在寫天下烏鴉一樣wine一文時，有澳洲讀者留言，認為省長O'Farrell為了收受一枝Penfold Grange而請辭，屬honourable之舉，這是支持他或者心中有鬼的人的看法。説他引退是負責任的行為，這論調我不去反駁，因為看法天真得使人無奈，但另一位讀者反駁了，這一則新聞……Job offer after wine gift……也反駁了。如果本地的ICAC運作模式跟香港的一樣，一早就把一干人等闔家都拘捕了。這則新聞交待了黑金政治的交易過程，由兩三年前講起，涉嫌行賄的Di Girolamo怎樣進入政治舞台，由當初被考慮的6名候選人中叨陪末座，而至怎樣利用政治捐獻，一蹴而就，在省長收了名酒的兩星期後，被委入水務管理局的經過。荒謬絕倫的橋段，讓人目瞪口呆，眼巴巴一幕又一幕在眼前上演。真的為了一枝酒而輸出利益？別天真吧！這些人可以肆無忌憚地幹，就因為監管不足。一丘之貉，俯拾即是，連首相也在背後扶他一把，這一夥人我一直視為盜賊。前些時這些議員部長，包括首相在內，就被揭發怎樣去濫用公款，以權謀私，有人出公款買機票飛去買樓落訂，當是公幹，有人出席私人婚禮，就當履行政治職責來開公數。相比之下，曾蔭權、湯顯明就聰明得多，利用自己的權力去交換利益，就沒有做得顯明。延後利益輸送，證據難抓。
這又引申到山中提出的問題：
這種問題不時都會出現，但一涉及明顯的違法行為，就會是an effective grafter 而不是scoundrel那麽簡單了。當涉及明顯違反嚴重刑事法的犯法行為，不論這個人的管治能力怎樣出眾，就不能掉以輕心，以瑕不掩瑜來開脫。動搖了法治的根本，還有甚麽喊得鏗鏘？
這又引申到山中提出的問題：
A good political question: An effective scoundrel or an ineffective moralist, which would be your pick for public office?
You are mistaken. I am not a supporter of the Liberal Party, nor am I a politician. On the contrary, I have always been a staunch supporter of the ALP, until I became disillusioned. I have nothing to do with politics. I am only an ordinary citizen who long for a good government, at both state and Federal level. My point is: unless further evidence is unfolded, to conclude that O'Farrell is corrupt based on the fact that he had received a bottle of wine from Di Girolamo, who was later offered a position is unreasonable. The gift needs to be of a value high enough to influence the receiver to constitute an offer of bribe. O'Farrell could have received the wine without getting into trouble by declaring it, but he did not. I would not label O'Farrell as a 'grafter' or 'scoundrel', at least not at this stage. In the legal world, judgments need to be based on evidence. Lastly, the problem here with the government is about 'competency' not 'effectiveness'.
回覆刪除It matters not if I have mistaken. I may have been unrealistic to judge the matter applying the HK standard. The Grange alone is enough to hold O'Farrell for a corruption charge let alone other evidence the public do not get hold of. I am of course not so naive to believe only the wine is involved. If the case has gone to court, I will talk with you the criminal standard of proof. It has not but the suspicion is strengthened by his dilberate lie in the public inquiries and the chronology of events. Then we are back to square one, to face the dilemma posted by monwithin. To me, irrespective of whichever party is in power, I observe the rule of law. I am not surprised we have a different mindset because I have seen more crooks than you do and I know more tricks. I think with a criminal mind. I never like the toothless operation of the ICAC here. When I read your comment, I did not want to reply because I know we speak different languages. I did not try to persuade you to think like me. I know it is not easy.
刪除The point is, my erudite friends: We know not if O'Farrell is "legally" corrupt but we do know O'Farrell is dodgy.
刪除Your average punter does not associate qualities such as "honorable", "noble" with people of dodgy character.
I would say he actually lied. He is more than dodgy. I don't think he always drinks Grange of his birth year. There is no reason he would not remember he received one. He can remember until he suffers from dementia. Why did he lie then? He had something to hide. He even tried not to mention the presence of Girolamo at the fund raising dinner. He tried to distance himself from the allegation. He deliberate lied to cover up. The wine was sent to his home instead of his office to hide the trail. It was not difficult to declare receiving gift of such value. Why didn't he? He was accepting advantage. I am not sure about the ICAC legislation here. He may as well be guilty of lying under oath or lying in the ICAC public inquiry. I have to check the ICAC Act 1988 of NSW legislation.
刪除I am so happy to see Bill's commetaty on this topic sounding a lot more realistic and human --"The Grange alone is enough to hold O'Farrell for a corruption charge let alone other evidence the public do not get hold of. I am of course not so naive to believe only the wine is involved. If the case has gone to court, I will talk with you the criminal standard of proof.".
回覆刪除Maybe he is too fed up with Hk or he is using a greater wisdom when he is analysising others'commentaries re matters in HK. He apprepreciates the lack of evidence gathering ability on the part of the public. The same is to a large degree everywhere but obviously more so in places where there is no accountability or there is black gold politics. The repoters in HK can't all join ICIJ and produce evidence. Yes many a time they rsise noises without much foundation but sometimes that's all they can do.
what pointless dribble ....
回覆刪除At times I learn to be taciturn without refuting, retorting or rebutting. Just sit back and let people say what they want to say or criticise if it soothes their nerves. After all there is no absolute right or wrong. There is only substance or the devoid of it.
刪除