2014年4月16日星期三

天下烏鴉一樣wine

當湯顯明為了茅台出事,喝到癡癡呆呆,會否被控還未可料,已成為厚顏無恥,被人鄙視的過街老鼠,這邊廂無獨有偶,新南威爾斯省長Barry O'Farrell今早辭職,也是為了酒。

新省ICAC最近為貪污案聽證,涉及水務公司和省官員利益輸送的問題。其實不論執政自由黨或在野工黨,貪污醜聞不絕,互相包容。因為是政黨政治,所以大家都不會趕盡殺絕,因為他朝有日到自己登埸,也可以有撈油水的空間,也希望對家留一手。這裏的亷記,有搜證聽證權,卻無逮捕檢控權,所以不會半夜三更去敲門,只會把檔案交給DPP跟進,政治又會扮演一些角色,最後告不告也涉及政治考慮。

話説回頭,省長出了甚麽問題呢?昨日聽證傳召他,問他有沒有收過水務公司相贈的一枝酒。吓!一枝酒使唔使搞到咁大呀?那是一枝Penfold Grange。標少唔飲酒,就算好貴的都無興趣試飲,幾年前走入酒鋪看最便宜的Grange也要500多元一枝,當然講澳幣。O'Farrell收了一枝他出生年份——1959年的Grange。打個岔,1959的Grange現有7枝在網上出售,最平那枝2998元,在全國連鎖酒鋪Dan Murphy,標價4850元,把他乘7,就粗畧知港幣價值。

昨日聽證問他此事,他矢口否認收過。當問到有送酒到他家的courier invoice,他就扮失憶,向他指出有他打電話致謝的紀錄,他就繼續忘記,忘掉它,認咗一定瓜。佢口硬態度又寸。

今早峯廻路轉。今早繼續盤問,把他親筆寫的thank you note和他對質,都話禽日真係唔記得咯。最後宣佈辭職。真的為了收受一枝港紙3幾萬的酒就罷官?恐怕沒有那麽簡單,為一枝酒就送出利益?你信我都唔信。不過,對於這件事是否涉及貪污,記者問首相Tony Abbott,Abbott話 "an entirely unjustified smear"。抹黑喎,問你服未?有時真的不要輕信廉潔排名,如果一個地方用很低的標凖,又有理所當然收受利益的文化,用那種標凖嘛好廉潔囉。

很久以前有一次我吃完午飯由北角乘小巴返東區法院,下車的時候司機對我講,我認得你,唔使喇。我即時反應,司機大佬,幫幫忙,唔該收錢,我把車資塞了給他才下車。這司機出於好意,但我不敢接受,我戰戰兢兢,因為有些意識是indoctrinated的。


21 則留言:

  1. On the one hand, he needs to go to live up to his standard. It is the honorable thing for him to do. On the other hand, I do not want to see him go. It is a loss to NSW people. He has done quite a lot for NSW in these three years. Had he handled the matter better, he did not have to resign. He is not that intelligent after all.

    回覆刪除
  2. I don't dispute the fact that he has done far better than his predecessors but how do we compromise the integrity problem? Honourable is not a word I would use.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. A good political question: An effective scoundrel or an ineffective moralist, which would be your pick for public office?

      刪除
    2. You have given us two extremes and ask us to choose the better of two evils. I would not accept one who transgress the law, it is a cardinal principle.

      刪除
    3. 山中,

      我以為你會叫我請你飲Penfold Grange, 點知你畀隻白貓黑貓我揀,貓可以有第二啲顏色架。

      刪除
    4. Well, that question was asked quite often in history.

      刪除
    5. It is unfair to compare Barry O'Farrell with Tong. The former is not corrupt while the latter is. ICAC has indicated that they would not pursue Barry O'Farrell. Barry O'Farrell resigned because he has misled (lied) to ICAC. Of course, he was wrong in the first place. He failed to declare the pricey bottle of wine. As for his failure to recall, most politicians failed to recall when they are asked difficult questions. He is too noble to continue to be the premier after having been found lying to ICAC. My view is that he has set himself a bar too high. But, what can I say? We all have to wear the consequences of our actions. I wish Barry O'Farrell well. It is so good to have these good people serving the public, as opposed to those serving their self-interest.

      刪除
    6. "He is too noble to continue to be the premier after having been found lying to ICAC."

      May I say absolute nonsense.

      Where was the nobleness in his deliberate attempts to misled the ICAC on his close association with Di Girolamo ?

      Di Girolamo was recommended by O'Farrell's office to the board of a government agency a few weeks after O'Farrell received the now infamous $3000 bottle of wine.

      刪除
  3. 其實小巴司機主動提出不收你錢會否已經觸犯向公職人員提供利益罪?

    回覆刪除
  4. 我都沒有從那角度去想,我以為自己已經時常講法治講到被人罵(上一篇已有這種留言),你比我更甚,更無「人性」,人的感情一面。純法律當然那幾塊錢屬於「利益」,但就算有ICAC的人在場都不會拘捕這司機。

    有一次我午飯時去吃麵,碰到附近藥房老闆,(以前「做」過佢),他跟我打招呼,我也點頭。我吃完去付款,麵店老闆説藥房老闆付了,我不管他,付了該付的款,叫麵店還錢給藥房。藥房這廝就很危險,但我也明白他未必有儲心積慮的心,但關是自己把的,尤其是有可能跟工作有關的。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. I would have thought that the value of the gift needs to be of a great value to influence a person to find that person who have received the gift to be corrupt.

      刪除
  5. 拜讀閣下網誌已久,恕我無知,敢問標少是何許人,經常被認出?
    PHLI

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 你google一下標少個大名就會知道。

      刪除
    2. 眼耳口鼻齊全, 樣貌普通, 在街上擦身而過, 似曾相識, 皆因平平凡凡, 所以把張三看成李四, 李四也看似張三, 何必費時考究, 不要以人廢言, 也不要以言舉人。 名字只是一個符號。

      刪除
    3. 失敬失敬...
      PHLI

      刪除
  6. 標少你好!
    http://www.inmediahk.net/1022312
    此文談到棄保潛逃與老妨的關係,想請教下你對此有何看法?
    W

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 也許我不懂, 該文章引用Wan Shui Ying案作為棄保潛逃可控以妨礙司法公正的依據, 是錯誤理解該案所講的意思。 首先Wan案本身講擔保金的處理方法, 不是在討論棄保潛逃怎樣套用妨礙司法公正的控罪, 再者在該案所提及的是串謀妨礙司法公正, 即三個警察和潛逃被告一起商討怎樣潛逃去逃避審訊, 他們的商討內容構成妨礙司法公正, 而並非潛逃本身, 引用Egan案完全irrelevant.

      刪除
    2. 無獨有偶,「溫」案由麥高義代表, 當時他離開律政署不久, 還未是資深大律師, 今次他又代表馬惜珍。我從未見過任何一宗純棄保潛逃(absconding simpliciter)控以妨礙司法公正或藐視法庭的案例。

      刪除
    3. 利用假期空閒查究,"三個警察和潛逃被告"被控妨礙司法公正是因為隱藏和毀滅證據,跟潛逃無關,看http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=1639&QS=%28conceal%2B{and}%2Bdestroy%2Bevidence%2Brelevant%2Bto%29&TP=JU

      在Wan Shui Ying判案書,上訴庭用長句子列出經過,誤導讀者以為兩者有關。9L是成文法,妨礙司法公正是普通法。成文法已經訂明罰則,不可能再引用普通法檢控同一行為。

      刪除
    4. 因讀者留言叫我評論在inmedia發表的講法,我才看Wan案的判辭,與其説是上訴庭誤導讀者,不如説是該文作者自己錯誤理解判辭,我看判辭就半點也看不到他講的意思。一時看錯而致引用錯誤,也屬平常事,我也時常犯錯。

      刪除