2016年4月27日星期三

陳章明, 香港人同你主管好熟

收陳章明「私人電郵」提「同你主管很熟」 何式凝:好唔舒服,點解會有咁嘅平機會主席? (14:45)

平機會主席陳章明本月初上任後,被揭發任職嶺大教授期間,在無申報下替與國力書院合作的菲律賓太歷國立大學(TSU),擔任博士論文導師及收取報酬。曾批評他的港大社會工作及社會行政學系副教授何式凝,昨晚在facebook發帖,指陳數日前以平機會的電郵地址,向她發出「私人電郵」回應批評,內容提到陳章明與何式凝的部門主管很熟。

何式凝今早在商台節目回應時直言感到「好唔舒服」,「第一下收到我係好shock (震驚),唔知點樣反應,睇到尾見到話識我啲同事,好唔舒服。點解你會講呢啲嘢嘅?點解會牽涉到有其他人?」

至於平機會解釋,該電郵旨在表達陳章明一些想法,而電郵中提及何式凝數名同事,是因為他們曾與陳章明共事,對其為人及過往工作較了解,希望藉此減少何式凝對陳章明出任平機會主席一職的疑慮,不過何式凝今早指:「佢講畀我聽佢識咁多人,其實真係好驚架,因為佢真係識好多人架嘛。我地位同佢真係有一個分別,(提呢樣嘢)好唔啱」。

何式凝續說,平機會主席應保障市民公開發表意見時更安全,而非更有壓力,質疑陳章明作為平機會主席,為何這樣對待一名女子,「點解我哋會有一個咁樣嘅平機會主席呢?」

她重申,平機會主席最重要是做事公開透明,尊重每一名香港市民聲音,及保障他們聲音不受威嚇,又建議陳章明溝通應公開,「千祈唔好再寫(電郵)畀我」。
(27/4/2016明報即時新聞)

我寫無恥之恥一文罵過平機會主席陳章明, 原來他不只無恥, 以上這則新聞證明這人是卑鄙小人, 我希望何式凝教授可以公開陳章明寫給她的電郵, 這件事已不是私人信件涉保障私隱的問題, 而是他涉嫌以陰險手段叫人噤聲。平等機會委員會的職能是推行平等機會的法例及 

…致力以持平、公正、公平和客觀的態度履行此法定的角色,謹守不偏不倚的立場處事,而並非為投訴個案的任何一方的倡導者。

以上是平機會網頁的描述。作為它的主席, 行事最基本也要給人一種能捍衛公平公正的印象, 何式凝教授作為學者, 批評一個任公職受薪為巿民服務的公眾人物, 是很平常不過的事。何況何教授是搞社會行政的, 她所批評的是她學術範疇的事, 如果陳章明對批評有辯解, 他可以公開答辯, 也可私下寫信給何教授解釋, 甚至約會面談。陳章明只需對批評作解釋, 何以能夠扯上與何教授的部門主管熟不熟的問題? Totally irrelevant! 這種寫法不是有意無意的威嚇, 還可以有甚麼interpretation? 當然有, 譬如: 阿姐, 我識你老細架, 畀下面, 咪插得咁勁。又或者是: 阿姐, 咪咁寸, 我同你老細係老死, 我打你兩針會好應架, 你收口喇。

為免何教授誤會陳章明的意思, 公開那篇電郵, 待大眾主持公道, 尤其是讓標少看下, 等我寫一兩篇評論, 從表面看, there is prima facie case of intimidation. 威嚇不一定要用明顯威嚇詞語, 等如收「陀地」的人會說給你做保安, 而不是講收保護費。如果有個細路喺街孬, 街坊師奶話我認得你, 我識你阿媽架, 你估係乜意思? 何況何教授無孬, 陳師奶做乜話識人哋阿媽啫?

陳章明這種心智心態, 嘴臉像條狗的人, 還有資格繼續做平機會主席嗎? 做聯誼會主席, 專招攬師奶那種就差不多, 到其時他就可以對阿乜師奶講我識阿乜師奶架, 見到這個師奶就獻殷勤, 見到那個就叫靚女, 見一個就奉承一個。咿, 做婦女會咪啱晒, 做無知婦女會主席囉, 做乜平機會啫?

我見慣這種人, 也見慣樂於接受奉承的人, 不過這種人不能擔當公職。陳章明極其量只能返歸做教授, 這種人只懂私相授受, 全無公信力, 也無公平意識, 他有公平認知困難。受到批評就搞小動作, 試圖威嚇, 做幕後黑手。希望有認識何式凝教授的人請她公開這電郵, 我願替她寫幾篇評論。

梁振英窮途末路, 連保皇傳媒成報也炮轟他。(話時話成報昨日個社論好似參考咗我三星期前婆娘猛於虎那一篇, 講選特首也要選婆娘) 他的家人給他一籮問題, 他任命的人又送他一籮一籮的問題。他的支持度很快就會是零, 還以為自己可以化腐朽為神奇, 真的要這樣, 第一件事是叫他的婆娘不要出家門, 也不要穿紅衣, 第二件事炒了那個年薪三百幾萬不能統籌新聞的專員及不懂搞教育的教育局長, 第三件事就是炒幾個臭名遠播的公職人員, 他的民望就會反彈。公職人員中, 第一個就應炒了陳章明, 便立竿見影了。我好同意曾鈺成講, 梁振英心胸狹窄, 任用小人。如果開死因庭來研究這政府失敗的地方, 這就是主要的死因。

28 則留言:

  1. "陳章明極其量只能返歸做教授"
    若然陳章明真係如此為人,恐怕亦唔適合做教授.
    做看更,更有利於社會.

    要爆料應該爆得公平D,期待何式凝公開電節全文.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 確實應該公開電郵, 已涉公眾利益的討論。

      刪除
  2. According to Prof. Ho's articles https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E9%99%B3%E7%AB%A0%E6%98%8E%E7%B5%A6%E6%88%91%E7%9A%84-%E7%A7%81%E4%BA%BA-%E9%9B%BB%E9%83%B5/ and https://thestandnews.com/politics/%E9%99%B3%E7%AB%A0%E6%98%8E%E7%B5%A6%E6%88%91%E7%9A%84-%E7%A7%81%E4%BA%BA%E9%9B%BB%E9%83%B5%E7%BA%8C/ , she did ask 陳章明 whether she could disclose the email, but he said no, saying that it is "private communication – as personal information involving a third party was mentioned ..."

    PLK

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Thanks. Just read. The ulterior motive is a tacit intimidation. There is absolutely no need to mention Prof Ho's colleagues at all unless her colleagues and superior were also involved in the non-disclosure of Chan's outside work case. The mentioning of these people semantically in the email is neutral but taking the circumstances into account, it is a persuasion cum intimidation. He is guilty of misconduct though not in a criminal sense. I hope that Prof Ho should disregard his request of secrecy and disclose the email for public scrutiny. Chan chose the EOC email account to send to Prof Ho in response to her public criticism of the former's integrity, it is a public matter. Prof Ho has every justification to disclose it.

      刪除
    2. Ho had disclosed part of the email (although she did not disclose the names mentioned in Chan's email), it is interesting why she did not disclose the entire email. It is not logical to say that because Chan told her not to, then she complied. If she "respected" Chan's opionion so much, it begs the question why she disclosed part of the email in the first place without asking Chan.

      Several months ago, Prof Ho had written in her fb which was then published in Stand News that she had applied for promotion. It is unusual for an academic to publicize his or her applicaiton for promotion. Months had passed and now she said that she feared that the email from Chan would/might jeopardize her applciation. I wonder if there was something "tacit" in her action as well.

      Having said that, I am not suggesting that what Chan had done was not problematic.

      BJ

      刪除
    3. I would not publicize whether I apply for promotion. It is a rather personal matter. The public should not be involved in this kind of personnel matter. My comment here pinpointed on the impropriety of Chan rather than Prof Ho. She owes the public a duty of a full disclosure after half-heartedly raised the issue.

      刪除
    4. "My comment here pinpointed on the impropriety of Chan rather than Prof Ho." - Yes, I know.

      "She owes the public a duty of a full disclosure after half-heartedly raised the issue." - Yes, I agree.

      That she publicized her application for promotion months ago and now wrote in her article on Chan's email "..... 4. 他位高權重,認識港大高層和校監梁特首,我申請升職的事會不會像陳文敏一樣,一波三折呢?" (Stand News) does suggest that she wanted the public to pay attention to her application and the eventual outcome, and should the outcome be negative, to link the outcome to Chan's email.

      BJ

      刪除
    5. In that case we have to scrutinize her ability too. But, why do we have to bother? I am not too interested to find out who she is and how many papers she publishes to attain accreditation. She has an ulterior motive too.

      刪除
  3. http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20160428/bkn-20160428114123800-0428_00822_001.html

    政Whats噏:何君堯法庭內自拍 自稱無犯法

    律師會前會長何君堯,涉嫌違法在高等法院大樓內拍照。身兼律師的屯門區議員何君堯,於社交網站上載一張在高等法院大樓內自拍的照片,並寫有「培叔忍耐呀!」據知,日前何君堯的律師行曾就套丁案,為被判監3年的發展商李欽培申請保釋等候上訴被拒。

    據知,若有特別批准,是可以在法庭內拍照。何君堯回覆查詢時指出,在法院大樓內的等候區域可以拍照,而在法庭內就不能拍照,他舉例指,逢周六有新進律師宣誓就職時,亦會在等候區域拍照。

    根據《簡易程序治罪條例》,在法庭內拍攝可處罰款250港元,任何照片,如果是在法庭或舉行聆訊的建築物或其範圍內拍攝,須當作是在法庭內拍攝。

    Billsiu, my view is that except on admissions days (when it is customary for leave to take photos to be granted), taking photos inside the High Court Building, even if within waiting areas or in the lift lobby, is both a crime and a act in contempt of court, so that Solicitor Junius Ho was wrong and should be prosecuted.

    What do you think?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. I would have thought he did commit the offence. I wrote a blog called 法庭拍攝(14/7/2014), there was some brief discussion. In his case, he was within the precinct of the High Court Building.

      刪除
    2. Solicitor Junius Ho is a complete idiot then: -

      http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20160428/55040951

      【法庭selfie】何君堯唔認錯拒刪相 司法機構交警方跟進

      律師會前會長在高院大樓內自拍,並發聲明堅稱自己沒有違法。不過,司法機構發言人晚上回覆《蘋果》查詢時表示,根據香港法例第228章《簡易程序治罪條例》,除非獲得特別許可,任何人士不得在法庭或舉行聆訊的建築物或其範圍內拍攝。

      發言人又稱,一般而言,法庭內不可攝影。至於法庭外的公眾等候區,只有在獲得特別許可下,例如在舉行委任儀式後,才可在該處攝影。發言人表示,司法機構已將有關事件轉交警方跟進和處理。

      警方表示,中區警署今日下午6時35分,接獲一名女職員報案,指懷疑有人在其位於金鐘道的法院內拍照。案件列作「求警協助」,交由中區警區人員跟進。

      何君堯晚上出席一個論壇時,被同場的講者包括民主黨區諾軒和熱血公民鄭松泰當面質疑他知法犯法.

      刪除
    3. Maybe his legal knowledge is not sound.

      刪除
    4. I also think Junius Ho is just being reckless and ignorant. I am not entirely sure how he passed his law exams.

      http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20160429/19591185

      香港律師會前會長何君堯昨日在其個人facebook,上載一張於法庭外、但在法院範圍內的自拍照,涉嫌知法犯法,引起公眾譁然。何君堯事後發表聲明力撐有關照片並沒有構成違法成份。司法機構發言人表示,已經將有關事件轉交警方跟進,根據《簡易程序治罪條例》,除非獲得特別許可,任何人士不得在法庭或法院範圍內拍攝。

      何君堯在個人facebook上載的庭外自拍照,圖片說明寫上「在28庭內,未見成功,先見其母!培叔忍耐呀!」相信是攝於高院大樓內的第28庭門外,有關新界原居民「套丁案」被裁定串謀詐騙罪成的丁屋發展商李欽培日前申請保釋等候上訴案件。

      網民:律師牌淘番嚟?

      何君堯事後發聲明指自己上載該照片「絕無任何惡意或對法庭不敬的含意」,《簡易程序治罪條例》是針對會對法庭內審訊程序構成干擾的不恰當行為;他又稱,自己有習慣用facebook這類社交媒體,分享他的社交和工作花絮,今次拍照沒有任何貶意或藐視,「我影張相純粹想抒發一個感受」。

      司法機構發言人回覆本報查詢則指出,已經將有關事件轉交警方跟進和處理。根據《簡易程序治罪條例》,除非獲得特別許可,任何人士不得在法庭或舉行聆訊的建築物或其範圍內拍攝。一般而言,法庭內不可以攝影;至於法庭外的公眾等候區,只有在獲得特別許可下,例如在舉行委任儀式後,才可以在該處攝影。

      大律師陸偉雄表示,如周六新律師認可儀式等日子,當日律師及其親友可以合法地在法庭內拍照,否則屬犯法;一經定罪可判罰款250元。

      警方回覆指,中區警署昨傍晚6時35分接獲一名女職員報案,指懷疑有人在其位於中區金鐘道的法院內拍照。案件列作求警協助,交由中區警區人員跟進。

      何君堯事件曝光後,社民連副主席黃浩銘在facebook表示,已經去信警務處處長舉報及會向律師會投訴。網民恥笑何君堯,並質疑他的法律知識不足,更有人在何君堯的facebook留言問「你個律師牌淘寶淘番嚟的?」

      刪除
  4. 陳 如果夠信心的話都應該(搶先)自己公開電郵

    陳 投射給公衆的形象迄今爲止都很不濟;照道理他也是經遴選委員會揀出來,梁 雖然予人感覺他天生就喜歡千金買骨,但正常情況也不會micro-manage遴選委員會的工作;還是他真系好黑仔

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 對此我也不知所以然。

      刪除
    2. 韋小寶搖頭道:「。。。。。。。我不當香主,什麼事都馬馬虎虎;一當上了,人人都來雞蛋來尋骨頭,不用半天,馬上完蛋大吉。」陳近南道:「雞蛋裡沒骨頭,人家要尋也尋不著。」韋小寶道:「雞蛋要變小雞,就有骨頭了。就算沒骨頭,人家來尋的時候,先把我蛋殼打破了再說,搞得蛋黃蛋白,一塌糊塗。」

      Leung's enemies are out there 24x7 to get him, whichever way they can.

      If you throw enough shit against a wall, some of it has gotta stick.

      刪除
    3. Supposing it is a smear campaign or a cluster of such campaigns, are there facts to substantiate enmity?

      刪除

    4. Who knows what the facts are regarding this matter but what I do know that public figures or people who have ulterior motives speak half-truths.

      One thing that is bleedingly obvious is that Leung's enemies are becoming increasingly hysterical.

      刪除
    5. Whether you like or dislike Leung, I agree many of the issues raised against Leung cannot be seen in a rational society. Hysterical is probably a very appropriate word to describe the situation.

      刪除
  5. 謊言說上一千遍,就會成為真理. 真係好多人唔想梁振英連任. 為香港好? 現在的情況和2003年迫老董下台的抺黑工程很相似. 看到那些泛民 尤其公民黨,教協,記協的所作所為, 那些如果只看生果報, 立埸等報導,梁振英直情係香港人殺父仇人.
    ea

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 話雖如此, 梁振英也有不少責任導致這局面。

      刪除
  6. The amount of shit/personal abuses thrown at Leung is beyond the tolerance of a civil society. Some of those scholars, professionals,seemingly respectable people in the society, even the so called 讀書人 have no limits.

    Yes, there are likes of Alan Jones, Rad Hadley in Australia but can you imagine them having a regular slot on the ABC - equivalent of 香港電台 ?

    ".....在彭定康手裏,還創立了傳媒一些組織,以便控制傳媒,此外還極力推廣「香港文化」,即是去中國化的文化。在彭定康之前,已經在美術界實行香港化,將呂壽琨捧成爵士,他的弟子控制香港藝術組織,其後,則是準備推出「香港音樂」,所以香港電台大捧林樂培,在彭定康手裏,則捧「香港語音」,由劉殿爵的「時奸」開始,延續至回歸後的何文滙,香港電台便是他們的電台。彭定康時的香港電台大捧政府,回歸後的香港電台,雖然是政府組織,但卻是政府的對頭人,董建華一上場,諷刺他的節目便不斷出現,這些情形亦正是蠱。

    王亭之還可以證明,英國、美國人都想搞一份報紙,專門針對中國與回歸後的特區政府。1993年王亭之準備離港赴加拿大,在上機前一晚,一個傳媒人於半夜敲門來訪,叫王亭之留下,因為搞報紙的事已水到渠成,準備買廠房、買機器、買寫字樓,計劃聘王亭之為總編輯、徐東濱(王延芝)為總主筆、李怡為副總主筆兼新聞採訪主管。王亭之坦白地問他,辦這份報紙有甚麼目的?來人說,當然是先提高公信力,然後對付共產黨。他同時透露外國人給出來的利益很大,整間報館的股份就歸我們幾個人所有,等於每人送一筆錢,而且還可以月月支高薪,因為每年都有津貼。王亭之回答他,對有政治目的的報紙沒有興趣。如若不然,恐怕香港老早就有一份「雪梨日報」(王亭之吸煙多,所以日日食天津雪梨)。"

    回覆刪除
  7. Correction:

    "The amount of shit/personal abuses thrown at Leung in TRADITIONAL MEDIA is beyond the tolerance of a civil society. Some of those scholars, professionals,seemingly respectable people in the society, even the so called 讀書人 have no limits."

    回覆刪除
  8. Haha there are quite a few spin doctors staying in here now, and so you guys can help Leung to change the situation?

    Luckily the HKers have short term memories only and can be easily bored by a single piece of news. So the airport incident should die down soon......unless TSA finds interesting stuff.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Count me out. It won't be my intention to bail him out. I just make comments. One matter dies, another matter will revive.

      刪除
    2. Count me out as well. Not my duties to help him。

      是其是,非其非 is the approach I would take towards Leung or his enermies.

      刪除
  9. 不懂搞教育的教育局長.......近日幫手宣傳某項慈善機構的活動,同場有教育局人員問慈善機構負責人:"下次活動需唔需要我老闆出來幫手宣傳?" 大家即時呆了數秒鐘,我想大家當時都有一個相同的念頭:"唔得掂?不是吧!!???唔好玩啦!" 之後,該人員發覺大家的反應就喃喃自語:"咁呢排又係風頭火勢既...." 之後有人提議不一定是局長,副局,常秘也可以,最後當然不了了之.......

    又另一場合,這次真的是堅∙副局長突然到場為與會者講話打氣,最少我感受唔到與會者有明顯的反感,反而有唔少女性同情他的處境.很難想像出現的是真∙吳得掂的話,大家會有咩反應.本來蜀中無大將,bill少舉果幾個就連廖化也不是.

    八叔公字

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 儘管廖化能力一般, 連一般能力也沒有的人也出來做就是「吳」化了。

      刪除