[時事討論] 三十會: 沉默，就是愧對社會

三十會: 沉默，就是愧對社會tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb: a. m' y  H6 g7 W" g1 n

「當有一天我們對重大事情沉默不語，這便是我們生命枯萎的開始。（Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.）」已故美國民權領袖馬丁路德金論沉默，不只是針對黑人與白人的平權問題，也涉及美國民眾對越戰發生初期應否提出質疑。

我們都是一群自詡受到香港社會多年栽培、至今成為各行各業的專業領袖，甚至是創業者。共同的理念促使我們10年前加入了三十會，即使沒有既定政治立場，又沒有其他組織的財政支持，我們一直堅持透過獨立思考及深入研究的精神，就我城的重大議題發表意見和建議。6 K1 R9 W$ P6 l$ E6 N

大家由年輕小伙子變成有兒有女滿身包袱的中年人，與香港走過關鍵10年，一直提醒自己不要無的放矢，也不要在安逸中沉睡，對香港的重大事件視而不見，繼續供我的樓，繼續微觀地提升自家孩子的智能，卻無視現在部分政經領袖的高分反智。( N+ i4 i9 G4 V5 a0 G/ z9 w

誰人不想如一些爭着替我們出聲的團體所言，安居樂業，錢愈賺愈多？但是，眼看這城近月的變化，我們在忙碌和自保中驚覺「重大事件」（things that matter）接踵而至，即使每月辛勞後仍然有收入，雖然經濟運轉令我們和家人仍表面安居，但有些大家原先視為陽光空氣般理所當然的價值和做法，卻在一片「維穩拚經濟」的口號中極速地被否定、被挪走。令我們難以安逸的不單是如何落實普選，還有……這時，我們自問，大家還能選擇沉默嗎？! [* T- Z/ p# @& D) g' `

香港社會經濟制度完善的背後，是靠過往累積的核心價值和優勢支撐，這包括：人權、法治、透明的制度、公平公正的程序、尊重多元、謹守專業、言論和新聞自由等。
4 k4 U+ ~0 ^  s+ \8 C
公仔箱論壇, h% {, q" h( w' i  A; q' R0 C
議會文明毀於一旦tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb& M% l, P' _  }, D, q

談法治：自中央出台白皮書，以「依法治國/港」的ruleby law氣勢，企圖壓倒rule of law和本港司法獨立的原有做法，甚至有律師爭相投誠。數十萬市民在七一遊行後，數百人因留守遮打道而被警方拘留在黃竹坑警校，既沒有人落口供又沒有正式落案，義務律師一度難以接觸被拘留人士。自1967暴動發生後的香港，無論被捕的人懷疑犯了什麼彌天大罪，都不見執法當局要如此行使權力！撰文之際，得悉七一遊行主辦團體的頭車司機因開車慢而阻塞人流被捕，難道要單靠警權治港嗎？公仔箱論壇" q+ _2 _) M) }" P( i. e4 S

透明的制度：港視牌照風波令人驚訝的不是最終的決定，而是主事當局在神不知鬼不覺中搬龍門，無視顧問的建議，又在作出令人非議的決定後拖延回應，任當局如何辯駁，也難撇黑箱作業的惡名。
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb9 O; G4 @3 T5 z9 Y* Y) \+ N! L
少一個免費電視台觀賞也罷。但東北前期撥款霸王硬上弓的一幕，確實徹底地踩着公平程序的底線，令議會變成動物園。東北發展確實有很多值得討論的地方，關注團體和部分村民希望不遷不拆，而官方在諸多的用地限制中尋求最快地開發住宅地的需要亦不容忽視。不過，一個零票當選的財委會主席，竟然胡亂演繹議事規則，用粗暴的手法阻止議員發言，並趁亂通過撥款，議會文明被毀於一旦。猶記得數年前在舊立法會大樓財委會討論高鐵撥款，主事的政治問責官員一直走在前面，回應反對建高鐵議員的馬拉松式提問；但今天，一局政治團隊之首卻經常要在屬下後面，只靠建制派委員會主席撕破臉皮阻止議員發問來送撥款一程，議會的倒退，令人情何以堪！

大家不要忘記，即使是區議會，近年也頻頻有部分主席運用權力甚至出動保安，要反對政策的議員噤聲。這種制度的崩壞，難保有一天（或就在今天）已滲進其他公共事務範疇。以往，我們認識很多來自建制或泛民的精英，即使立場有異，但大家在諮詢委員會或其他政策辯論的擂台都是遵守規則，務求以理服人，因此，這類社會領袖令人有信心和而不同；但今天，協助破壞原有制度的一些議員、評論員，議政質素的低下，運用語言偽術的拙劣，充分演繹劣幣驅逐良幣的荒謬。

5.39.217.76' n9 I2 `/ t5 N  n- @: p( Q
勿成只拚經濟的行屍走肉
! s7 h. \/ q: _
新聞自由：劉進圖被襲，《明報》7月2日版頭的變動……這些反映什麼？若有人仍口口聲聲以個別事件來解釋，就儼如一個社區頻頻有人爆竊，但你去報警時警察只以「無拉到人」或「日日都有爆竊㗎啦」來敷衍你。
5.39.217.76. C/ |8 ]9 y* k  v/ w/ q, k# K
香港有意無意間，被轉型了，變成一個大學校長都不認識的香港。不要再說要融合，要包容，要顧全大局，連保持自己既有生活方式、做事的規矩，持守核心價值的能力都沒有，哪有資格談什麼發展？仍是那個老邏輯，有人希望香港只是一個不談政治的「經濟城市」！17年過去了，香港還是被某些領袖如此反智地定位，實在感到鬱結。

普選大家可能沒有共識，但我們成長的香港是有自由、講規矩、跟程序的，應該沒有人反對。如果當權者可以扼殺市民自由，破壞做事規矩，繞過既定程序，這將成為一個極權的制度，屆時我們就被迫生存在極權社會。

極權社會的烏雲來勢洶洶，若你還不認為是馬丁路德金形容的「重大事件」，當大家面對不公義時過分沉默，只會讓自己的道德內涵和價值追求被掏空，讓自己變成一具只拚經濟的行屍走肉而已。看着這個每天有人極具系統地和密集地「指鹿為馬」的香港，今天我們若選擇沉默，便是愧對自己、愧對社會、愧對下一代。

本文作者為三十會部分理事：李律仁、梁百行、陳昭容、王兼揚、鄭志明、張亮、魏華星、劉培榮、莊綺雯、龔耀輝、陳玉峰、劉詠芝、何建威、梁淑儀

收藏分享評分

回復引用

訂閱 TOP

felicity2010

親王

Rank: 17

2^#

發表於 2014-7-9 10:41 PM | 只看該作者

本帖最後由 felicity2010 於 2014-7-9 11:12 PM 編輯

四大會計師行反佔中聲明 FT評論斥誤解法治5.39.217.768 ?8 m: D0 @0 z9 j" S

日前，四大會計師行事務所香港分支在報章刊登聯合聲明，反對「佔領中環」行動，斥佔中有損香港，中國駐英國大使劉曉明昨天撰文嘉許；但英國《金融時報》一篇評論批評，四大曲解「法治」一詞的真義，又質問他日若四大在中國遇上官司，希望由大陸還是香港的法院來審判。

《金融時報》編輯及專欄作家Michael Skapinker撰文〈四大香港分部誤解法治〉（The Hong Kong arms of the Big Four have got the rule of law wrong），指四大似乎分不清「法治」（rule of law）及「依法治國」（rule by law）的分別。

Skapinker指出，四大在聲明中強調香港是「法治社會」、要求市民「奉公守法」的同時，隻字未提香港現時的立法及司法制度；Skapinker認為，四大應肯定香港市民享有集會及和平示威的自由，並支持司法獨立。公仔箱論壇( P- F+ q2 a; l5 T

Skapinker形容，四大或已接受中國將進一步控制香港的事實，希望取悅中共；Skapinker指，這種策略只在雙方相安無事時才湊效。去年，英國藥廠葛蘭素史克在中國陷入官司糾紛；Skapinker質疑，若他日四大陷入類似處境，會選擇面對中國法院還是香港法院的審判。

雖然遭英國時事評論員狠批，但四大的聲明卻獲中方認可：中國駐英國大使劉曉明日前投書《金融時報》，指佔領中環行動「威脅採取街頭政治，企圖搞亂香港」，特別提到四大會計師樓所發的聲明，指四大的聲明「反映了理性的聲音」。
公仔箱論壇/ w* ^0 C1 H, R  R
* n- N  d' a8 u/ U+ i1 A1 |) S8 f

The Hong Kong arms of the Big Fourhave got the rule of law wrong
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。! B1 K  W( j$ O, b

By Michael Skapinker7 N1 v/ H7 k# H' v9 N/ i
Who would PwC, Deloitte, EY and KPMG prefer to appear before – China’s judges or Hong Kong’s?TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。+ l2 @; {- ]$ c5 a* Z9 f8 E
公仔箱論壇$ [$ ^' I. ]3 W$ o7 O* S; ~( ]9 {" g
5.39.217.767 f( S1 w/ y4 f: p0 v& R7 \  q+ O
The Hong Kong arms of the Big Four accountants, in their recent advertisement, attacked the pro-democracy Occupy Central movement, saying it could have a “negative and long-lasting impact on the rule of law”.5.39.217.765 y+ \8 x/ y3 H. p5 h4 G. q
公仔箱論壇) P# M4 G1 _& h) i+ {
Lord Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong,also expressed his fears about what was happening to the rule of law. In his view, it was not pro-democracy campaigners who threatened it but Beijing, with its recent “white paper”, which said that Hong Kong’s judges should be“patriotic”.
: K% Q6 z; Y, Y/ U$ G% t6 H$ J
“Judges under the rule of law are independent and there shouldn’t be any question of them being instructed or pressed to subordinate their views of due process and what is legal to some other political considerations,” Lord Patten said.
5.39.217.76% S' k# v( D: l3 A
Clearly, the Hong Kong arms of PwC, Deloitte,EY and KPMG – which received support from China’s ambassador to the UK – and Lord Patten don’t mean the same thing by the “rule of law”. What does it mean?

The most commonly-cited authority is AV Dicey in his Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, first published in 1885. To Dicey, the rule of law meant, first, “the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power”. It meant everyone should be equal before the law, including the government., s8 U5 @' K0 h0 e' H
公仔箱論壇2 @0 \2 G- R/ v, \& T
“The ‘rule of law’ . . . excludes the idea of any exemption of officials or others from the duty of obedience to the law which governs other citizens,” Dicey wrote.

The rule of law, in this sense, supports Lord Patten’s insistence that Hong Kong judges should be independent of any pressure from China’s government. It has little to do with the Big Four’s worry,expressed in their advertisement, that Occupy Central might disrupt “key large transactions and commercial activities”.

The accountants appear to be confusing the “rule of law” with “rule by law”, which, in the words of Jothie Rajah, of the American Bar Foundation, is “state-serving law”. The “rule of law” ensures the equal treatment of all; “rule by law” ensures orderly running of society under government control.
8 D& F) t- T+ y( y$ S( K
Some might object that this formulation of the rule of law is western and excessively individualistic – but it is widely admired around the world. When I praised Dicey’s version of the rule of law in a speech to a conference of the Law Society of England and Wales this week,attended by lawyers from countries, among others, in eastern Europe, Africa and Asia, the only dissent I heard was that an American might have added the separation of powers., M" T( y& O, t' W: G' O* E

I don’t believe anyone, given a choice, would prefer to live in a society where you can be jailed or have your property confiscated on the say-so of an official rather than through due process of law.5.39.217.76; L( v( {. [8 Z% r
5.39.217.76& \$ j" o! m5 @, L- l. F* j2 I
Concurrent with the rule of law is citizens’ right to protest over and discuss how they are governed, as Hong Kong’s people have been doing in their debate about how to elect their chief executive.
- N* a% I; S& r8 r( x! D6 V
The Hong Kong Big Four have every right to be alarmed if people plan to invade premises and disrupt business. That is a crime in any society. But if that were their concern, they should have combined it with a recognition that people do have the right to protest peacefully, as tens of thousands did in Hong Kong last week.# [- D  C% {  c- U6 o- S' O* |
: N5 q, l# z  I8 m5 w% A: }, y6 @
They should also have supported the independence of the judiciary as a cornerstone of citizens’ and companies’ security. But while they talked about a “law-based society” and called on people to “follow the law”, they had nothing to say, in their advertisement,about how law is made and judged.

It may be that they have accepted that China plans to exert greater control and that they would like to retain Beijing’s favour.

There are businesses in other parts of the world that make the same deal, that accept the protection of a government’s strong arm in return for the chance to make money without disturbance.

That is fine when things go well. Businesses need to think how they would fare if they did not. In China, GlaxoSmithKline officials have been accused of corruption. Hong Kong business leaders who wish Lord Patten and the democracy campaigners would pipe down should ask themselves this: if something similar happened to them, who would they prefer to appear before – China’s judges or Hong Kong’s?
4 F/ y! [; u$ J( v- P
* K% a; y) W& x  V* K3 y, R
Introduction to the study of the law of the constitution (1889)
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。9 l% |9 e. v" R0 N' F

回復引用

TOP

felicity2010

親王

Rank: 17

3^#

發表於 2014-7-10 09:56 PM | 只看該作者

本帖最後由 felicity2010 於 2014-7-10 10:05 PM 編輯

華爾街日報刊文斥匯豐、Big 4得益功能組別反佔中無視法治崩壞TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。* l3 X6 d! p* N! x* x

5.39.217.760 Y, N: h% L- R
圖：華爾街日報網站截圖

建制陣營開動輿論機器反對「佔領中環」，近日先有四大會計師事務所香港分部聯署反佔中，指佔中有損本港法治，之後又見匯豐發表研究報告，指佔中或損害香港經濟，建議投資者減持港股。繼《金融時報》昨日刊文批評四大誤解「法治」後，《華爾街日報》亞洲版評論員Joseph Sternberg昨撰文，直斥匯豐及四大「嚴重犯錯」（err badly），指香港若愈來愈似北京式威權社會，法治崩壞、民怨四起，對營商環境的壞影響遠較「佔領中環」等短期示威行動嚴重得多。

Stemberg昨發表文章Hong Kong's Talkative Companies，批評匯豐及四大高調否定「佔領中環」的做法，更指匯豐及四大等企業，得益於立法會功能組別設置，在選舉制度的影響力過大。5.39.217.76' ~% o0 l- F& y  k5 W# |( y

文篇花大篇幅香港功能組別制度的問題，指大公司在本港制度中，享有過大權力。Stemberg指出，匯豐及其屬下的恆生，各在金融界別及保險界別擁有一票，而這兩個界別的登記選民數僅百多人；而四大所屬的會計界別，雖然有數以萬計的會計師個人票左右結果，但四大隨時可透過香港總商會，影響兩席功能組別議席的人選。Stemberg認為，這種制度使大公司的政治表態倍具影響力，但大公司同時亦因在功能組別制度中得益，有損其名聲及其政治表態的說服力。
公仔箱論壇+ T6 ~& C0 d0 d7 G* {
Stemberg在文末提到四大員工回應公司的支持佔中聲明，指他們如此表態雖不符所屬行業的利益，但讚揚他們比其僱主更加明白，不論在政治還是經濟方面，爭取到真正的民主制度，才真正對全港市民有利。
公仔箱論壇# `6 y9 N9 T( @9 R2 R( O, i

WSJ: Hong Kong's Talkative Companies

The political left in America loves to complain that companies play an outsized role in politics, especially in the wake of Supreme Court rulings that confirm corporations have a right to engage in political speech. But if you want to visit a place that has a real problem with politically active corporations, you'll have to hop on a plane to Hong Kong.TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。$ K/ D2 C! z+ e1 \' i

Some local companies have grown increasingly vocal in recent weeks in opposing pro-democracy activists. The Occupy Central movement—a respectable group, unlike those who camped out in Lower Manhattan a few years ago—is promising to bring gridlock to Hong Kong's central business district if Beijing doesn't follow through on its pledge to allow genuine democracy in the territory by 2017.

Many businesses are concerned about the risks and costs of business disruption if parts of Hong Kong come to a standstill.The Hong Kong offices of the Big Four accounting firms late last month took out an ad in several local newspapers warning that the protests would"shake" international confidence in the territory and could send foreign investors fleeing.

HSBC HSBA.LN -1.80% earlier this week issued a research report downgrading its view of Hong Kong stocks, citing the political instability and potential for "souring" relations between Hong Kong and Beijing that would arise from Occupy Central protests. After a public uproar, the bank partly backtracked by revising its report to list several other factors supposedly justifying such a downgrade.

The companies err badly on the merits. If it's allowed to continue, the territory's slide into Beijing-lite authoritarianism, with the loss of rule-of-law and concomitant rising public discontent, will be far worse for business than the temporary disruptions of a public protest. But in most political systems, including Hong Kong's (for now anyway), being wrong is not a crime. TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。6 N5 ^  M' `6 k
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb+ a4 x+ h2 u( ]7 t. B& C! {3 [
The real problem is that Hong Kong law affords these companies an outsized role in the electoral system itself if they want one. Thirty-five of the 70 members in the territory's legislature, which will ultimately vote on any democratic-reform proposal, are elected from so-called functional constituencies, or industry-and other special-interest groups. Companies themselves are electors in many of these constituencies.5.39.217.762 k( u0 Y& `! R* ^/ f+ n0 t
5.39.217.76* f3 A5 R0 Y: z4 E& m
For example, the finance and insurance industries each get their own representative in the Legislative Council,elected by companies. Only 124 companies are registered to vote in the finance constituency, which encompasses banks; only 129 companies vote in the insurance constituency. Because HSBC and its subsidiary Hang Seng 0011.HK -0.16% Bank engage in both banking and insurance activities, each gets one vote in each constituency.
5.39.217.76. K; S0 ]' l' }% L$ B5 c* I! H0 `
At first the situation appears better with respect to the accounting firms. Only individual human beings who are certified public accountants are eligible to vote in the functional constituency for accountancy, and some 25,000 electors are registered to do so. That makes accountancy one of the most "democratic" functional constituencies,alongside education and health services. Even so, accountancy electors get two votes for Legislative Council since they are also eligible to vote in their geographical constituencies.

Yet the Big Four have a back door path into functional-constituency voting, if they ever want to take advantage of it. One functional constituency, for general business, represents members of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce. KPMG, EY, and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu already are members and PwC could join at any time. Spokesmen from EY and PwC tell me their firms are not currently registered to vote in any functional constituency and KPMG declined to comment; a spokesman for Deloitte didn't return a request for comment. ! g# t$ L- E4 q. a
2 e# n( E. ]$ t7 ~- _6 L
This gives corporate speech in Hong Kong far more weight than any of the false nightmare scenarios concocted by the left in America. In a one-person-one-vote democracy,corporate speech is merely a form of activism by a voluntary association (in this case, of the shareholders) to persuade voters on one issue or another. But in Hong Kong, companies themselves get to pick some of their lawmakers, and can be expected to do so for commercial reasons.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb& G, O  t1 k7 Y8 D* [' O
This might sound like a great boon for business, but it's not. Critics of HSBC and the Big Four suggest the companies are motivated by commercial concerns—the bank's extensive business interests in mainland China, or all the accounting contracts the Big Four have with large Chinese enterprises. This is the point. Functional constituencies are designed to be a pro-establishment bulwark. Businesses risk being discredited by virtue of having been co-opted into an electoral system that relies on them to oppose popular movements such as Occupy Central.Companies become tarnished by their association with it and their political speech grows less and less persuasive.公仔箱論壇' G- P% f# j. ?! S3 T- X7 C
公仔箱論壇1 z. _' H# m" K0 H+ d9 j- ]- E
In response to the Big Four newspaper ad, an anonymous group of the firms' employees bought their own ad supporting Occupy Central. To the extent that the universal suffrage those employees support undermines the influence of functional constituencies, the accountants are arguing against their electoral self-interest. But they seem to realize that real democracy is in the political and economic best interests of all Hong Kongers, and Hong Kong's companies. It's a more enlightened view than that of their employers.5.39.217.76- U3 K1 A' T; @1 F; N: }2 M
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。* }+ q& `. V  N% D- y& |
Mr. Sternberg edits the Business Asia column.公仔箱論壇4 x* @, V- y: a( ^$ E  e
5.39.217.762 H# o7 |5 k9 \( W

回復引用

TOP

返回列表