Daily Archives: 4 三月, 2009

BICB Amendment大混戰初評

首先,小弟懇求各位,睇晒成份逐字紀錄繼續討論,拜託。

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/05.htm

Amendment 92的回應
Lord Brett: I rise to respond to the very powerful arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury and my noble friend Lady Whitaker, and with regard to the enormous respect that we all have for the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the powerful case that he puts yet again.

I have several pages of Civil Service prose to read out and, indeed, for the remainder of the amendments to this part of the Bill I have copious pages of Civil Service prose. However, I should like to suggest a different approach. In responding to Amendment 90—it seems a long time ago, but it was on Monday—I gave an undertaking that the Government would consider amendments from the noble Lord. I suggest that we should consider Amendments 92 and 101A, along with the remaining amendments to clauses in Part 2, with the exception of Amendment 105A which, to my embarrassment I must return to, having failed to deal with it on Monday.

The purpose of my suggesting that I discuss those amendments not in the form of a considered debate today, which would take a very long time, but in the form of a discussion, is to look at the cases that have caused noble Lords to table the amendments, to consider the decisions taken in respect of those cases and the principles behind those decisions, and to see whether policy and other practical measures can be found to resolve them. The noble Lord will, of course, be perfectly able to bring back any or all of his amendments at Report, but I hope that we can at least make some progress on some of them in the intervening period. That would be the most practical way in which I can offer the House urgent attention to the points raised, with the opportunity for a fuller debate at Report.

Amendment 93的回應
Lord Brett: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for setting out the reasoning behind the amendment for our illumination and understanding and for my officials to note the point that she makes. This issue will be a good starting point for the discussions that I am suggesting.

Amendment 97, 98的回應
Lord Brett: Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out the reasoning behind the amendment. I am afraid that I have nothing to add to previous statements made about the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, which the Government are studying. Many points that have been made in relation to these amendments are pertinent to discussions that we will have on Amendment 90. It would be useful for us to put this matter into that package and discuss it at that time.

Amendment 99的回應
Lord Brett: My brief indicates that the Government believe that this proposal is unnecessary in practice. Again, however, the noble Baroness undoubtedly has examples of cases that have given rise to concern requiring this amendment to be tabled. As she has rightly suggested, it would seem to be a useful part of the comprehensive discussion that we will have on these issues. I therefore suggest that she withdraw her amendment.

Amendment 100, 101, 101B的回應
Lord Brett: Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out the reasoning behind his proposed new clause. When trying to get my head round this area—on Monday I manifestly demonstrated that I had failed to do that in some ways—I tried to do my own wall chart. I would not recommend my draughtsmanship to anybody, but if that were possible, it would be excellent; it might not be for wider dissemination but it would help at least those of us struggling with discussions over the next few weeks. It fits well for the discussions that are coming and I endorse the route.

Lord Brett: The purpose behind the proposal for discussions is that in each of the cases where we have amendments to the proposed law, they derive in the main from known cases that could not be dealt with successfully under the law as it stands because the law was deficient or because of lack of discretion, misunderstanding or whatever. I am attempting to resolve those issues. In technical terms the amendments have been and withdrawn, and all can be resubmitted, along with any other amendment, at the next stage, which of course is Report stage. Having had our discussions, I would be happy to ensure that the noble Baroness is aware of how far they have gone and what we have been able to achieve, in order that she may then be able to come back and put forward such amendments as she may feel are necessary, notwithstanding the fact that amendments in the name of the noble Lord and other members of the Liberal Democrat Front Bench have been withdrawn.

Lord Brett: It is not for me, but as I understand procedure, Report stage does not allow for the reopening of debates that have taken place in Committee. I reiterate that it is for any Member of the House to table such other amendments for Report stage as they so wish. The point is that there is a genuine attempt to move to resolve a number of difficulties that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have instigated and which, as they have said on a number of occasions, in many cases involve only a small number of people who are seen by many to have been badly treated. That is what they want to see investigated and resolved.

Lord Brett: That is perfectly correct. At this stage, I just want to avoid jumping too far ahead. We have not even commenced the discussions that all sides of the Committee think would be very useful to have.

Amendment 102的回應:
Lord Brett: I apologise for the speed of my delivery. It is partly a cultural inheritance of coming from the north—we speak quicker—partly nervousness on my part, and partly because I have a cold. However, those reasons are no excuse for not making myself clear to the Committee and I apologise for that.

The noble Lord set out an example and posed a question that I cannot answer with confidence in detail now, but I will of course write to him on the matter. If it is written it can be clearly understood.

Amendment 105的回應:
Lord Brett: I shall keep my response short, if not slow. A powerful case has been made. I have the brief. The sensible thing is for the Government to reconsider the issue, and I give that commitment

雖然表面來看,Lord Brett有點像香港的林公公,但小弟認為工黨政府對各Amendment態度是有分別。

Amendment 95, 99 小弟並不認為在Committee Stage最後階段,到Report Stage會拿出來討論,因為很明顯工黨政府希望用現存行政措施,把一些現存個案打發掉,不想寫入成文法。

小弟相信,Amendment 93, 105會被政府吸掉,成為Government Amendment,特別Amendment 105涉及的問題實在只能用膠字來形容,亦難以用政府行政手段解決。

而Amendment 102, 103, 104會遭到工黨政府頑強抵抗,若非如此,Lord Brett就不會講一大堆廢話回敬。在在英軍服役的英聯邦國家國民子女國籍問題上,已是工黨底線。

真正會成為House of Lords交鋒戰場是Amendment 97, 98, 100,這三條如果工黨政府有心抗拒,就會得到102-104的招待,但97, 98, 100對工黨政府難處理地方:

1. 涉及Goldsmith Report的回應,Goldsmith Report在英國是等同Green Paper級別的Consultation Paper,但現時又知推唔推Report上的建議好,Lord Bratt不可能代表政府回應,所以要容後再議。

2. Lord Avebury已經直頭講到ECHR以及英國國民竟然無居英權等荒謬人權問題,到底ECHR Protocol 4點處理,又係不是Lord Bratt這級數可以應付,所以容後再議。

現時House of Lords議員提出了問題,小弟相信工黨政府多少會提出Counter Proposal,問題係,果啲proposal係敷衍了事,定係真係徹底解決問題,很大機會在BICB,會出現一個局部解決問題的半天吊議案,但最後會幾半天吊,端視乎游說的本事如何。不過完全沒有斬獲,又似是不大可能。

3 則迴響

Filed under 英國與歐洲

頭痛記

黃世澤:頭痛記

小弟暫時為止,唯一一篇在正式刊物完整發表的小說,當推2002年11月,在《明報》世紀版發表的短篇作品《頭痛記》,這也是有不少網友轉載的一篇小說作品。

一向小弟寫文章都是嚴肅筆法為主,博客是南洋咖喱筆法,但《頭痛記》大致上反映我寫小說那邊,受柏楊小說筆法影響不淺,因為這很有柏楊《打翻鉛字架》等「雜文小說」的影子,後來再看,也看到小時候看巴爾扎克「人間喜劇」系列中譯本的一些影響。這是小弟替樂施會做研究時,在家中寫書像坐牢,悶得發慌的遊戲文字之作,通常忙到要死時,反而愛寫小說減壓。所以,可能未來多點短篇小說作品出現,報館投籃就放到這裡。

當然,這篇小說,反映今天香港社會怪狀也有用。如果要反映系統性問題,查實小說比論說文章更好用,這也是我遲點復筆寫《百年好合》的原因。不過小弟要講明,小弟寫小說純屬娛樂,真的不求做什麼大文豪,或領文學獎。

發表留言

Filed under 社會批判

BICB Amendment 98攻防戰快將展開

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/VideoPlayer.aspx?meetingId=3474

在英國時間15:30(本blog使用英國時間,而英國House of Lords亦用英國時間),House of Lords預料會辯論涉及BN(O)平權的關鍵議案,由Lord Avebury提出的BICB 2009 Amendment 98,亦即係4BA BN(O)及其他英國國民徹底平權的修訂案。

在昨天辯論Amendment 90時(解決BN(HK)A 1997剩餘問題修訂案),儘管得到Crossbench、保守黨和自由民主黨議員發言支持,但Lord Avebury主動撤回Amendment 90,照一般議會辯論策略而言,Amendment 90有可能是測試水溫的Amendment,Lord Avebury知道夠票推展92, 93, 98三個Amendments,就先撤回事實上只有數百人受惠的Amendment 90,集中火力在Amendment 92, 93, 98。

小弟對Amendment 98在House of Lords通過機會是審慎樂觀,雖然由Power of Strength來看,Labour在House of Lords的人數遠不及Crossbench、自由民主黨和保守黨的總數,但亦都要看,Lord Avebury會否堅持將Amendment 98推進下去,至少Move to the third reading。

1 則迴響

Filed under 英國與歐洲

HSBC Finance被調低信貸評級

睇香港傳媒來炒股,真係牙煙到震,小弟高度建議各位除咗刨HSBC年報,同時留意HSBC以及HSBC Finance的信貸評級同CDS,至好決定採取乜行動,否則會死得好慘。

Bloomberg: GE Capital Default Swaps Climb to Record on Capital Concern

穆迪在昨天已經大幅調低HSBC Finance的評級,而HSBC Finance的CDS亦去到913點子的新高,呢幾日信貸市場對HSBC Group的信任程度,將會好大程度上決定未來機構投資者對HSBC供股的取向,但呢幾日的CDS同大降信貸評級來看,除非HSBC當機立斷,對美國信用咭業務作出全數Write Down,否則好大機會香港班有錢佬作為分包銷商要硬食供股權。

更大鑊係成棚人依家賭緊GE Capital的CDS,GE Capital已經係全行TCE最好,一樣都要供股或者要向政府嗌救命的話,大家諗吓邊個會同你玩HSBC供股?所以,在除權日前,各位對HSBC作出的行動都要審慎行事。

發表留言

Filed under 財經

何厚鏵,你膠夠未?

我就嚟要開個膠夠未系列,因為膠人膠事永無停止,變本加厲。好似澳門不單不准馮檢基入境,連香港大學法學院院長陳文敏榮譽資深大律師都唔俾,簡直係黐線的程度。


何 俊 仁 : 未 能 保 障 港 人 出 入 境 自 由 是 當 局 失 職
2009-03-04 HKT 12:30
立 法 會 稍 後 休 會 辯 論 接 連 有 立 法 會 議 員 及 法 律 學 者 被 澳 門 拒 絕 入 境 , 提 出 動 議 的 民 主 黨 主 席 何 俊 仁 表 示 , 事 件 相 當 嚴 重 , 他 指 出 , 當 局 未 能 有 效 保 障 港 人 的 出 入 境 自 由 是 失 職 的 表 現 。
何 俊 仁 表 示 , 當 局 應 對 澳 門 作 出 回 應 性 的 措 施 , 包 括 拒 絕 澳 門 的 官 員 過 境 及 入 境 。

李少光已經係唐膠年,曾俊華、林瑞麟同邱騰華以外,另一位年薪只值四千蚊的官,咁多人被澳門拒絕入境,上去泰國撤僑件事搞到一鑊泡,反吸毒都反到膠晒,呢啲乜官嚟。

何俊仁的建議係好合理,除了吳國昌和區錦新,以及具有香港永久性居民或Right to Land的澳門官員和議員,其餘不准入境香港,以示報復。

何 鴻 燊 稱 香 港 沒 有 就 23 條 立 法 是 大 損 失
2009-03-04 HKT 12:20
全 國 政 協 常 委 何 鴻 燊 表 示 , 澳 門 就 基 本 法 23 條 訂 立 的 法 例 已 生 效 , 是 大 家 都 開 心 的 事 , 能 保 護 澳 門 治 安 。
他 說 , 香 港 受 部 份 民 主 派 及 親 英 派 人 士 反 對 , 相 信 香 港 沒 有 這 麼 快 立 法 , 這 是 香 港 的 大 損 失 , 因 為 任 何 城 市 的 安 全 都 是 好 重 要 。

對 於 有 香 港 學 者 及 立 法 會 議 員 被 拒 入 境 澳 門 , 何 鴻 燊 認 為 政 府 做 得 非 常 正 確 , 因 為 他 們 都 是 搞 事 者 。

仲有,香港人係時候對何生旗下賭場進行杯葛行動,包括要求九巴,全數撤回葡京賭場的車身廣告(呢件事又唔見X光社做,證明X光社只係一群欺善怕惡之徒),唔入葡京賭場等等。咁鍾意發膠音,咁以膠治膠都好合理。

5 則迴響

Filed under 香港政治, 澳門政治

唐膠年當香港人傻的嗎?

唐 英 年 反 駁 任 命 行 會 成 員 是 政 治 交 易 說 法   亳 無 根 據
2009-03-04 HKT 11:28
立 法 會 議 員 湯 家 驊 質 詢 , 早 前 行 政 長 官 委 任 5 名 行 會 成 員 , 部 份 人 選 引 起 爭 議 , 其 中 一 名 成 員 曾 被 評 選 為 立 法 會 十 大 表 現 最 差 的 議 員 , 質 疑 行 政 長 官 以 甚 麼 準 則 挑 選 行 會 成 員 。
政 務 司 司 長 唐 英 年 表 示 , 行 會 成 員 的 任 免 由 行 政 長 官 決 定 , 主 要 考 慮 到 人 選 的 能 力 、 專 業 知 識 、 操 守 、 對 社 會 事 務 的 參 與 及 承 擔 。

他 又 說 , 5 位 新 成 員 在 不 同 專 業 及 領 域 , 有 深 入 了 解 , 亦 對 內 地 發 展 有 深 刻 認 識 。 對 於 政 治 交 易 的 說 法 , 是 毫 無 事 實 根 據 。

唐膠年佢當香港人,個個都好似佢咁硬膠?

佢應該知道全香港質疑緊劉皇發嘅任命,劉皇發被評為立法會十大表現最差議員,就算喺港英年代,都係絕唔考慮呢條友入行政會議,而劉皇發有乜能力、專業知識同操守呢?依家公眾有晒合理懷疑,呢鋪係政治酬庸,你唐膠年有乜事實根據,去話人地毫無事實根據。

真係不幸開口中,小弟要再寫一次文章講呢件事。

延伸閱讀:
繆美詩:貪方便
繆美詩:新界王與大話王
黃世澤:政府施政都可以貪方便
黃世澤:政治酬庸的壞習慣

1 則迴響

Filed under 香港政治

唔怪得柯清輝會提早退休

柯 清 輝 稱 不 理 解 匯 控 管 理 層 未 有 發 出 預 警 的 做 法
2009-03-04 HKT 11:06
對 於 市 場 質 疑 匯 控 盈 利 出 現 大 幅 下 跌 , 卻 沒 有 發 出 盈 利 預 警 , 恒 生 銀 行 副 董 事 長 兼 行 政 總 裁 柯 清 輝 表 示 , 匯 控 業 績 大 幅 倒 退 , 大 部 分 因 為 商 譽 撇 帳 所 致 , 他 又 說 , 不 明 白 管 理 層 今 次 沒 有 發 盈 警 的 做 法 。

柯清輝呢鋪,等同公開炮轟HSBC管理層係硬膠,亦即連佢閣下都不理解,點解HSBC一早出咗事,但唔採取行動,如果管理層係膠嘅話(雖然好早都知,買HFC係一個膠到無朋友嘅決定),你仲供HSBC把鬼,走為上著啦,所以唔怪得佢會接受提早退休,以恆生副董事長身份離開HSBC Group。

如果柯清輝以一名HSBC高級行政人員身份,咁炮轟公司,間公司內部問題之大煲好可能超晒我地想像,小弟刨緊份年報果陣諗,咁嘅公司,年報幾靚都無用,你投資埋我果份。

發表留言

Filed under 財經