係咁嘅。家下出面有班契弟話我係外面闖咗禍要收我皮。渠哋話要我人頭落地。
我聽到，真係嚇咗一跳，然後得啖笑。我十年前入會嗰時班契弟都唔知讀完PCLL未。前幾個星期班叔父先又推舉我嚟繼續領導渠哋。而家出面班友話想同我玩，我就真係只可以叫渠哋即管放馬過來。
其實我究竟喺6月16號同17號做咗啲乜嘢，大鑊到連投票譴責我都唔夠，一定要搵我祭旗？大佬，我之前嗰啲會長柒過我十九幾萬倍都未試過畀人好似嚟緊個8月14號咁開波啦。你話重唔係大細超係乜。
但係我話哂都係一個受過專業訓練嘅律師，千萬不要當我係流嘅。我而家就將我為成件事做嘅記錄公諸於世，畀大家睇真啲。
6月16號我召開咗本年度大會第一個記者招待會。我係會上專登提起份白皮書，因為我知道公眾都好關心呢份文件。
咁我講咗啲乜嘢呢？
我話，份白皮書都唔算係乜嘢法律文件，見人哋寫得咁辛苦咪讚下渠囉。咁又唔得。我又明明有指出份嘢有提到「香港應行使獨立司法權」（5次）、中央政府「應嚴格按照香港基本法辦事」（3次）、和「應確保香港高度自治」（9次），但又唔見人提。然後渠哋就喺度造謠生事，嚇出面班師奶阿嬸話本白皮書其實係要蠶食基本法。 大家都知本基本法其實係廢家嘛，你話點會有人屈本白皮書去蠶食基本法咁無恥嘅呢？所以我冇淆渠哋底。我拒絕做一隻沈默嘅羔羊。我係後來先知原來有人覺得我係煩膠。呢啲委屈我都甘願承受。
第二日6月17號我去咗電台接受訪問。個節目叫《中國點點點--對談中國》，兩個主持問問題，我答。兩個主持一開波就問我前幾日講嗰啲關於白皮書嘅嘢係咪代表成個律師會。我聽到差啲想問渠哋起身係唔係未食早餐。律師會班叔父畀得我做，就梗係叫我代表哂成個會啦，如果連代表成個會出句聲都唔得，咁我交咁多年會費嚟做乜。
其實之前我哋律師會旗下個憲制及人權事務會已經表過態，渠哋個主席重同我講過渠點睇，然後渠重喺6月13號同啲媒體講埋。所以其實我喺16號講嘅嘢同渠喺13號講嘅嘢根本就一鳩樣（渠嗰時重住要坐正係我隔嚟），但係點解班仆街又唔屌渠淨係喺度一味屌鳩我丫？你話呢啲唔係妒忌我生得靚仔重可以係咩丫？你估咁靚仔我想嘅咩？雖然律師會個理事會當時重未正式會面，不過我夠膽講，我係律師會度揸得旗，梗係知道班細嘅點睇本白皮書㗎啦。
理事會之後都出咗個正式聲明撐我，但係而家出面班仆街就為咗因為我係16號講咗啲公道嘅說話要收我皮，冚我旗。呢個世界重有天理嘅咩！
然後喺個電台訪問度，個主持問我啲關於「愛國」嘅問題。 屌你，渠哋都唔知識唔識做主持？呢啲咁敏感嘅問題都問得㗎咩？我梗係唔答。 之後個主持就即刻話「冇嘢，吹下水姐」。 不過話畀全世界知我愛黨就唔同，所以我同渠哋講話我覺得共產黨真係好偉大，將我哋成個中國帶到去一個全新嘅時代。 不過我都有讚香港嘅法治同司法獨立㗎。我叫阿公學下我哋，唔好成日郁下都用家法。
而家出面班友想我收番我係嗰兩個場合度講過嘅嘢。
渠哋而家係咪當我傻仔？如果我每次柒咗都有個菩提老母出嚟話俾多次機會我講多次，咁我梗係可以講好啲啦。但係你估而家拍梗西遊記，如果上天能夠畀我一個重新嚟過嘅機會，我希望喺律師會度做個民意調查咩。人生唔是咁㗎。我諗到咩咪講咩，我講咩咪就係我諗咩囉。我對我哋嘅律師專業充滿信心。作為律師會嘅揸𨋢人，我以前犯過錯，將來我重會犯多啲錯。不過，你哋唔好以為你哋好得過我好多。 總之，做人最緊要對得住天哋良心同埋知錯能改。
好喇，其實講咗咁耐，都係想求下大家千祈唔好要收我皮。我保證我從此之後會竭盡所能為律師會9000多名會員服務和用心聆聽會內不同嘅意見。希望大家會出席嚟梗嘅EGM。但如果你去唔到，就簽張授權表格授權俾個主席（主席唔係我）幫你投啦！
（按：律師會會長林新強將會喺8月14號面臨被全體律師彈劾，原因？渠話自己講乜嘢都係代表律師會。渠講過乜嘢？中國共產黨好偉大，帶領中國進入新紀元，白皮書無新嘢。阿林會長出咗封好潮嘅英文信（見下文），由於實在係潛力文，梗係要將渠譯一譯同大家分享啦。但又驚林會長小器告誹謗喎，講明先，一切歧義當然喺以林會長嘅英文潮文為準啦！）
原文：
5 August 2014
Personal Message
Dear Friends,
Members who propose a vote of no-confidence against me say that they don’t trust me because I have done something seriously wrong. So wrong that they want my head to roll.
I am proud to have served the profession selflessly for more than ten long years. It was only a few weeks ago that I was elected as the president for a second term.
What did I do on June 16 and 17 that was so heinous that even a vote of censure would not be deemed sufficient or satisfactory for those who propose the resolution? After all, no president before me has faced anything similar to what awaits me on August 14 when the EGM is to be held.
Like all trained lawyers, I have collated the relevant contemporaneous records to make sure what I am about to tell you is what really happened.
On June 16, I held the first media conference after the AGM. I made it a point to talk about the White Paper because it was attracting considerable public interest at the time.
What did I say about the White Paper?
I said it’s not a legal document but a work report which should be treated positively. I pointed to the fact that certain things were repeatedly mentioned: “Hong Kong exercises its independent judicial power" (5 times), the Central Government “strictly adheres to the Basic Law" (3 times) and “ensures
the high degree of Hong Kong’s autonomy" (9 times). I stood firm against the scare-mongers within our community who said that the White Paper changed or attempted to change the Basic Law. I refused to be a sheep. Subsequent events have shown me that some people must have found my positive attitude irksome.
Next day, June 17, I was interviewed on the radio. It was a chat programme about things about China 中國點點點 – 對談中國. Two interviewers asked questions and I answered. Initially they wanted me to confirm whether the views expressed by me about the White Paper the day before was my personal view or the view of the Law Society. The short reply was I represented the Law Society.
Before then, the Constitutional Affairs and Human Rights Committee had made certain recommendations. The Chair of that Committee expressed to me his personal views and went on to express them to the media on June 13. What I said on June 16 (with him next to me) was consistent with what he had said on June 13. Even though the Council had not formally met, but as the leader and chair of the Council I knew how the majority viewed the White Paper. The formal statement subsequently issued by the Council confirmed the common stance we had taken. However it is now suggested that for saying what I said on June 16 I deserve no confidence.
Continuing on in the radio interview, after I refused to answer some questions relating to ‘patriotism’, one of the interviewers said “Oh, it’s alright. It’s okay. We’re just chatting." Following this, I said I felt the Communist Party was great in that it had led China to a new age. I also praised Hong Kong’s rule of law and the independence of its judiciary. I said China should emulate us as a reformation of its justice system is needed.
Some members want me to retract some of the things I had said on those two occasions.
I am not naive. If every time I said something a fairy godmother offers me a chance to say it again, of course I can say it better. But life is not like that. I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I have kept faith with the profession. As a leader, I have made mistakes before and will make some more. Isn’t that the same with all of us? The important thing is that we don’t make mistakes with mal-intention and that with each mistake we learn and improve.
I ask that you consider the events on June 16 and 17 dispassionately and vote against the proposed resolutions. I give you my pledge that I will serve the profession to the best of my ability armed with a greater awareness of the mixed ideologies among the Law Society’s 9,000 strong membership. I invite you to attend the EGM, but if you can’t come, please give me your signed proxy form and appoint the chairman (who will not be me) to vote for you.
沒有留言:
張貼留言