2015年9月19日星期六

三談超然的特首

上一篇有讀者把一篇中國法學博士的文章張貼給我看,這篇文嘗試替張曉明的超然論申辯,我只評論兩點。該文的作者講過這兩段説話 :

行政长官在基本法上应当被视为是一个机关,而不是个人。作为一个机关,行政长官的地位高于行政立法司法机关.....

基本法第73条规定的弹劾程序隐含了行政长官的刑事豁免权。否则,当行政长官严重违法时,一方面立法会委托终审法院首席法官负责组成独立的调查委员会进行调查,同时法院又对行政长官严重违法展开司法程序。这两者是存在矛盾冲突的......

第一個論述可笑,行政長官當然是一個有血有肉的人,而不是一個機關,我相信連張曉明也想反駁他。《基本法》第四十四條已講明了行政長官要足40歲,連續居港20年,無外國居留權的香港永久性居民的中國公民,這博士怎能視其為機關。行政、立法和司法都是機關,一則裏面包含不同崗位的人,再者《基本法》第四章講政治體制時,分别每一節講行政長官、行政機關、立法機關、司法機關等。如果行政長官不是一個人,而是一團人,豈不是要改名為行政長官機關。這種辯證叫歪理愈辯愈黑。

第二點也是莫名其妙的論述。如果發生在大陸,高官犯法,除了定罪判刑外,共產黨也會在法庭判決以外開除其黨籍。香港而言,法律上並没有一條講行政長官犯法便要自動辭職。如果行政長官自己駕車違反交通條例,公眾可能只會批評他而不會要求他辭職。如果他嚴重違法,被法庭定罪,但他厚顏無恥,不肯辭職,就可運用《基本法》第七十三條(九)來制衡他,那是法庭判決以外的懲處,就好像公務員違法被定罪後要另外面臨紀律處分那樣。法庭把公務員定罪,也無權革除他的職務,這正是香港法治的特質。如果這位法律博士把《基本法》第七十三條對行政長官的彈劾權視作隱含刑事豁免權,那麼公務員會因犯法面臨紀律處分,也視作刑事豁免權了?這種不理解香港法制的博士是否有資格插嘴替張曉明助拳呢?概念混亂不清,愈抹愈黑。


18 則留言:

  1. thanks billsiu for your answer to my previous question. may I ask you another one?
    When and why will D admit the fact that a charge was committed under s65C CPO?
    A million thanks.

    回覆刪除
  2. What do you think about this? http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20150919/19301806 - 上訴人李仲樑(35歲)報稱為獨木舟教練兼童軍領袖,早前被裁定企圖導致另一人賣淫罪成判囚33個月。原審法官稱李負責招攬少女賣淫,透過電話應用程式與卧底女警聯絡。李不服定罪提出上訴,案件昨在上訴庭審理。
    代表大律師梁禮浩陳詞指,上訴人沒意圖促使他人賣淫,案發時只想「試鐘」滿足私慾,又指如果兩名卧底有想做妓女的可能性,便不構成上訴人促使他人賣淫。上訴庭副庭長楊振權聽罷即提出質疑,惟梁仍堅稱「唔可以排除任何可能性」。楊官皺眉回應稱:「荒謬,可能性都係荒謬!」又着梁不用再闡述此上訴理據。楊官裁定梁指卧底女警或想當妓女的說法是「無稽之談」,認為上訴人犯案時唯一目的就是希望女警接客,所作所為已構成促使二字,遂駁回上訴申請。 - 案件編號:CACC17/15

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. OMG, modern advocacy? This barrister was called only in 2013 and already accepted a brief to go to CA. Wow. Was it the sole reason for him to be so bold to advance such a ground for appeal.

      刪除
    2. 梁禮浩大律師話卧底女警有想做妓女嘅可能性又真係幾荒謬。佢係咪弱智㗎!不如話女警可能係男人或者係外星人?卧底女警可能係梁振英扮㗎添!荒謬!

      刪除
    3. Barrister Lawton Leung should never have made that absurd submission in Court - "To offer a submission of this calibre is to treat a court with blunt discourtesy. To assume that this type of argument is acceptable fare is to demean the profession, and is profoundly to misapprehend the function of this Court. Whilst this example is a particularly bad one of its kind, it is worth saying, lest it be thought otherwise by a few, that it is not this Court's function to absorb and suffer in silence the articulation by counsel of whatever notion, regardless of merit, comes to counsel's mind. It is of course counsel's duty fearlessly to represent his client, but that duty is one that is exercised professionally. Counsel has a responsibility to the court as well as to the client, and it is emphatically a breach of that responsibility, as well as a waste of public funds, to advance an argument which counsel must - and certainly should - know is patently unarguable." - HKSAR v. MA SIU CHIU (CACC 605 / 2002 - 11/12/2003)

      刪除
  3. 希望標標容許我再在此帖貼一次以下說話, 傳播一下正確政治知識:

    作者說「地位」上行政長官是最高的, 我認為是對的。的確, 根據43條, 行政長官是特區的代表 (非指行政機關), 亦即是head of region, 地位有如國家的head of state (如英女皇在英國和一些國家的地位)。然而這只是像徽式的地位, 沒有甚麼實際權力。如果以這一點來混淆視聽, 讓人覺得特首在法律上有甚麼超然的權力地位, 便是不對。

    陽劍文
    (https://www.facebook.com/youngkimmon/) 有討論歡迎找我

    回覆刪除
  4. 陳凱文 "香港奉行三權分立? 先看清《基本法》條文再說": "所謂三權分立,並不單純是指政府內有行政、立法和司法三個權力機關,而是三權必須能互相制衡才算。在這情況下,香港並非三權分立,政治現實 (de facto) 上更不可能是,特首在法理上還擁有一些超然於三權之上的權力。"

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. It depends on how you define Separation of Powers. They are independent of each other and one cannot usurp the function of another yet they are some what interrelated. If we apply the same criteria to measure, probably there is no argument. It looks like no one has defined Separation of Powers at the outset before embroiling into argument. I would say what the Basic Law stipulated has already demonstrated Separation of Powers. There is already a check and balance and enough safeguards to tyranny and excessive exercise of power. You may call it a different name but in essence all the salient features are there.

      刪除
  5. 在共產黨暴力恐嚇下苟延殘喘的港人, 其中某些奴性深重的挖空心思,千方百計,近乎歇斯底里地合理化legitimize專制獨裁的統治, 窮凶極惡又極其可笑地欺騙着自己, “香港勝在有法治” 。

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Why don't you just suffocate yourself and drop death if you have to painfully survive under the atrocious reign? Why do you still breathe to blah blah blah? You sound like Maro or his cronies who have the lunacy of creating slogans. I will have you terminated if you continue to talk without substance. You are just a communist in disguise, in linguistics and semantics.

      刪除
    2. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:32

      刪除
  6. 識得睇文章,就睇埋這篇:
    《三權之上的超然地位的邏輯》
    http://unclessays.com/2015/09/17/%e4%b8%89%e6%ac%8a%e4%b9%8b%e4%b8%8a%e7%9a%84%e8%b6%85%e7%84%b6%e5%9c%b0%e4%bd%8d%e7%9a%84%e9%82%8f%e8%bc%af/

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 簡單幾句文章,不值得睇嗎? 有points.

      刪除
    2. 這是個識字就可以寫文,識講嘢就可發表演說的年代,所以文章和論述氾濫,兩隻眼看不了這麽多,只能選擇自己覺得值得的去看,我也尊重别人的發言權,故此不隨便批評。這篇文我看過了,不是我口味及層次的文章,不想批評,它一開始就犯了稻草人謬誤。謝謝。

      刪除
  7. 在 "口罩黨,佔中黨,狗烏黨“暴力恐嚇下苟延殘喘的港人, 其中某些奴性深重的挖空心思,千方百計,近乎歇斯底里地合理化legitimize 專門搞破壞,搗亂,犯法的行爲, 窮凶極惡又極其可笑地欺騙着自己, “為香港人爭取民主與法治” 。 pc

    回覆刪除