Affirmative action set for Ottawa overhaul

Time to review the employment policy in the government of Canada. I am glad that someone is more open-minded for revision.

Nick Aveling, National Post · Thursday, Jul. 22, 2010

The Conservatives have ordered a review of federal government affirmative action policies, saying the public service should hire based on merit, not race or ethnicity.

Cabinet ministers Stockwell Day and Jason Kenney announced the review of the Public Service Employment Act, along with any related practices and policies, on Thursday. “While we support diversity in the public service, we want to ensure that no Canadian is barred from opportunities in the public service based on race or ethnicity,” Mr. Day, the Treasury Board President, said in a statement.

Mr. Kenney, meanwhile, was more blunt in his calls for a meritocracy.

“I strongly agree with the objective of creating a public service that reflects the diversity of Canada, and with fair measures designed to reach that goal. But we must ensure that all Canadians have an equal opportunity to work for their government based on merit, regardless of race or ethnicity,” said the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.

Under the current policy, the federal government targets four “employment equity groups” identified in the Employment Equity Act as being reflective of Canada’s wider diversity: visible minorities, aboriginals, people with disabilities and women. The Public Service Commission of Canada says on its website that most positions are open to all applicants, but that “from time to time, certain positions may be limited to applicants from members of employment equity-designated groups.”

According to the commission’s latest figures, published in 2009, 18.8% of public service employees are visible minorities, 4.2% are aboriginal, 3.3% are people with disabilities and 57.1% are women. Canada-wide, according to the 2006 Statistics Canada census, 16.2% of Canadians are visible minorities, 3.8% are aboriginal and 51% are women. There were no statistics for people with disabilities.

Yesterday’s announcement prompted outrage from the Opposition Liberals.

The Liberals characterized the move as an attack on affirmative action.

“I just think it’s a shameful case of political pandering at the expense of a lot of groups, whether it’s aboriginal Canadians, new Canadians (or) Canadians with disabilities — all of whom we need in the public service,” said Human Resources critic Michael Savage. “They talk about having diversity in the public service, but they have no commitment to it.”

Mr. Day, who is also minister responsible for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, dismissed Opposition concerns on Thursday.

“As usual, the Opposition is being accusatory, narrow-minded and judgmental because we’ve said we’re looking into something. They’ve gone ballistic based on their own prejudices,” he told the Post. “I can’t account for an irrational response to us doing the responsible thing.”

Mr. Day said the review, to be undertaken by the Treasury Board, was prompted by constituent complaints of discrimination.

“We’ve got competing interests here that are both Charter-based and court-based. Fundamentally, of course, people should not be discriminated against because of ethnicity. At the same time, we want to be inclusive and we want to embrace everybody,” he said.

The review is expected to proceed as quickly as possible, beginning with an investigation into how current policies are being “manifested … day-to-day” within the public service, as well a summation of court rulings related to the Employment Equity Act and related policies.

National Post
.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Affirmative+action+overhaul/3311196/story.html#ixzz0uTg1XyhD

黎廣德﹕政改行差踏錯將愧對子孫

The Basic Law's Articles stipulate that the ultimate goal is universal suffrage for Chief Executive and the Members of Legislative Council.

When and how to achieve that goal, however, still remains open and controversial although National People Congress interpreted in 2007 that those universal suffrages will be "allowed" in 2017 and 2020.

It does not say they will be "held".

The procedures and eligibility of nominating the candidates are still disputable.

Without agreement, things could not be done.

To reach the agreement, both sides have to listen and understand where they are coming from.

The reality is that Pan-Democrats have too little bargaining power to reach their goal.

There is also no leverage gained in the past few years.

When you don't have money to buy the best product, you can only choose to buy the average one, counterfeit one or nothing at all.

It seems like this is the counterfeit one for some people though lawlful with the Basic Law and here is their analysis...


黎廣德﹕政改行差踏錯將愧對子孫

【明報專訊】「我寧願原地踏步，也不要行差踏錯。」這是余若薇在總結政改辯論時的肺腑之言。究竟怎樣才會行差踏錯，這是所有政黨在未來幾天將要決定的頭號大事。

)


余若薇在電視辯論中把反對曾蔭權2012政改方案的理由，發揮得淋漓盡致。辯論前港大民調已經發現有65%的市民要求政府撤回方案，而觀看辯論後有逾四成市民更加反對方案，因此曾蔭權只能面對不肯撤回方案、便遭否決的命運。


就在政府方案面臨觸礁之際，各方焦點忽然集中在民主黨提出的區議會功能組別修訂方案，以一人一票的方式（但已有其他功能組別投票權的選民除外）選出先經區議員提名的5個立法會議席。但是，「終極普選聯盟」原先提出兩個達至真普選的前提條件，即普選特首時沒有篩選，和普選立法會時廢除功能組別，卻仍然得不到中央政府的承諾。


在沒有真普選承諾的前提下，接受區議會功能組別修訂方案，會否讓香港起錨後漂泊到風高浪急的汪洋大海？


「區議會功能組別」內藏魔鬼


常言魔鬼在細節中，這個修訂方案最少有3隻魔鬼。


第一是「政治分贓」：這個方案需要由區議員互相提名，才把候選人交給市民投票。因此，有意問鼎立法會的區議員，必須先要出盡法寶，在400人的小圈子中取得足夠的提名票。提名門檻愈高（例如需要50票），難度愈大，每張提名票的叫價便愈高。區議會目前充斥大量親建制的所謂「獨立人士」，毋須依據政黨取向提名；由於立法會選舉在他們當選區議員一年後才舉行，投票支持他們的選民無法影響他們的取態。屆時這些區議員的提名票便可以「善價而沽」，只要不愚蠢到觸及刑法，種種利益交換的勾當便會大行其道，禁之不絕，區議會劣質化指日可待。


第二是「易請難送」：當400多名區議員成為功能組別的得益者，他們理所當然地變成功能組別的守護神。在政府管治威信日益下降的今天，區議會的角色日益吃重，以掩飾政府認受性不足的窘態。例如，縱使是一個地區規劃議題，皇后碼頭應該原址重置還是易地重置，政府也要找來18個區議會表態護航，抗衡民間專業意見。當區議員討價還價的籌碼愈來愈多，下一步政改時，要把他們已經吃到口的肥肉拿走，廢除功能組別，真是天方夜譚。


第三是「以假亂真」：全國人大常委會副秘書長喬曉陽早前公開向港人表達對普選的看法，即是僅限於選舉權的普及而平等，而對於國際人權公約所要求的被選舉權和提名權卻隻字不提。按照這個「中共特色」的普選原則，實施區議會功能組別修訂方案後，幾乎可以宣布立法會普選「大功告成」。因為屆時全港市民一人兩票（一票地區直選加一票功能組別），還不算「普及而平等」嗎？至於為什麼300多萬市民手中的一票，只能平均60多萬票才產生一個區議會功能組別的立法會議員，而其他商界選民，可以百多票便產生一個立法會議員，喬曉陽已經說清楚，「必須兼顧資本主義發展」的需要。若中央官員心情寬暢的話，到了2016和2020年，取消一些無關痛癢的公司票和團體票，誰還敢說「真普選」沒有在香港落實？


一旦開門讓這3隻魔鬼入城，誰來捉鬼降魔？支持方案的議員是否心中有數？


「恐懼戰術」違背事實


曾蔭權在電視辯論中運用「恐懼戰術」，嚇唬市民，一旦政改方案像2005年一樣「原定踏步」，香港便「無出路」。但他又同時聲稱：2005年後他已經取得重大成就，讓中央在2007年給了香港一個普選時間表。這項前後矛盾的邏輯不僅是個大笑話，更點出一項重要事實：正因為香港人在2005年拒絕倒退方案，中央才開出一個政制向前走的時間表。


中央的積極回應遠不止此：為了紓緩政局矛盾，中央加大中港經濟融合的力度，單是CEPA便在2005年後加簽了5份補充協議，再加上港珠澳大橋、新口岸和高鐵等跨境基建，更鼓勵廣東省和深圳市配合香港規劃發展。香港經濟發展的動力不減反增，這都是有目共睹的事實。


由是觀之，否決政改方案便令香港「無出路」一說，絕對與事實不符。反之，當議員面對一個無助化解深層次社會矛盾，並且任由特權繼續膨脹的政改方案，否決的動作絕非消極，而是具有積極意義、促使中央勇敢回應香港困局的一步。

作者是公民黨副主席

一名中大學生﹕大學「政治中立」，為了什麼？

In human beings, we do share the pretty much same values: caring for each others; no killings of people; respecting other people...

In modern world, these values would be implemented in the ethics and laws.

In the universities, they are responsible to enrich and nurture these values so that it will pass on to the next generations for the betterment of human race.

They are the conscience of the society.

The Chinese University of Hong Kong has lost its direction and mission, this is a lesson to learn...

一名中大學生﹕大學「政治中立」，為了什麼？


【明報專訊】中文大學管理層否決了中大學生會申請永久擺放新民主女神像的要求，說堅持大學「政治中立」的原則，而且得到了29位高層以不記名方式投票一致通過。筆者雖就讀於中大，卻百思不得其解，為什麼大學需要「政治中立」？


大學固然有責任保障校內的表達自由，任何人不可以因不同意見便隨便打壓對方。然而，這自由永遠是有限制的。在外國，一些挑起種族仇恨的言論或蓄意傷人的行為便被合理地禁止，為的是「種族共融」和「和平溝通」這兩個大原則。另外，香港的法律雖然也保障言論自由，但說謊以致他人受傷——誹謗——也是法律上禁止的。這些事例也指出了表達自由也不是沒有任何限制的，問題在於限制的理由是否合理。那麼，中大管理層以「政治中立」為由不讓雕像永久放在校園內又是否合理？

新民主女神像是為了紀念89年確實發生的北京學生運動而建。這雕像除了表達對自由、民主、公義的追求外，也是對六四事件中有學生被殺的史實作見證。那就是說，雕像是一個真相的呈現，並無造假。而它的存在也不會對任何人造成身體上的傷害。作為大學的一分子，我們同意言論自由，為的正是對真理的追求，並希望藉此為人類謀求幸福。任何人只要不傷害別人，又以真實的資料表達意見時，我們不但不應阻礙，而且應該鼓勵。如果只因為政治上敏感，便拒絕一件見證歷史的藝術品在校園內擺放，恐怕難以言之成理。當然，只符合「真實」和「不傷他人」的條件不足以讓藝術品永久留在中大，要理解大學為何應該容許永久擺放，我們需要再思大學的身分及其功能。

「政治中立」是對大學的一種侮辱

大學作為一個追求真相的地方，卻在真相面前擺出「政治中立」的牌匾，非但不是風浪中的保命符，更是對大學之所以為大學的一種侮辱。只有那些財力有限的民間組織，在面對政權的壓迫時，才有資格說「政治中立」，為的只是在不受政府打壓下服務市民。然而，一個財雄勢大、制度上相對地自主、以追求真相服務市民的大學組織，在六四事件上面對國家不斷地嘗試消滅21年前的真相，哪有資格說什麼「中立」！


「大學之道：在明明德，在新民，在止於至善」（《禮記．大學篇》）這句說話中，有三句是中文大學其中兩間書院的院訓。可能有人輕佻地說：「現在誰理會這些道德理想？」然而，這不等於中大便沒有理由堅持這些理想。一所大學，不是什麼價值都不提倡便是好，而是應該問什價值是一所大學理應強調的。公帑資助的中大，有特別的責任為市民對當權者說出真相。如果大學的「政治中立」等於「認同暴力鎮壓學生」、等於「不承認歷史真相」、等於「嘲笑無權力的人民」的話，大學便永遠不應該說什麼「政治中立」。這是大學應有的性格，也是中文大學傳統獨有的性格。因此，請中大管理層不要一錯再錯，讓「新民女」永久地安放於校園吧。


（讀者來函）

Children's Festival

We went to see National Acrobats of Taiwan and Michel Lauziere at Children's Festival.

We were amazed to see the guy piling up at least 15 chairs straight up with the first chair's legs only touching the top of the champaigne bottles. So scary...

At the end of the show, the MC asked the audience "Which country were these people from?" Of course people or the kids said "Taiwan". But I am sure over a billion people from the other side of the strait may have other answer.

Finally got to see Michel Lauziere, what a talent...