香港立法會自去年10月復會以來，首個工作是選出內務委員會主席。去年擔任內會主席的建制派議員李慧瓊今年再次競逐主席，因此她不能主持選舉，交給去年的委員會副主席、泛民主派議員郭榮鏗主持。但委員會召開多次會議後，至今仍然未能選出主席，委員會停擺，無法展開其他工作。近日，港澳辦和中聯辦分別發布聲明，批評郭榮鏗“拖延”選舉委員會主席，連帶令立法會無法正常運作。其中，來自港澳辦的聲明更指，郭榮鏗可能觸犯“構成公職人員行為失當”罪。中聯辦的聲明亦認為，這種“拉布”行為是違背立法會議員的就職誓言。對此，郭榮鏗和全體泛民主派議員曾反駁來自港澳辦和中聯辦的聲明，認為內會純屬香港內部事務，中央政府的做法違反《基本法》第22條不可干預香港內部事務的規定，有違“一國兩制”。
在最新公布的這一新聞稿中，中聯辦發言人對此回應稱，“中央對香港實行‘一國兩制’、‘港人治港’、高度自治的方針政策，但高度自治並非完全自治，特區享有的高度自治權，包括立法權，均來源於中央授權。被授權者須對授權者負責，授權者對所授出的權力擁有監督權，這個道理不言自明。”中聯辦發言人稱，“國務院港澳辦和香港中聯辦是中央授權專責處理香港事務的機構，不是基本法第二十二條所指的一般意義上的‘中央人民政府所屬各部門’，當然有權代表中央政府，就涉及中央與特區關係事務、基本法正確實施、政治體制正常運作和社會整體利益等重大問題，行使監督權，關注並表明嚴正態度。”
該發言人還表示，“這不僅是履職盡責的需要，也是憲法和基本法賦予的權力。否則這兩個機構如何推動‘一國兩制’在香港貫徹落實？‘兩辦’就立法會無法正常運作發聲，其正當性、合法性毋庸置疑。少數人身為法律專業人士，完全了解這個邏輯，卻拿第二十二條指責‘兩辦’發聲，不僅是對基本法的故意曲解，也是對社會民意的刻意誤導。”
中聯辦發言人還說，“應當說明的是，基本法賦予了香港立法機關法定權力，也同時規定了其法定職責。立法會議員有責任和義務依法履行職責，以共保立法會依照基本法正常履行職能。郭榮鏗等一而再再而三地惡意‘拉布’，阻礙內委會選舉主席，導致各項經濟民生法案無法正常審議，嚴重影響香港社會和市民利益，顯然違背了基本法賦予立法會議員的法定職責。當立法會不能正常履行基本法賦予的憲制責任，特區政治體制無法正常運作，香港市民的整體利益不能得到有效保障，中央當然不能坐視不管，必須過問和監督，這是依法治港的需要，是確保香港穩定繁榮的需要，也是維護市民利益的需要。”
中聯辦發言人提到，“我們注意到，就在廣大市民強烈譴責反對派蓄意癱瘓立法會內委會之時，又有反對派議員對媒體聲稱，不排除在立法會否決第二輪政府防疫基金。正如社會人士所言，反對派這種為一己政治私利置香港市民人身安全和民生福祉於不顧的惡劣行徑，已經令人‘忍無可忍’。”
對此，香港泛民派多個代表則在隨後對中聯辦發布的這一新聞稿內容提出質疑和批評。據香港電台報道，身處事件中心的公民黨郭榮鏗回應，“指中聯辦的說法將‘一國兩制’撕破、令第22條形同虛設，感到極度遺憾”。他表示，中聯辦今日再次對香港內部事務指指點點，但不會影響他繼續主持會議，又認為中聯辦應該明確指出他違反哪一條、哪一節的議事規則，指自己的行為沒有偏離誓言。此外，公民黨黨魁楊岳橋亦批評稱，中聯辦的說法是玩文字遊戲，認為缺乏理據。另一名公民黨立法會議員陳淑莊認為有關言論是將《基本法》、“一國兩制”徹底踐踏，將第22條自行釋法。
對於文中指，中聯辦及港澳辦不是《基本法》第22條所指的“中央人民政府所屬部門”，民主黨立法會議員塗謹申則要求中央返回《基本法》的初心，實施高度自治，又指立法會內務守則並非附屬法例，干預等同質疑主席梁君彥及建制派的能力，擔心未來中央會幹預立法會，以至其他社會運作。在民間，港大法律學院首席講師張達明提出，中聯辦的聲明令他感到憂慮，似乎要顯示他們有權干預香港一切事務，若港澳辦與中聯辦不受《基本法》第22條規管，言下之意，他們不單可以“出聲”、甚至作出干預都是合法，這會是對一國兩制很新的解讀。
而在港府方面，對於中聯辦再作回應，香港政務司司長張建宗稱，“‘兩辦’對香港事務發表意見，是理所當然及天經地義。”他說，無論從憲制層面，管治層面還是實際操作上，兩辦對香港事務的表態及關注絕不構成任何干預。
[http://www.rfi.fr/tw/%E6%B8%AF%E6%BE%B3%E5%8F%B0/20200417-%E4%B8%AD%E8%81%AF%E8%BE%A6-%E5%85%A9%E8%BE%A6%E4%B8%8D%E6%98%AF%E4%B8%80%E8%88%AC%E6%84%8F%E7%BE%A9%E4%B8%8A-%E4%B8%AD%E5%A4%AE%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E6%94%BF%E5%BA%9C%E6%89%80%E5%B1%AC%E5%90%84%E9%83%A8%E9%96%80-%E6%93%81%E6%9C%89%E7%9B%A3%E7%9D%A3%E6%AC%8A?fbclid=IwAR1QgjyZEiEE5eF4nkvbTw9QNFZibS7tdpE3UdSwPmnmcPxp_9QqzkLlEJM]
The SAR government issued a revised statement on Saturday night, reversing an earlier position that appeared to be at odds with Beijing over whether Article 22 of the Basic Law applies to the liaison office in Hong Kong.
The original statement said Beijing's liaison office and its staff are required to abide by the laws of Hong Kong, as set out in Article 22.
But this comment came after the liaison office said on Friday that along with the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, it is not subject to the restrictions stated in Article 22 that bar central government departments from interfering in local affairs.
"“They [the two offices] are not what is referred to in Article 22 of the Basic Law, or what is commonly understood to be ‘departments under the Central People’s Government (CPG)',” the liaison office had said.
The SAR government's revised statement, which came a few hours after the original, still included a line saying the liaison office and its personnel must abide by Hong Kong law and the Basic Law, but gone was any mention of Article 22 specifically.
The first version had also said that the liaison office was "one of three organisations set up in the HKSAR by the central government in accordance with Article 22(2) of the Basic Law."
But again, the reference to Article 22 was dropped from the new version.
The SAR government said that the liaison office is authorised by Beijing to have a "special responsibility to handle issues relating to Hong Kong".
"It is entrusted with the authority and responsibility to represent the CPG to express views and exercise supervisory power on major issues such as those concerning the relationship between the CPG and the SAR, the accurate implementation of the Basic Law, the proper operation of the political system and the well-being of the community as a whole," the statement said.
Echoing Beijing's statement at this point, the government went on to say that it was therefore legitimate for the liaison office to express concern about the failure of Legco's House Committee to elect a chairman since last October, and expressing such concerns does not constitute "interference".
Pro-democracy legislators have accused Beijing of blatantly interfering in local affairs and damaging the "One Country, Two Systems" principle. The Hong Kong Bar Association has urged Beijing to "exercise restraint".
[https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1521396-20200418.htm?fbclid=IwAR1WtMGoRm_qcej8gqOqOKaQimJHsiuqiuTmJzh9mK0wNeuYbH-OmFRbXnA]
==========
1）假設「兩辦」不屬於中国大陸任何一個部門，「兩辦」則不具官方資格代表中国大陸政府擔任中、港聯絡或執行的政治任務，其言論不代表中国大陸政府的立場。「兩辦」可視為非官方組織或甚至是俗稱的「地下組織」，任何被它們干預的制度或政策被視為「不可信任的東西」。
If the two offices are not（or not subordinate）any department of PRC government, they are not officially authorized to be a connector and to handle some affairs respectively. Their speeches do not represent the view of PRC government. They can be recognized as Unofficial Organization or even said "Underground Organized". Any system or policy interfered by them is recognized as a Untrusted Thing.
2）假設「兩辦」屬於中国大陸任何一個部門，「兩辦」則具資格代表中国大陸政府擔任中、港聯絡或執行的政治任務，某些言論可代表中国大陸政府的立場，不得干預香港制度。
If the two offices are（or subordinate）any department of PRC government, they are officially authorized to be a connector and to handle some affairs respectively. Some of their speeches represent the view of PRC government. They cannot interfere Hong Kong's affairs.
無論哪個假設，「兩辦」均沒有權力自我定義其本身的性質。
The two offices have no right to define their properties by themselves.
政治精神病人是有自我一套「釋義」，某些中共官員當然不是字典上所指一般意義上的人類。另外，又何時輪到中聯辦或港澳辦越權「釋法」？
Politically mental patients have "self-definitions", Some CCP politicians are not the generally defined "human". In additional to, do they have right to define any terms of the Basic Law?
「自我實現預言」﹙Self-fulfilling Prophecy﹚也是偽科學驗證、認知出現問題或甚至精神病人的行為之一，現實常見例子如：
"Self-fulfilling Prophecy" is the beviour always found from fake-science verification, congitive error or mental patients. For example:
A常常「覺得」B會說A壞話，事實B沒有，於是A會基於「自我感覺不良」而產生各種防衛B的行為或甚至主動攻擊B的行為。久而久之，A對針B的行為令B認定和說出A有問題，B可能會作為相對應行動，此時A就會更認定「B會說A壞話」了。這個過程是A「預言」了「B會說A壞話」，然後A的行為令到「B說A壞話」，最後A「驗證」了「B會說A壞話」；從頭到尾都是A有問題。這例子在任何圈子也不新鮮，A可能是有精神、心理或認知問題，也可能是刻意制造分裂的「臥底」。
A always thinks that B is a backbiter（but B isn't indeed）. Then, A feels bad and takes many defensive beviours or even revenges on B. After several repeatitions of A's actions, A makes B recognize or point out the problems of A, and also B takes counter-actions against A. Meanwhile, A "proves" that B is backbiter. In this scenairo, A forecasts B is a backbiter and then A's actions lead B to take counter-actions. Finally, A proves B is a backbiter. In this case, the root cause is A. This example is often found in any group. A may be a mental patient or even a spy who is aimed to destroy.
把它套用在中国特色的「統戰」如製造「自我感覺良好」和「自我批判」......先在自我定義「反中」行為、制造「敵人」，然後實現中国大陸偉大、華人都喜歡中国大陸人、全世界以中国大陸為中心，完全是自我為中心、自吹自擂的擴張和統治手段。這樣不要說跟國際有共同語言和接軌的，連跟正常人溝通都有問題。
Put "Self-fulfilling Prophecy" into CCP's strategy, e.g. good self-feeling or self-criticism......Firstly, the pro-CCP guys define the beviours of "Anti-China" and create "enemies". And then to achieve the "Great PRC", "All Chinese loves PRC guys" and the "PRC Centric". It's completely a national expansion and governance with the methods of Self-Centering and Bragging. As a result, PRC's guys are difficult to understand the "common language" of or connect to, the world. Besides, they may have difficulties in communication with the generally defined "human".
在項目管理的角度上，這種Project Manager是有問題的，在他領導下的所有產出和報告都是遠離用家﹙人民﹚的需要和大量造假的。
In the view of project management, such managers have problems themself. Under their leadings, all the products and reports are respectively not fitting the users's requirements and massive fakes / errors.
某些人的才能就不見得有，但精神、心理或認知問題就不少，你是否那個「不外如是」？
Some guys whose wisdom we cannot find but not less mental issues are found. Are you the similar one?