省長辭職公佈的全文在此(full text), 其中幾段我頗有意見:
My resignation as Premier could not happen at a worse time, but the timing is completely outside of my control as the ICAC has chosen to take this action during the most challenging weeks of the most challenging times in the history of NSW.
That is the ICAC’s prerogative. Resigning at this time is against every instinct in my being and something which I do not want to do, I love my job, and serving the community, but I have been given no option following the statement issued.
To continue as Premier would disrupt the state government during a time when our entire attention should be focused on the challenges confronting NSW. I do not want to be a distraction from what should be the focus of the state government during this pandemic, which is the wellbeing of our citizens.
That is the ICAC’s prerogative. Resigning at this time is against every instinct in my being and something which I do not want to do, I love my job, and serving the community, but I have been given no option following the statement issued.
To continue as Premier would disrupt the state government during a time when our entire attention should be focused on the challenges confronting NSW. I do not want to be a distraction from what should be the focus of the state government during this pandemic, which is the wellbeing of our citizens.
上面引述幾段可以看到省長在打民意牌, 塑造出自己勤政愛民慘被ICAC迫害的形像, 其實去年第一次聽證播出錄音內容, 她就應該辭職, 但她沒有。反對黨在議會提不信任動議卻不夠票通過, 她可能以為抗疫轉移了視線可以淡化事件, ICAC郤鍥而不捨。今天黨友對她的辭職都感到惋惜和意外, 對她充滿溢美之言, 間接打擊ICAC對她的調查, 看起來有點荒謬, 本末倒置了。
Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission (Qld CCC)
Western Australian (WA) Corruption and Crime Commission
Tasmanian Integrity Commission
Victorian Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission
South Australian (SA) Independent Commission Against Corruption
各省的ICAC或類似組織的職能完全不是香港那種形式, 雖然新省在80年代成立ICAC前向香港取經, 當年成立的目的是執政的自由黨想向工黨議員開刀, 到頭來至今反而是第3個自由黨省長因ICAC而辭職。這裏的ICAC是沒有拘捕權的, 所以不會請人去飲咖啡, 查到政客不端行為就展開聽證會, 然後轉介給DPP考慮檢控。南澳洲上星期甚至通過法案限制ICAC的職能, 進一步保障政客的利益。一個自由民主社會, 為甚麼怕成立獨立自主的ICAC, 好像要輪流執莊, 輪流貪贓, 政客似乎以魚肉百姓為己任。
三段, 全漏空丟失了"and yet..",
回覆刪除隱去因果.
*
這人, 看來本性如此.
BBTW
他的本性已經十分明顯，不用分析，頭腦簡單，要力無力，要智無智，只有…嘻嘻
刪除維國從來沒有人貪污
回覆刪除我是王,我便是法
睇完ABC 730，州長明顯在wagga wagga 批錢時有鬆手嘅
回覆刪除其實誰都知道，記協與壹傳媒有千絲萬縷的關係，甚至可以毫不誇張地說，某些人根本就是黎智英豢養的走狗。如今主人已鋃鐺入獄，《蘋果日報》壽終正寢，壹傳媒也即將全部收檔，記協還能囂張多久？
回覆刪除記協還能囂張多久？
https://orientaldaily.on.cc/content/%E8%A6%81%E8%81%9E%E6%B8%AF%E8%81%9E/odn-20211002-1002_00184_004/%E5%BC%B7%E8%A9%9E%E6%9C%89%E7%90%86%EF%BC%9A%E8%A8%98%E5%8D%94%E9%82%84%E8%83%BD%E5%9B%82%E5%BC%B5%E5%A4%9A%E4%B9%85
//記協 ..... 即時跳出來批評指引措詞含糊，並稱傳媒運作「在於上下級的真誠溝通，而非單向地尋求指示」云云。
刪除跳出來張牙舞爪, 說話根本不合邏輯.
不想聽, 貼個措詞含糊標籤,
對應有之義, 先轉成「尋求、指示」, 再胡亂強調,
就是一直背離措守、自把自為, 還好意思說真誠溝通,
上下級???? 哈哈, 肯寫這三字, 奇葩
R
其實省長作為移民第二代，佢嘅成長故事係好勵志。可惜人總未必敵得過寂莫，以致做咗一啲外人看似愚蠢的事。
回覆刪除是地方太發達不夠電用?
回覆刪除還是不夠發達所以不夠電用?
又一個世界第一
看!沒電上線 這裡留言又少了
他們連賺幾毛的機會也沒了
坦言集：中國轉變
回覆刪除中國的經濟政策正似進行大的轉型轉向。
鄧小平、江澤民時代是經濟市場化、私有化來推動增長，「少數人富起來」的口號代表了經濟的發展戰略。當時是求量不求質，為的是迅速經濟發展，趕上世界。胡錦濤時代是一個過渡，開始體會到量化增長的毛病，轉提出可持續發展，可是缺乏強大政治力量，未能扭轉市場化帶來的巨大變化，和對社會體制的衝擊，貪腐崇洋反成主流。
習近平時代還在開展，卻已是全面針對市場化的流弊作出調整。一方面進一步落實胡錦濤時代提出的可持續發展，更細化為環保及氣候變遷的具體政策，強制執行。另一方面，可持續的發展要求社會包容、社會平等與公義，便把少數人富起來的目標轉移為共同富裕，打擊貪腐，和精準扶貧。美國的政治壓迫以及新冠疫情，都使中國重新反思一直以來的發展戰略。
量化經濟增長在市場主導之下，必然隨利潤率的推移轉變，走上歐美非工業化、金融化的道路，帶來社會分化，經濟增長乏力，也導致種種政治、社會和生態問題。氣候變遷問題在全球已趨惡化，中國不能視若無睹，或以後發者要求特殊待遇。中國全球化經濟已與世界成敗唇齒相依，中國作為全球經濟增長的主要推動者，便不得不承擔上國際責任。中國要捨量化增長，轉為質量、環保為主的增長模式。這也與共同富裕的政府干預、進行再分配的要求相配合。
新冠肺炎疫情的蔓延顯示個人化市場政策的缺陷，即使一國自主的戰略，也不能防禦公共衞生全球化格局的衝擊，中國「一帶一路」的戰略便不能犯重商主義的失誤。為了中國和其他國家的共同安全和發展，中國需走上人類命運共同體的方向，把共同富裕的方針擴及他國。即使受到歐美反對，中國還可逐步的以區域合作發展，帶領各國抗拒「美國優先」的惡性攻擊。中國不應韜光養晦，也不能明哲保身，只能挺身而出，與其他國家人民一起捍衞世界的安全。
事實上，近年美國反恐失敗，軍事與經濟霸權衰落，新冠疫情打擊全球，美國以外的不少國家和社會已開始反思本國與世界發展的戰略與方向，捨棄資本主義的極端模式。歐洲以至南美的社會民主主義的左傾，正顯示這樣的變化。在轉變中，中國是推動者，也同樣是會受益於其他國家的轉變，互動地共同進步。
研究所所長 陳文鴻
身為研究員、什麼研究所, 陳文鴻出奇地後覺, 脫不掉西方話語,
刪除不瞭解中共長期計劃的發揮, 對中共行為來龍去脈拿捏不準.
R
Hong Kong Barrister Dorothy Cheung (張曉惠大律師) of Garden Chambers dishonestly or otherwise knowingly gave false evidence under oath before Barnes J in HCCC 312/2017 [2018] HKCFI 2711, resulting in her being disbelieved by Barnes J. Hong Kong Barrister Dorothy Cheung had thereby acted in breach of paragraph 4.1(b) of the Bar Code.
回覆刪除https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=119316&currpage=T
Comments?
http://www.scmp.com/article/307891/barrister-barred-deceiving-university
回覆刪除Lawyer Counsel Barrister George Chu Barred for Deceiving University - comments?
Lawyer Counsel Barrister George Chu (朱奉慈大律師) has been suspended for six months after a disciplinary tribunal found he pretended to have a first class honours degree when applying for a scholarship at the University of Hong Kong.
George Chu Fung-chee, admitted to the Bar in 1994, also breached a promise to the university not to operate as a barrister once he became a post-graduate student, the Barristers' Disciplinary Tribunal found.
The suspension was the longest to be imposed since 1996, and the tribunal took the unusual step of ordering that its findings be sent to the Secretary for Justice, Director of Legal Aid, the Law Society and all barristers.
Bar Association chairman Ronny Tong Ka-wah SC, said it had recently started requesting the tribunal to order publication of this kind in appropriate cases.
'There is an educational element in the decisions themselves,' he said.
'There is also a need for an increase in transparency in the profession. Those of us who have unfortunately committed disciplinary offences should be made known to the public.' Referring to Mr Chu's suspension, Mr Tong said: 'This is a serious case. In these circumstances it is only right that it be made known.' Bar Association honorary secretary Ambrose Ho said further changes which would make disciplinary decisions more transparent were being considered, but they might require amending current laws.
'We hope that by publishing the details of a conviction it might help our own members in complying with our regulations,' he said.
Mr Chu, whose suspension began on February 1 2000, was found guilty in relation to five complaints of professional misconduct.
He was convicted of falsely stating that his degree in economics and political science, awarded by the University of Waterloo, in Canada, was a first class honours degree.
The misrepresentation was used to support an application for admission to the university in March 1997, for post-graduate studentship in early September 1997, and for a scholarship at the end of that month.
He was also found to have worked as a barrister in September and October 1997, despite promising the university he would not, and signing an eligibility document stating he was not engaged in paid employment.
Mr Chu has the right to appeal against the tribunal's decision in the Court of Appeal.
He could not be contacted for comment.
Disgusting Barrister Christopher To Sacked by HKU for Offensive Sex Comments in Class - Comments?
回覆刪除https://hongkongfp.com/2017/09/25/hku-law-department-replaces-instructor-following-rape-related-comments-made-class/
唐煒明大律師藏毒罪成立罰款四千 - Barrister Ming Tong (Central Chambers) Convicted of a Drug Offence and Fined HK$4,000 - Comments?
回覆刪除http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20110803/00176_036.html
對於唐煒明大律師 (Hong Kong Lawyer Ming Tong) 會否被停牌，大律師公會執委會表示，會慎重考慮任何大律師導致定罪的行為，是否構成專業失當，並交由大律師紀律審裁組作出聆訊，再決定是否對有關大律師作出譴責、暫時吊銷執業資格、支付罰款，甚或從大律師登記冊上剔除其姓名。
Solicitor Au Wing Lun William - Nonsensical, Defies Common Sense, The Most Absurd Submission Ever Heard, Appalling, Abuse of Process - 區穎麟律師知唔知醜㗎！
回覆刪除http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2007/719.html
AU WING LUN v. TAM MEI KAM AND OTHERS [2007] HKCFI 719; HCA 811/2007 (13 July 2007)
Before : Hon Poon J in Chambers
Plainly, the relationship between Mr Au and the Mother, together with the requisite trust and confidence which is essential to the relationship, has completely collapsed. In my view, the rent in the parties’ relationship is so deep that it is simply impossible for the Mother to continue to place any trust or confidence in Mr Au. When that very basis is gone, how can Mr Au continue to act for the Mother in the Probate Action? Mr Au suggested that he can do so and protect her interests without taking instructions from her and despite her objection. This is simply nonsensical. It defies common sense, rocks the very foundation of a solicitor-client relationship and destroys the very freedom that a client enjoys in choosing his own lawyer. It is indeed the most absurd submission that I have ever heard. It really appals me that such a suggestion could have come from the mouth of a practicing solicitor.
This is a wholly unmeritorious application. It is indeed an abuse of process. I will order costs against Mr Au on an indemnity basis, to be taxed if not agreed and to be paid forthwith.
Solicitor Joseph Tang Convicted of Misconduct for Delay in Paying Counsel - Comments?
回覆刪除鄧明輝事務律師遲找大律師費用俾香港律師會釘牌吊銷執業資格十二個月!
http://www.hk-lawyer.org/content/tang-ming-fai-joseph-respondent
December 2012 - Disciplinary Decisions - Tang Ming Fai, Joseph (the Respondent)
• Principles 6.04, 12.04 and 12.05 of the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct Volume 1 (“the Guide”)
Hearing dates: 19 April 2012 and 20 August 2012
Order: 20 August 2012
Reasons for Decision: 11 October 2012
On 20 August 2012, the Tribunal found the following ten charges as in the Amended Complaint Sheet dated 23 December 2011 proven against the Respondent:
1st Charge
Breaches of Principles 12.04 and 12.05 of the Guide in that the Respondent had failed to settle the outstanding fee of counsel, Mr. Lawrence Lok, S.C. (“Mr. Lok”).
2nd Charge
Breach of Principle 6.04 of the Guide in that the Respondent had failed to answer letters sent by the Law Society requiring him to provide his explanation on his failure to settle the outstanding fee of Mr. Lok.
3rd Charge
Breaches in Principles 12.04 and 12.05 of the Guide in that the Respondent had failed to settle the outstanding fee of counsel Mr. Wilson W. S. Lau (“Mr. Lau”).
4th Charge
Breach of Principle 6.04 of the Guide in that the Respondent had failed to answer letters sent by the Law Society requiring him to provide his explanation on his failure to settle the outstanding fee of Mr. Lau...
... 10th Charge
The Respondent had engaged in conduct unbefitting of a solicitor in that he had failed to settle the outstanding counsel’s fees, failed to submit the Employees Returns of the Firm within the stipulated time and persistently failed to answer enquiries from the Law Society concerning his professional conduct or to explain his conduct when required to do so. These conduct amounted to breaches of Rule 2(d) and (e) of the SPR.
The Tribunal ordered that:
a) in relation to the 1st to 9th Charges, the Respondent be suspended from practising as a solicitor for a period of nine months, being one month suspension for each charge under section 10(2)(b) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance Cap. 159 (“the LPO”);
b) in relation to the 10th Charge, the Respondent be suspended from practising as a solicitor for a period of three months under section 10(2)(b) of the LPO;
c) the total period that the Respondent be suspended from practising as a solicitor in relation to the 1st to 10th Charges is twelve months; and
d) the Respondent shall pay the costs of the Applicant, the Prosecutor and the Clerk to the Tribunal on a party-to-party basis assessed at the High Court scale to be taxed if not agreed.
Garden Chambers Barrister Dorothy Cheung Disgusting! 投訴香港大律師張曉惠!
回覆刪除https://orientaldaily.on.cc/content/%E8%A6%81%E8%81%9E%E6%B8%AF%E8%81%9E/odn-20210812-0812_00176_223/%E5%80%9F%E5%9C%B0%E5%9D%80%E8%B2%A9%E6%AF%92%E6%A1%88--%E4%B8%8A%E8%A8%B4%E5%BA%AD%E6%96%A5%E5%BE%8B%E6%94%BF%E5%8F%B8--%E6%94%BE%E7%94%9F%E6%9B%B4%E5%A4%A7%E5%AB%8C%E7%96%91%E8%80%85
前暫委特委裁判官何麗明，早前處理一宗尼泊爾籍女保安涉不小心過馬路案審逾一年，該女保安稱審訊期間曾因如廁遲到1分鐘，之後被何官要求交出保釋金100元，女保安認為何官做法錯誤，令她情感受到傷害，入稟索償170萬元。區域法院法官就女保安的索償案下判辭，指代表何官的律政司未有依法庭規定在指定期限交答辯書，直接裁定女保安勝訴，賠償金額則有待評核。
回覆刪除法官強調，是否跟從法庭命令，非由律政司自行決定，本案中律政司違反法庭命令，是故意和傲慢。由於法官認為律政司要求剔除案件的理據並不成立，律政司在沒有依令呈交抗辯書的情況下， 法官最終直接判Thapa Kamala勝訟，但賠償額則有待評核。
案件編號：DCCJ1719/2019
https://bit.ly/3ECKJgs
鍾元富大律師 (Barrister Hylas Chung) 被法官狠批「做法不專業，損人不利己」(Unprofessional, Harmed Others And Did Not Benefit Self)
回覆刪除香港特別行政區 訴 袁郁鈞 (Reported in: [2007] 1 HKLRD 819) HCMA730/2006 (裁判日期：2007年1月23日)
https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=55815&QS=%2B&TP=JU
「上訴人的大律師鍾元富大律師 (Barrister Hylas Chung) 本身對刑事審訊接納證據的基本法則一知半解，胡亂指控聆訊時代表上訴人的大律師不稱職，不切實際地提昇上訴人對成功上訴的期望、做法不專業，損人不利己 (Unprofessional, Harmed Others And Did Not Benefit Self)，絕對不值得鼓勵或仿效 (Utterly Should Never Be Encouraged Or Imitated。」 - 高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官潘敏琦 (Deputy High Court Judge Maggie Poon)
楊明 (林明樂）不小心駕駛罪名成立判18天監禁 - people like him should be locked up forever. Life imprisonment.
回覆刪除https://www.hk01.com/%E5%8D%B3%E6%99%82%E5%A8%9B%E6%A8%82/696775/%E6%A5%8A%E6%98%8E%E4%B8%8D%E5%B0%8F%E5%BF%83%E9%A7%95%E9%A7%9B%E7%BD%AA%E5%90%8D%E6%88%90%E7%AB%8B%E5%88%A418%E5%A4%A9%E7%9B%A3%E7%A6%81-%E4%BF%9D%E9%87%8B%E4%B8%8A%E8%A8%B4%E6%9A%AB%E4%B8%8D%E7%94%A8%E5%85%A5%E7%8D%84
方也方被吊銷大律師執業資格 - Barrister Candy Fong’s Misconduct Conviction - Comments?
回覆刪除https://www.gld.gov.hk/egazette/pdf/20081222/egn200812223579.pdf