關於 electoral staff ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

#Opinion by Au Ka-lun 區家麟｜"However, public broadcasting in Hong Kong nowadays is hollow and soulless, with the bureaucrats held responsible not to the citizens, but only to their superiors. 'The electoral system ended' can be uttered as 'the electoral system perfected', 'Party’s security' as 'national security', political partisanship as 'impartiality'. Unable to convince the public by reasoning, RTHK goes so far as to threaten to impose a fine on its staff. Brushing aside common sense, ignoring how it succeeded, and rewarding those who knock down the establishment, RTHK has crumbled and fallen. But isn’t it a reflection of Hong Kong?"

Read more: https://bit.ly/3wIkG3Z

"今日香港的公共廣播，有形而無神，官僚只需向上頭負責，不需向市民負責；正如「完結選舉」可以說成「完善選舉」；「政權安全」說成是「國家安全」；倚傍高牆說成是「不偏不倚」，無法以理服人，低處未算低，要以「罰錢」恐嚇員工。顛覆常識、推翻過往成功經驗，心狠手辣拆毀制度者得寵，香港電台崩壞殞落，正是香港寫照。"
____________
📱Download the app:
http://onelink.to/appledailyapp
📰 Latest news:
http://appledaily.com/engnews/
🐤 Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/appledaily_hk
💪🏻 Subscribe and show your support:
https://bit.ly/2ZYKpHP

#AppleDailyENG

這些才是真正的香港人💪🏻 ❤️
加油啊！💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻
😭好感動🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

「雲海突發消息」
繼琴晚有三百幾個公務員EO向政府公開聲明之後，簡直陸續有嚟！今朝到我出手啦！話說琴晚深夜有在職公務員主動聯絡我，表示佢哋聯繫左超過44個部門同事、超過230位公務員、不單只EO而是跨職級，由文書助理到行政主任AO等等，向現在香港政府及林鄭特首發出嚴厲聲明，不滿現在特區政府處理事件手法及態度，強烈要求特首回應市民！佢哋希望我代表佢哋發放呢封信件以及向香港外國傳媒發放呢個信件！我當然應承啦！因為我覺得整件事好有「象徵意義　」，非常symbolic!一個過去20幾年專門對付政府專門投訴政府部門嘅投訴達人，今時今日竟然我哋係企埋同一陣線，由我代佢哋轉達及公開發放呢封信件！簡直就係香港歷史破天荒！以下係其中相關資料：
「聯署經核實為44個決策局/部門/單位, 共235位政府人員職員身份證明」
以下係這封235位公務員嘅聯署中英文聲明信：
「致特別行政區首長林鄭月娥女士公開信
致香港特別行政區首長林鄭月娥女士、行政會議成員、各位司長、局長及立法會議員
作為香港公務員的一份子，我們一直默默耕耘，為社會及香港市民提供優質服務，並堅守一貫的中立態 度，支持著政府各部門的良好運作，這是我們一直引以自豪的工作，亦是身為香港人的一份驕傲。 過 去的兩個月，香港人參與了一連串反對修例的遊行集會，數以百萬計的市民站出來表達訴求，守護香 港，體現對香港的愛護和關心。可惜，政府一直依然故我，拒絕耹聽大眾的聲音，違背服務市民的承 諾。
7月21日晚上在元朗有大批白衣暴徒襲擊市民，以武器攻擊路經群眾甚至記者，令無辜市民受傷，令人 髮指。雖然當晚有大批市民報警求助，但警方未有及時派員到場保護市民及捉拿暴徒，令人對警方執法 能力存疑，有負市民期望。其做法令人懷疑政黑勾結，除了令市民對警隊信心盡失外，亦令公務員質疑 政府機構並非為民服務，更甚者令公務員成為社會撕裂的幫兇。
當社會上大多數人認為政府決策出現問題，我們身為公僕理應適切回應人民訴求。我們今天決定打破沉 默，站出來強烈要求政府直接面對民意。
我們強烈要求政府回應民間的五大訴求，即(一)完全撤回逃犯條例修訂、(二)追究警察開槍鎮壓、 (三)不檢控和釋放反對逃犯條例修訂的示威者、(四)撤銷定性6月12日集會為暴動、(五)促請林 鄭月娥、鄭若驊、李家超及盧偉聰等官員問責下台，並要求成立由大法官主持，有廣泛公信力的獨立調 查委員會，調查警方處理自6月9日以來的衝突手法及盡快履行基本法所賦予香港市民的雙普選權利，使 香港成為一個真正自由、民主的社會。
我們以七月二十四日拍攝的職員證明文件為憑， 收集了覆蓋政府大部分不同部門的員工強而有力的控 訴， 強烈要求當權者直接面對民意。
如政府繼續漠視民意，我們將籌備具體工業行動，謙卑地與廣大香港的市民同行，克盡我們服務市民的 「公僕」身份。
一群來自以下不同部門的公務員敬上
漁農自然護理署
建築署
屋宇署
民眾安全服務隊
民航處
公司註冊處
香港海關
衛生署
律政司
渠務署
教育局
機電工程署
環境保護署
香港消防處
食物及環境衛生署

食物及衛生局 香港司機職工總會 政府產業署 路政署 民政事務局 民政事務處 香港房屋委員會 警務處(文職) 香港郵政 入境事務處 稅務局 創新科技署 知識產權署 司法機構
勞工處
土地註冊處
地政總署 康樂及文化事務署 通訊事務管理局辦公室 政府資訊科技總監辦公室 公共衛生檢測中心 (衛生署) 香港電台
差餉物業估價署
選舉事務處
社會福利署
工業貿易署
庫務署
水務署
在職家庭及學生資助事務處
(共44個決策局/部門/單位, 共235位政府人員職員身份證明) (鳴謝 BeWater HK, 翻譯組)
25/07/2019 ####### (English version)
Dear Chief Executive of the HKSAR Mrs Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, members of the Executive Committee, Secretaries of Departments and Bureaux and Members of Legislative Council,
As members of the civil servants of Hong Kong, we have been working incessantly over the years to offer our citizens with quality service and take a neutral stance that supports the government departments for their smooth operations. We are always proud of our jobs and being citizens of Hong Kong.

For the past two months, Hong Kong people have participated in a series of marches and rallies. Millions of citizens have expressed their demands, showed their concern and caring for protecting their beloved Hong Kong. Unfortunately, the Government has refused to listen to the public and remained its own way of act, violating its compromise to serve the citizens.
In the evening of 21 of July, there was a large group of rioters in white shirt attacking citizens in Yuen Long; they used weapons to attack protestors returning home, journalists, and even bystanders, causing innocent citizens injured, making one's hair stand up in anger. Although many calls were made to the police, they had not sent force in time to protect those citizens and arrested the rioters in time, which made people have doubts whether the police had the ability to enforce the law. Their failure in enforcing the law had disappointed citizens and people worldwide. The police’s lack of response
on July 21 had made people suspect the government colluding with triads. This had not only caused citizens to lose confidence in the police, but also made civil servants suspect that the government departments are not aimed to serve citizens faithfully and are making civil servants accomplices tearing apart the society.
When the majority in the society disagrees with the policy made by our government, being civil servants, we should respond to public’s demands reasonably. Today we decided to break our silence, to strongly urge the government to respond to those demands.
We strongly demand the Government to respond to the five major appeals of the society, i.e., (1) withdraw completely the Extradition Law Amendment Bill, (2) pursue the responsibility of the Police Force for firing armaments and their suppression, (3) stop all prosecutions and release the protestors, (4) retract the characterization of the assembly on 12 June as a riot, (5) step down and fulfill the pledge of accountability by government officials including Chief Executive Carrie Lam, Secretary of Justice Teresa Cheng, Secretary of Security John Lee, Commissioner of Police Stephen Lo. Furthermore, we demand the establishment of highly credible Independent Probe held by chief judges, to investigate into the way the police dealt with the clashes with protestors since 9 of June and to honour the commitment of the Basic Law to grant all citizens of Hong Kong the right to dual universal suffrage, so to make Hong Kong become truly free and democratic society.
The evidence we shown here are photos taken on 24/7. They show different staff ID cards collected from most of the departments under the Hong Kong government, representing their request to the potentate: "Response to the will of the people directly”.
If the Government continues to ignore public opinion, we will organise concrete industrial actions, so that we could humbly join hands with the community at large and fulfill our responsibility as servants of our fellow citizens.
Yours truly,
A group of civil servants from the following departments and bureaux:
Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department Architectural Services Department
Buildings Department
Civil Aid Service
Civil Aviation Department Companies Registry

Customs and Excise Department Department of Health Department of Justice Drainage Service Department Education Bureau
Electrical and Mechanical Service Department Environmental Protection Department
Fire Service Department
Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Food and Health Bureau
Government Drivers Union Government Property Agency Highways Department
Home Affairs Bureau
Home Affairs Department
Hong Kong Housing Authority
Hong Kong Police Force (Civilian Staff)
Hongkong Post
Immigration Department
Inland Revenue Department
Innovation and Technology Commission
Intellectual Property Department
Judiciary
Labour Department
Land Registry
Lands Department
Leisure and Cultural Services Department
Office of the Communications Authority
Office of the Government Chief Information Officer
Public Health Laboratory Centre (Department of Health) Radio Television Hong Kong
Rating and Valuation Department
Registration and Electoral Office
Social Welfare Department
Trade and Industry Department
Treasury
Water Supplies Department
Working Family and Student Financial Assistance Agency
25/7/2019
(Totally 44 Bureau/Departments/Units，235 numbers of proof of identity as Government staff) (Credits to BeWater HK, Translation Unit)

Last modified: 9:05 am」
Ps若果有網媒想轉述，無任歡迎！想搵呢次聲明信件相關公務員訪問可私底下聯絡我！
公務員加油！we connect this time!

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