning of question (b) is precisely a requirement on anyone, if they wish to become eligible as a candidate for Rural Representative elections, not only to not advocate for Hong Kong independence themselves, but must also clearly oppose or prohibit other nominees in having related propositions. I am of the view that this requirement violates the protections on freedom of speech under the Basic law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, and clearly exceeds the requirements imposed by the Rural Representative Election Ordinance on persons nominated as a candidate.
Please confirm as soon as possible the validity of my nomination based on my nomination form submitted on 22 November 2018 and my replies to your questions dated 27 November 2018. Should you require other supplemental information, please contact me via email. I reserve all my rights in relation to your inquiry.
congress parliament不同 在 Translators Anonymous Facebook 的最佳解答
【我愛英文單字篇】
其實英文單字並不是我的強項,由我鼓吹練習閱讀時不要查單字就可得知。某些單字,尤其是副詞或形容詞,我常常只由上下文推測它是正面或負面意思,並不知道確切的意思。可是這個做法是有原因的:英文單字本來就有分「等級」,其實是常用度,有些字典會在常用字前面打三顆星,有些一顆都沒有。所以背單字的時候其實要勢利一點,三顆星表示會常常碰到,要優先背,知道用法與衍生字,沒有星的表示有這個單字但不常遇到,認得就可以,有閒暇時間再深入研究。
以下整理我認為背單字時的要領:
1. 例句:
背單字時務必要看例句,學用法,尤其是具有多重用法的單字。隨便舉一個例子,represent 是代表的意思,這個字究竟可以「代表」多少東西,又該怎麼用?根據劍橋英語辭典的例句有下列定義與用法:
a. to speak, act, or be present officially for another person or people:
They chose a famous barrister to represent them in court.
I sent my husband to represent me at the funeral.
Women were poorly represented at the conference.
b. to be the Member of Parliament, or of Congress, etc. for a particular area:
Ed Smythe represents Barnet.
c. to be the person from a country, school, etc. that is in a competition:
She was chosen to represent France at the Olympics.
d. to express or complain about something, to a person in authority:
We represented our grievances/demands to the boss.
e. to show or describe something or someone:
The statue represents St. George killing the dragon.
This new report represents the current situation in our schools.
f. to be a sign or symbol of something:
To many people the White House represents the identity of the United States.
g. to be the result of something, or to be something:
This book represents ten years of thought and research.
The new offer represented an increase of 10 percent on the previous one.
以上這些例句顯示這個單字除了「代表」之外還有「代理」、「代表選民」、「提出」、「描述」、「象徵」等意義,詳讀例句不止有助理解單字的正確用法,還有它的廣泛意思,若在閱讀及其他地方看到這個單字時能加深印象。
2. 衍生字
衍生字就是單字的親戚,單字家族,例如represent的家族包括representable、representation、representational、representative、通常在字典相近處,用一樣的方法研究例句與用法,背單字時順便認識整家人,不一定要同時背下來,但至少知道有這些變化,遇到的時候會有印象。
3. 上下文(context)
有些單字的多重意思乍看之下八竿子打不著關係,其實暗藏玄機,例如terminal、 terminate、termination可以用在完全不同的領域。
Terminate 是動詞(好啦名詞就是terminator),是終結的意思,terminal當名詞有「終點站」的意思(王爾德拿來取笑某人在車站出生),飛機航廈也是terminal,電腦終端機也是terminal。當形容詞則是「末期的」(terminal cancer)。terminate 除了有「終結某事」的意思(terminate the contract),也用在形容終止妊娠(terminate the pregnancy)。所以termination 是abortion的另一個用法。學到這個字時就順便學非人工流產是miscarriage(懷孕失敗),衍生詞是miscarriage of justice(司法不公)。
記住「單字家族」和「多重意義」這兩個特性,遇到貌似熟悉的單字時藉由上下文「推測」單字的意思,而非直接查字典,或推測過後再查字典求證,會比直接查字典更印象深刻。
4. 以中文大量吸取知識
所謂知識包括一般知識與專長領域或興趣。當然,要用英文也可以,只是這部分用中文比較快。這是我覺得最重要的一點,有時候,單字背不起很可能是因為連這個單字的中文意思都不確定,不知道背景故事,或不知道那個概念的來源。例如我喜歡看《實習醫生》,所以我對各科別的英文名稱耳熟能詳,如果有人說他的專長是cardiovascular,我就知道cardio是心臟,vascular是血管,加起來就是心血管的。terminal、chronic、acute分別代表「末期」、「慢性病」和「急性」疾病,但terminal illness、chronic disease和acute illness有哪些例子?糖尿病屬於哪一種?闌尾炎屬於哪一種?這是不需要靠英文也可以學得的知識,但在學英文時絕對會有幫助。
如果讀到一篇關於冷戰的英文文章,事先知道冷戰的背景一定比完全不知道要來得容易,也比較容易猜測、記憶單字的意思。
我不知道市面上的英文學習書提供什麼樣的學習建議,以上是我的經驗談。我覺得學英文是多方面齊步並進的,沒有單一訣竅,關鍵在於保持好奇心,把自己當成海綿吸取知識,永遠不嫌多,就會變得很厲害了。
congress parliament不同 在 公民監督國會聯盟(公督盟) - Home | Facebook 的推薦與評價
公督盟線上餐會希望能透過不同於過往募款形式,持續對外發聲,連結在地店家、小農,將監督國會帶入在地議題! ... 2021年開放國會論壇2021 Open Parliament Forum. ... <看更多>
congress parliament不同 在 We are Facebook | Ninety One 的推薦與評價
In any case, hauling Big Tech executives in front of Congress/Parliament gives the ... 单击不同类别标题以了解更多信息并更改默认设置。 ... <看更多>
congress parliament不同 在 國立台東高中104學年度第下學期第2次段考高一公民與社會考卷 的推薦與評價
民主國家中,國會在政府體系中占有極重要的位置。而不同的國家在實踐中名稱會有差異,如美國是congress,法國是國民議會national assembly,英國是parliament。首先將 ... ... <看更多>