2012年4月15日星期日

新界僭建



劉皇發籲特赦新界僭建 不想「流第一滴血」


【明報專訊】針對新界村屋僭建的「僭建物自願申報計劃」早前展開。鄉議局主席劉皇發表示,解決新界村屋僭建問題,將會是他與候任特首梁振英首要談及的議題,他認為政府應考慮特赦處理,以達社會和諧。他又指新界人「夠膽犧牲」,他不希望看到新界人為了抗爭「流第一滴血」。


劉皇發昨稱,如新界村屋的僭建物無即時危險,政府應以容忍態度處理,以實現「大和諧、大團結」,故贊同特首應以特赦方法處理僭建問題。他認為特赦是政府有領導胸襟和魄力的表現,較要求居民登記的制度可取,政府應以「情理法」處理僭建問題,而不是依「法理情」處理。


強調情理法 非法理情


他表示,若梁振英不與新界原居民商討如何解決僭建問題,相信會影響團結第一步,「如果不幸新界流第一滴血,我就不恭喜了」。他稱,原居民於戰時為保家園「死過數百人」,為完成大我「夠膽犧牲」,他擔心若強行清拆僭建物惹來原居民,,會有嚴重衝突。他又稱,僭建問題同樣存在於港島和九龍,認為不應刻意區分,製造「城鄉矛盾」。


新界鄉事委員會「保衛家園行動小組」召集人梁福元表示,現時距離登記制度截止日期尚有半年時間,希望發展局暫停執法,盡快與原居民商討問題。至於支持特赦的港區全國政協委員劉夢熊認為,現屆政府應在餘下任期處理新界僭建問題,他會在下周的策發會會議上,把特赦建議交予特首曾蔭權和發展局長林鄭月娥,並同時把建議交予候任特首梁振英。 (14/4/2012明報)

紅十字會應該派捐血車到新界,呼籲新界佬捐血,讓他們更有意義獻出第一滴血,犧牲小我,對社會作點貢獻。甚麼大我小我,屁話連篇,以他們的水平心智,極其量只能講深井燒鵝。

新界佬三番四次強調夠膽犧牲,不怕流血,團結一致。這種威嚇性的言論,擺出武力對抗的姿態,一顯新界本色,覇氣十足。

事情發展到這地步,政府應該採取甚麼立場呢?我認為應該强硬下去,最後是否作出某程度的特赦,要清晰劃分不同僭建的類形,特赦輕微違例的人,也不限於新界,而是全港劃一。劉皇發所講大和諧大團結那種特赦,是不知所謂的廢話。劉皇發提出城鄉矛盾的講法正是自打嘴巴,單獨特赦新界僭建,才會分化社會,製造矛盾。這是甚麼年代,別以為新特首上任,便要大赦天下,泰山封禪。

政府應該針對新界村屋僭建成立一支由屋宇署、警方機動部隊及律政司組成的專責部隊。每當屋宇署或外判人員入村查核僭建,都由警方機動部隊陪同,以震攝村民武力對抗。作出檢控時,由律政司委派專責檢控官處理,同時要求司法機構安排專責審訊僭建的法官,以便集中處理,增加審案効率。新界佬近期的言論,我唯一聽得順耳的是訴諸法律。法律之爭拗,當然由法庭來訟裁。動不動就講武力對抗,難怪使人覺得新界佬野蠻。























4 則留言:

  1. 訴諸法律相信很多人在等時機,正如博主前文指出,香港法院名級法官,空缺多,近退休也多,可能fed up有能力唔撈也有, 在適當時侯揀選務實新人填空後,法院作出有利業主的判決,於是有責的人都可以聳聳肩話不關我的事。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Dear Anonymous,

      If the court eventually decides in favour of the landlords (I doubt very much), we have to accept the decision. That is rule of law and the rule of the game.

      Bill

      刪除
  2. Hello BillSiu thanks for your response. Application of Rules of the Game depends to a certain degree on the referee; some are wholeheartedly impartial while others would go a long way to make themselves appear to be impartial. Grandpa from North is very good at manipulating a fair system to his advantage. I am afraid it is already in progress to the HK judiciary system. There is now or in the near future a man-made situation and also natural opportunity to appoint sufficient judges acceptable both professionally and politically.
    Speaking about Rule of Law in HK, my feeling is that it may be Rule of Law in enforcement but not in the making process. It is because there is no universal suffrage, which means not everyone participate in the making of law to be abided by all. Hence laws could be polarized and become Rule by Law or Law is Tool.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Anonymous,

      Responding to comment is my learning process.

      From my narrow topic of the NT illegal structures venturing into the big picture of HK politics, I am afraid I do not have the wisdom to make insightful observations.

      Impartiality of the umpire is something rather intangible. you may form certain impression but difficult to produce evidence. After all, in the HK law courts, political decision is still a rarity. Maybe you can cite the Congo case in which Bokhary PJ pronounced the day had come for the demise of the HK judicial independence. Yet, was he making a political statement himself? That said, I do not invite or embroil myself in further political discussion here. The topic is too big for me to handle. You have to speak to a wiser man.

      The Basic Law has cocooned the development of HK be it universal suffrage or appointment of top officials. 1 country 2 systems is only a sham. Don't forget, 1 country is predominating 2 systems. Whether we are under its protection or extortion is sheer luck. Your fear of infiltration into the judiciary is not unfounded. On the other hand, there are also obsequious flirters coveting for advantage by selling their souls.

      I say no more.

      刪除