2015年12月7日星期一

聖誕吃

聖誕將臨,又是party季節,難免又要弄吃的來做入場券。兩三年沒有做蛋撻了,乘今早的空檔做-起蛋撻來為聖誕預習。在外面買得到的味道就不費時去做,我做的是薑汁蛋撻和咖啡蛋撻,下一次再做希望在味道方面會拿捏得更好。約了老友在韓國餐廳叫午飯,便捎了一盒請餐廳老闆吃,順便帶一盒給家庭醫生。女醫生説她吃得辣,我也帶一瓶自製超級勁辣的辣醬給她。

皮太薄,餡色沉

餐廳老闆急不及待吃了一個,他打算另外開間韓式cafe, 叫我教他做餅。我這種三腳貓功夫,除了是homemade自娛, 跟餅鋪水準無得比,教他做可以,無人吃就别怪我。

下午在整理後花園,隨手便摘了一個可收成的無花果和一把士多啤梨。


用蛋撻伴碟來顯示這無花果的大小,士多啤梨也不算太小,尚算可口。




2015年12月6日星期日

薑汁豆腐花

在香港,要吃甜品糖水易如反掌,甜品店林立。在悉尼,要找間吃甜品的鋪頭極為艱難。幸好我不好此道,甜的東西我盡量避吃,咖啡奶茶甚至檸檬茶也不落糖。甜品鋪隨便可找到的只有鬼佬式如Max Brenner那種吃朱古力飲品那種。有時想吃豆腐花,也只會在一部份的茶樓才會有供應。在天時暑熱下,吃碗冰凍薑汁豆腐花也十分爽快。求人不如求己,豆腐花極之容易造。我先寫用料,在唐人雜貨鋪都可以買到:

一瓶2公升的無糖豆漿
1.5茶匙熟石膏粉
2茶匙生粉或粟粉
160ml水(生水或熟開水)

材料就是這樣簡單,所謂茶匙不是隨便一枝茶匙,而是作量度用那種。做起來也極簡單。用一個煲來煲滾豆漿,另一個來盛載其他材料,我一般用中康寧瓷煲來盛載。把石膏粉、生粉和水放入康寧煲,用匙羹搞勻,當豆漿煲滾後,快速倒入康寧煲。石膏粉及生粉都會沉澱的,所以要在滾豆漿倒入去時,確保它們是勻循的不是沉澱狀態的,所謂快速倒入去,當然不用水花四濺,只要不慢條斯理像滴漏那樣就可以。把滾豆漿撞入石膏粉水那裏產生均勻的混合,豆漿和石膏粉產生化學作用便結合成豆腐花。

靜置後成形的豆腐花
做豆腐花會失敗嗎?機會不大。只要注意幾件事,便會把失敗率降至零。

1. 豆漿要新鮮。一般有效期有4、5星期,最好在頭一星期做豆腐花,否則有可能變糊狀。

2. 滾豆漿撞入石膏水中就不要搞動,讓它靜置,不要搬動或搖動,以免影響成形。大概過一小時就會穩定成形。

3. 確保撞入時石膏水不沉殿,否則兩者不能均勻混合,便會成糊。

薑汁糖水也很簡單,先把黃糖、紅糖或黑糖開高濃度的糖水,用細孔的刨來刨薑,把刨好的薑絲放手掌中,用力揸下就產生薑汁,把薑汁倒入糖水,便可以加入豆腐花來吃。

豆腐花也可以吃鹹的,放點蝦米、蔥花、生抽、蔴油及辣油便可,窮等人家小時候就是用它來撈飯吃,現在吃回味那情懷,  a nostalgia for my youthful days.

2015年12月5日星期六

香港公務員海外招聘考試

今天是一年一度香港公務員海外招聘考試日,南半球澳、紐考生都雲集悉尼這唯一的市場。近年紐西蘭的考生絕跡,澳洲住在不同省份的都只能飛到悉尼考試。為方便交通安排,一般都會租用市中心大酒店的會議廳作試場,費用高昂。我的老友以前在香港政府做行政工作,所以在這裏代表香港政府的經貿署每年都找他幫忙做這半義務的苦差,每當我沒有外遊他都拖我落水。所謂苦差也不誇張,今早8時半到達酒店會議廳,離開已超過晚上8時。試場規則規定監考人員不得離開試場,我今天在會議廳磨了12小時,兩餐飯也只能自携三文治,灌了幾杯咖啡,幾杯雲霧茶才能阻止打瞌睡。雲霧茶又叫苦丁,另一名叫一葉茶,一葉已夠苦,十分醒神。每年監考完都說下年咪搞,但到時到候,老友打電話相邀又從不托手踭。這老友念香港情,不辭勞苦,我也不好意思推卻。

試場外的電子牌
其中一份考卷是考《基本法》的,我每年都很想打開試卷看下自己懂不懂答,由於規則寫明監考不得閱卷,為了遵守規則,我一直都沒有瞄過一眼,不知問些甚麼刁鑽的問題。

回到家裏,留言滿溢,無從答起。寫這一篇對留言者告罪,解釋一下未能回覆的原因。明早小姐一早去conference, 又難為了這司機要一早爬起床,雖然老人家睡得少,也不能日日都6點幾聞雞起舞。

2015年12月3日星期四

飛人謀殺

Oscar Pistorius verdict changed to murder

Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius has been found guilty of murder after a South African appeals court overturned an earlier manslaughter verdict.

He killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp in February 2013 after shooting her four times through a locked toilet door.

He is currently under house arrest after spending one year of his original five-year sentence in jail.

Pistorius will have to return to court to be re-sentenced, for murder.
Pistorius murder conviction: Live updates

It was earlier incorrectly reported that the court had ruled the manslaughter verdict would remain.

South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the lower court did not correctly apply the rule of dolus eventualis - whether Pistorius knew that a death would be a likely result of his actions.

The minimum sentence for murder is 15 years but judges can apply some discretion.

South African law does not make provision for someone to be placed under house arrest for more than five years, so Pistorius will be going back to prison, reports the BBC's Pumza Fihlani in Johannesburg.

Reading the ruling reached by a panel of five judges, Justice Eric Leach said that having armed himself with a high-calibre weapon, Pistorius must have foreseen that whoever was behind the door might die.

Pistorius always maintained that he believed there was an intruder in the house but the judge said that the identity of the person behind the door was "irrelevant to his guilt".

Justice Leach compared it to someone setting off a bomb in a public place not knowing who the victims might be.

He also rejected the argument that Pistorius had acted in self-defence.

The judge argued that his life was not in danger at the time of the shooting, as Pistorius did not know who was behind the door or if they posed a threat.

He added that Pistorius did "not take that most elementary precaution of firing a warning shot".

Pistorius did not attend the hearing in Bloemfontein.

But Ms Steenkamp's mother, June, was present and afterwards she was seen outside the court being embraced by members of the African National Congress Women's League, who were singing songs of celebration.

The double amputee was released from prison on 19 October. Under South African law, he was eligible for release under "correctional supervision", having served a sixth of his sentence.

Pistorius can challenge the ruling in the constitutional court but only if his lawyers can argue that his constitutional rights have been violated.

Legal expert Mannie Witz told the BBC that there do not appear to be any grounds for such an appeal.

(BBC news 3/12/2015)

我以前寫過3篇評論本案的文,對於先前判他誤殺罪,我一直都不服氣,現在控方上訴得直,改判謀殺,不管刑期有别於香港的終身監禁,起碼都叫罪有應得,還死者一點公道。

2015年12月2日星期三

頒「售」學位

近年香港的大學極力爭取發展碩士及博士課程,學生人數比學士更多。質量有沒有足夠的保證呢?大量生產學位的政策下,大學會不會把學術要求的尺度放寬,以鞏固客源呢?早前閱報看到中文大學敬文書院的于宏碩教授(Yu Hung Hsua Julie)提出司法覆核,今天高院頒布判辭判她敗訴,不禁使人唏噓。近日不少政治及教學人士給抖出糊裡糊塗獲取的學位,一時之間,菲博士學位貶價十倍。五十笑百之餘,香港的大學其實又有沒有半賣半送去迎合學生呢?

于教授申請司法覆核,源於她對4個修讀核心課程的碩士生評分過低引起。據她的評分,這4個碩士生不符MBA的最低學術要求,而不會獲頒碩士學位,這4名學生因此向中大考試委員會(examination panel)(EP)上訴,分數獲EP調整至合格畢業。于教授不服這決定, 向商學院長及校長投訴,但兩者皆不肯介入。于教授於是入稟提出司法覆核。理據如下:

11. In this application, the applicant submits that the following matters are reasonably arguable:

(a) the subject decisions were decisions falling within the public law domain, and hence amenable to judicial review;

(b) the Dec 2014 decision (a reasoned decision) was illogical, irrational, inconsistent and/or arbitrary;

(c) further, the EP decisions were made without regard to the proper procedure (remitting the cases back to the applicant for grading);

(d) the subject decisions were an infringement of the applicant’s academic judgment as an educator.


法庭最後不批出司法覆核許可,駁回申請,詳情可隨下面連結自己閱讀。于教授輸了官司,也要自掏腰包,賠訟費給中大,雙方都聘用資深大律師,費用不菲,我對于教授深感同情。于教授這次為了個人原則,知識份子的堅持才提出訴訟。她的教學經驗豐富,自1988年起在中大任教,也明顯是個受學生愛戴的好教授,她獲商學院頒授2011-2012年度學院傑出教學奬。于教授以前一位學生慷慨捐款,于教授成立了于宏碩教授奬學金。這些資料都是我在敬文書院的電子通訊找到的。從不同角度去看這件事,我相信于教授為捍衛評分自主才會提出司法覆核,對於考試委員會的干預,不禁使人聯想這是不想得失「客仔」的決定。大學的生意味不太重了點嗎?

判辭連結:
YU HUNG HSUA JULIE and THE CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG  HCAL 47/2015

2015年12月1日星期二

懸峙陪審團 Hung Jury in the Epping Murder Trial

Robert Xie trial jury discharged after failing to reach verdict over Lin family murders

The wife of the accused Lin family murderer Robert Xie has proclaimed her husband's innocence after a jury was unable to reach a verdict following his marathon trial.

"My husband is innocent and we will never, ever give up," Kathy Lin declared outside court after the jury in the trial was discharged.

Mrs Lin asked the media to "please respect my privacy" before walking from the court flanked by a Salvation Army Chaplain and a friend.

The comments came after Justice Elizabeth Fullerton formally discharged the jury, which had been unable to reach a verdict despite persevering through a nine-month trial and 11 days of deliberations.

Mr Xie, 51, bowed to the jury but remained composed as Justice Elizabeth Fullerton thanked the jury for their efforts.

"This is not something you should take as a personal failure of any of you," Justice Fullerton said.

"I thank each of you for your toils, your good humour, hard work, your patience."

"Ladies and gentlemen each of you are discharged."

Mr Xie's wife, Kathy Lin, who has supported her husband from the moment he was charged, burst into tears as the jury walked from the court room.

For a few moments, the couple stood less than two metres apart, separated by a corrective services officer who stopped them from touching.

As he left, Mr Xie's composure finally cracked and, despite his best efforts, he began to cry as he was taken away from his wife.

After the jury was discharged, Crown prosecutor Mark Tedeschi, QC, immediately indicated that the Director of Public Prosecutions was seeking a retrial and that Mr Xie should remain in custody until that occurred.

Justice Fullerton said that she would seek to have the new trial listed for late February or early March next year.

Mr Xie's defence barrister Graham Turnbull, SC, said he would be applying for his client's release on bail on Friday ahead of the new trial, but foreshadowed that he might not be representing him in the retrial.


Family bludgeoned to death

Mrs Lin has steadfastly maintained her husband's innocence from the moment he first came under suspicion for the murder of her brother Min "Norman" Lin, and Mr Lin's family in July 2009.

Mr Xie, 51, is accused of murdering Mr Lin, his wife Lily, their two sons Henry, 11, and Terry, 9, and Lily's sister Irene, in their North Epping home.

The discovery of the family's bodies, bludgeoned to death in the bedrooms, had a devastating effect on the small, suburban community and shocked many across the state.

It took a further 20 months before Mr Xie was arrested over the crime, for which he has pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution had alleged that Mr Xie was driven by a combination of bitter resentment over what he saw as the Lins' favoured status within the broader family group, and a desire to get his hands on his brother-in-law's financial assets.

It says the former restaurant owner allegedly crept into their house using the key he and his wife had been given, and then beat the Lins to death with a hammer-like object in their bedrooms.

Kathy Lin gave sworn evidence during the trial that her husband was with her in bed on the night in question and never left their bed, effectively providing him with an alibi.

Mr Xie's defence maintained that one man, acting alone and in the dark, could not have killed five people in their bedrooms without any one escaping or raising the alarm.

The discharge followed two separate notes from the jury indicating that they were unable to reach a verdict.

The second note was followed by a direction from Justice Fullerton that she would accept a majority verdict from 11 of the 12 jurors.

But the jury was still unable to agree.

At nine-and-a-half months, the trial was the longest murder trial involving a single accused in the state's history.

After the evidence and final directions were completed two weeks ago, Justice Fullerton ordered that the jury be sequestered together in a hotel while they deliberated so that they could focus on their task.

After discharging the jury, Justice Fullerton indicated that she would make an order that they be excused from any further jury service for the rest of their lives. 

(1/12/2015 Sydney Morning Herald)

不知不覺間這是我第12篇評論Epping Murder案了,中文傳媒叫它做葉坪滅門案。我一向都不看好控方證據足以把兇手繩之於法,因為控方只靠推論(inference), 我不敢講那些推論是唯一的推論,足以推斷被告是兇手,我也理解陪審團經歷11天商討也未能達成裁決的原因。6年前發生的滅門案,審訊一波三折。上一次在審訊途中出現新資料,使控方修改指控的論據而導致解散陪審團。這一次連法律爭議在內,審訊歷時9個月,陪審團帶備行李入住酒店,商討了11天都未能達成裁決。當商討了10天後,法官昨天訓示陪審團,可以接納並非一致的裁決(unanimous), 即是12個陪審員,11比1也收貨,可是,再商討一天後,陪審團再次不能達成裁決,法官唯有解散陪審團。因為涉及5條人命,主控官立即申請重審,辯方也不反對,就算反對也枉然。

為何枉然呢?除了控罪嚴重外,另一因素是其他地方沒有的,只有新南威爾斯州才有的,就是2006年修改了的法例,我以前也寫過,在3種情況下,脫罪的被告可以再被檢控同一控罪,就是以下的情況:

1.someone acquitted of a ‘life sentence offence’ (murder, violent gang rapes, large commercial supply or production of illegal drugs) where there is ‘fresh and compelling’ evidence of guilt;

2.someone acquitted of a ‘15 years or more sentence offence’ where the acquittal was tainted (by perjury, bribery or perversion of the course of justice); and,

3.someone acquitted in a judge-only trial or where a judge directed the jury to acquit.

故此就算重審後本案被告脫罪,也不能一勞永逸,不能plead autrefios acquit, 不知甚麽時候冒出新證據,或者他老婆調轉槍頭,肯作供指證案發當晚及案發後的蛛絲馬跡,也未可料。解散了的陪審員可終身免疫,再選入局的陪審員不知是禍是福,9個月的審訊對人的生活作息影響很大,我就一點都不擔心,因為我對本案有一定看法,不能作公正裁決,否則,無業遊民每日收$200幾的陪審員津貼另加法庭距離住所里數的車馬費,算起港幣都有千三、四元,也算不俗。

本案被告下一步就會申請保釋候審,獲得保釋也不會使人驚訝。保釋與否,過幾天就會揭曉了。

違法的平衡車

運輸署不發牌 不准行車路

【明報專訊】本報早前就電動平衡車在香港使用的法例向運輸署查詢,運輸署回覆指機械驅動的電動踏板車(平衡車)可被視為汽車,必須登記和領牌方可在行車路使用,但指平衡車構造及運作會對其他人構成危險,表明不會登記及發牌,市民在行人路上使用亦可能違法。

對於運輸署不為電動平衡車發牌及登記,香港汽車高級駕駛協會主席蒙海強認為,立法會是否需要修例以容許平衡車登記,可留待社會討論。但他質疑,平衡車的煞車系統是否足以避免在道路碰撞,又指法例沒符合平衡車的定義,運輸署即使願意登記,亦苦於沒有適合分類。立法會資訊科技界議員莫乃光則指出,法例仍有不明之處,將於立法會提出,希望政府釐清。

保險界:可購毋須牌照機械保險

電動平衡車因不獲登記及發牌,「車主」難以購買汽車第三保;國際專業保險諮詢協會會長羅少雄指出,「車主」可購買毋須牌照的機械保險,操作時自己或其他人受傷均受保。羅又指用戶亦可購買產品責任保險及家居保險,若非操作期間發生意外,只要事主證明按指示為平衡車充電,而意外非出於惡意及違法,即使肇事平衡車為水貨,平衡車及家具電器受損亦可得到保障。

(1/12/2015)

俗稱風火輪的平衡車為何被運輸署視為車輛(vehicle)呢?首先要從法例第374章《道路交通條例》的釋義去看。看平衡車的合法性,就要對《道路交通條例》裏面幾個詞語的釋義有所認識:

車輛 (vehicle) 指任何經構造或改裝為用於道路上的車輛,而不論是否由機械驅動的,但不包括西北鐵路車輛或電車

汽車 (motor vehicle) 指任何由機械驅動的車輛

宜於道路上使用 (roadworthy) 就任何汽車而言,指該車輛適宜及可以安全地用於其任何合法用途上,並且已顧及─(a) 該車輛申請登記所屬的種類或該種類內的任何組別;或
(b) 該車輛已登記或須登記所屬的種類或該種類內的任何組別,

視屬何情況而定


別以為平衡車只有兩車輪又沒有軚盤便不是車輛,在法例的介定下,平衡車屬於汽車,因為那是充電機械驅動的車輛,要在道路上行駛,就要領牌。運輸署表明不發牌,在道路上使用便會面對無牌駕駛及無第三保險的控罪,情況就像我在以身試法一文談到電動單車的情況一樣。

買保險真的有幫助嗎?如果是家居保險,意義不大,因為所保的並不限於平衡車,不是單獨為平衡車購買,為了便宜欠安全的平衡車買保險,不如花多一些錢買有安全保證的。或者有人認為值得購買保障操作時的意外保險,我覺得這種保險完全不值得買,因為這種平衡車在絕大部份地方玩都屬違法,在道路上玩違反交通法例或在公園裏玩就違反交通條例及公園的附例,一經違法使用,保險就不會賠償,買保險也浪費金錢。

從環保角度看,值得為這些平衡車另立法例使其可合法使用嗎?在香港而言,這是玩具多過實質可代步的工具,放寬管制會對公眾安全有所威脅,我反對其合法化。真的讓人玩的機會,就只有在機動遊戲嘉年華那類場合進行,而不能讓它在人多車多的地方穿插。故此,還是不要買平衡車方為上策。