RESPONSE TO GM RE ELMER’S PROGRAM TODAY

[Dl]

GM, I cannot come to the same suspicions at this time.

I took the position quite some time ago in my debate with NB that the HKPEOC cannot dictate the MP’s obligations. I agree with Elmer on that point.

However, my narrow point of contention was and still is: all obligations must be listed equally or not at all. That is our point of agreement. It is wrong for the HKPEOC to dictate some but not all of them.

I made it clear that the HKPEOC may broadcast its wishes without putting them in the draft. It is simply a reality that candidates who do not acknowledge that a constitution is needed simply will not be elected. We need to have faith in that regard.

[Dl]

I do agree, however, that we should continue to push for an answer.

Elmer did not address our concerns. If the HKPEOC should not impose one important obligation, then none should be imposed. Addressing these concerns remains crucial.

 

 

 

 

[GM]

DI,

I’m afraid you need to carry on with the pursuit on your question 2 alone.  These hopeless people do not deserve my time any more.  On Jul 24, you too misunderstood my post #6397 in 選舉法草稿集中討論.  But after my explanation in post #6401, you quickly understood and agreed in your post #6412 that ” the MP’s duty to draft a constitution must be given in writing”.  I agree to your “all significant or none listed” approach to clause 6.9 of the Election Regulations.  I made my last efforts by contributing to the live chat and comments in today’s 袁何談天。Not all the comments may appear unless you sort by “Newest first”.  There are 5 comments under @Stormlee.

 

[作者]

文章