聖誕記事一則:一位讓座的少女

29255243420_de59c38d4aa

在地鐵,當大家都在忙著看自己手上的電話時,一位女子抱著兩、三個月大的嬰兒進入車箱,我立即讓座給她。最初她感到不好意思的拒絕,但誠請難卻,最後她還是接受了。在這個時候,一位少女拍一拍我的手臂說:「伯伯,你坐!」

我看著那少女靠車門邊站著,她左手拿著揭開了的書,右手在撳電話,眼睛看書又看電話,我猜她正在將書的文字傳入電話。她的身手靈活吸引我欣賞,也同時令我想起很多年前 ── 或許是40年前 ── 讀過台灣女作家張曉風在1960年代中出版的一本書《地毯的那一端》,這本書是她的第一本面世的作品。

在書的序言,她引用《聖經》記載耶穌在傳道其間,一個孩子把他手上的幾塊餅和兩條魚分給五千人吃飽的故事來形容她的寫作的誠意。我就是要借用她的文字來形容眼前這位讓座給我,而她兩手和雙眼還在忙碌著的少女:

「這本小書在這個嗜血的世紀裡能顯出甚麼的作用,似乎很難猜的,但正如那個不知名的幼童一樣,我所獻出的已是我手中所有的了。這些字句也許只能稱為一抹淡淡的痕跡,但它足以說明曾有一個女孩子那樣熾烈地愛過這個世界。」

張曉風的這本書寫於1962年,書中有一篇散文《綠色的書簡》,以她離家往外讀大學後,用書簡的方式寫給她家中六位弟妹。文筆很美,情感豐富,讓我有很強的共鳴感而掉落她的文字裡。她離家往外讀書;我也是離開家庭隻身來香港。她有六個弟妹;我也六個弟妹。不同的是她當時在讀大學,而我當時仍是個「飛仔」。

那些年過的日子

hmv

一年前吧,在超市的貨架上找不著「脫苦海」膠布,於是問一位年輕的理貨員究竟放在那裡。年輕人聽了我問便立即眉頭緊湊,想了一陣子後反問我「係咩嚟㗎?」我向他說明後,他像恍然大悟的說都放在收銀處;接著他再湊眉的說「不過……好似冇你講嗰隻牌子喎。」

的確,收銀處沒有「脫苦海」,只有「撒隆巴斯」。       

20年前的一夜,當新聞傳來說「kps金獅影音」結業,呆了很久。我打從她在中環太子行開業不久便是她的會員,和她結緣將近20年,而且在她結業前幾天還買了幾張CD。能夠和一家商店並行20載,她,必然有過人之處。

事實上,在那個年代香港到處都有她的過人之處。工商業蓬勃、社會和諧、政治穩健、公民意識強烈且富內涵,是因為多了當年60後那一代的年青人,受過良好教育之後回饋社會,激勃了我們的生機,旺盛了我們的生命力。

然而,當「金獅」結業便表標誌著一個蓬勃和美好生活在褪變。

金獅離開了,hmv總算是個第二春,填補了失落的缺憾,我鍾情中環中建大廈的店,好像約定似的,最初每個星期都會有一、兩次跟她在那裡共聚,漸漸變為一個月一次。可是,當Youtube興起之後,這個「約會」也變非常淡薄。

今天知道她結業的消息,淡然!

KPS_Video_Express

 

皺紋

2018-02-01

《明周》時代的同事 Joanne Cheung 找我替她在《大人》雜誌的「風格」版拍照,話題是「皺紋」。我毫不猶豫便答應了。來到studio,她要我做出「喜怒哀樂」四個不同的表情,然後由她去選擇那一個情緒最好的來刊登。我沒有異議,反正我的工作幾乎每天都是這樣,跟愉景灣一眾退了休的senior業餘 actors一起,演繹不同角色。

 拍好了照,Joanne從四個表情中選擇了「哀」的一張,她說「哀」的表情很好。

 或許,「哀」正是我們社會的一個寫實。

對她的選擇我完全沒有意見,反而她緊張我是否高興她的揀選。我對她說「我接受了你的邀請,就是對你的信任,只要你和攝影師覺得那一張好就用那張,因為只有你們才知道自己那本雜誌的風格,我只是一個model,按你的意思做好自己本份。就好像發哥周潤發,他很有個人魅力和明星風範,當他演出一齣影片的角色,他已經不是發哥,而是戲中的「長短腳」或「船頭呎」。

當說到話題「皺紋」,腦袋立即浮現《我和春天有個約會》中的米雪,每次她開心大笑時,便用手指撐起眼角的皮膚,不讓皺紋出現。這是編導有意誇張來諷刺大眾視「皺紋」為「洪水猛獸」。而我卻視「皺紋」是所有美感的所在,尤其50+的女性,要是眼角沒有一絲皺紋,我會視之為一個可打得響的鼓、一個可放上天空的氣球。

和我同齡的朋友,50年前,或許在一本大陸攝影畫冊中,看過一幅黑白照片,那是一位年邁的貧農大娘,她的皮膚黑黝,額頭佈滿一條條深層的皺紋,雖然照片把大娘的容貌拍得很蒼老,卻顯現她的精神飽滿且很樂觀。

大娘在照片上的樂觀是政治上的須要,至於大娘內心是否樂觀並不重要。

當年大陸還很貧窮時,人人過著非常樸素日子,穿的只能是遮寒護暖的補破衣物,吃的都是粗茶淡飯,就是美國總統尼克遜來訪,國宴上的10道菜中就有一味「皮蛋」,用最廉價的食物「皮蛋」來招待一國的元首,在今天中國人的角度幾乎是匪夷所思。若回帶到50年前,中國還是個一窮二白的國家,皮蛋已經屬是奢侈的菜式。所以,全國人除了當官之外,幾乎人人都是赤貧,也就是今天被稱的所謂「低端人」。

皺紋無疑是年齡的印記,也是生活的歷練。而過去赤貧人的皺紋,坑道怎樣說都比現代人特別深。畢竟,豐衣足食才是現代人!

皺紋

 

大律師公會 嚴斥人大常委會「一地兩檢」決定

HKBA Color logo 4C.jpg 165KB - GreenPagoda

Statement of the Hong Kong Bar Association on the Decision of the NPCSC of 27 December 2017 on the Co-operation Agreement between the Mainland and the HKSAR on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement

 香港大律師公會就全國人大常委會於 2017 年 12 月 27 日 批准「一地兩檢」合作安排的決定之聲明

  1. The Hong Kong Bar Association (HKBA) refers to –

(a) The Decision of the Standing Committee of 12th National People’s Congress adopted on 27 December 2017 at its 31st Session on Approving the Co-operation Agreement between the Mainland and the HKSAR on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement (the NPCSC Co-location Decision);

 全國人大常委會於 2017 年 12 月 27 日通過決定,確認「一地兩檢」合作安排(人大常委決定)。

(b) The Explanations given by Director Zhang Xiaoming of the State Council Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office to the NPCSC Session on 22 December 2017 in respect of the Draft NPCSC Co-location Decision (the Explanations); and

 (c) The Co-operation Agreement between the Mainland and the HKSAR on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement (the Co-operation Agreement) that the HKSAR Government published on 27 December 2017.

 香港特區政府並於同日發佈《內地與香港特別行政區關於在廣深港高鐵西九龍站設立口岸實施一地兩檢的合作安排》(合作安排)。

  1. The HKBA notes that the Co-operation Agreement provides in –

 (a) Paragraph 2 that the HKSAR provides to the Mainland the Mainland Port Area of the Port at the Hong Kong West Kowloon Station (WKS) of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) for use and exercise of jurisdiction by the Mainland in accordance with the Cooperation Agreement; and that the acquisition, duration and fees for the use of the site of the Mainland Port Area shall be provided by a contract between the said parties.

 在廣深港高鐵香港西九龍站設立內地口岸區,由特區政府交予內地使用和實施管轄,內地口岸區使用權的取得、期限及費用等事宜,由雙方簽訂合同作出規定(第二條);

 (b) Paragraph 4 that the Mainland Port Area shall, from the date of its commencement of operation, be subject to Mainland jurisdiction in accordance with the Co-operation Agreement and Mainland laws (including judicial jurisdiction), with the Mainland Port Area being regarded as within the Mainland for such purpose.

 內地口岸區由內地根據合作安排和內地法律實施管轄(包括司法管轄),內地口岸區視為處於內地(第四條);

 (c) Paragraphs 5 and 6 that Mainland authorities shall be stationed at the Mainland Port Area to carry out duties under Mainland laws in respect of entry/exit border check, customs supervision and examination and quarantine.

 內地派駐出入境邊防檢查機關、海關、檢驗檢疫機構,在內地口岸區辦理相關出入境邊防檢查、海關監管、檢驗檢疫手續,並根據內地法律履行職責(第五及六條); 

(d) Paragraph 9 that passengers bound for the HKSAR shall be treated as within the Mainland before they leave the Mainland Port Area and if any one of them contravenes a Mainland law, the Mainland authorities stationed there shall take appropriate legal measures according to the law and the specific circumstances.

 前往特區的高鐵乘客離開內地口岸區前視為處於內地,但凡違反內地法律,由內地機構根據具體情況依法採取相應法律措施(第九條);

 (e) Paragraph 10 that passengers bound for the Mainland shall be treated as within the Mainland after they have entered the Mainland Port Area and if any one of them contravenes a Mainland law, the Mainland authorities stationed there shall take appropriate legal measures according to the law and the specific circumstances.

 前往內地的高鐵乘客進入內地口岸區後即視為處於內地,但凡違反內地法律,由內地機構根據具體情況依法採取相應法律措施(第十條);

 (f) Paragraph 12 that HKSAR officers may enter the Mainland Port Area to assist in respect of sudden and emergency incidents only at the request and authorization of the Mainland authorities stationing there.

 香港特區有關人員經內地派駐機構請求並授權,可在內地口岸區協助處理突發、緊急事件(第十二條)。

  1. On 19 October 2017, the HKBA issued a statement indicating that it has been monitoring the development in respect of the “Three-step Process” closely and will publish its views if and when appropriate. Now that the HKBA has access to the details of the first two steps of the “Three-step Process” following yesterday’s events, we consider it necessary to state our views on the legal and constitutional issues involved.

香港大律師公會於 2017 年 10 月 19 日發表聲明,表示正密切關注「一地兩檢」安排「三步走」的發展。公會認為現在是適當時刻評論相關的法律及憲制議題,以使公眾能夠進行恰當、有建設性及理性的討論。

  1. The HKBA refers to the Explanations and considers that its claim at page 5 that the high degree of autonomy enjoyed by the HKSAR is the source of authority for the HKSAR to enter into the Co-location Arrangement with the Mainland is erroneous in material respects. The HKBA makes the following observations on the provisions of the Basic Law used to support this claim:

 公會認為國務院港澳辦主任張曉明於 2017 年 12 月 22 日就人大常委決定的草案提出的說明(該說明)指「香港特別行政區依法享有的高度自治權,是其與內地作出上述一地兩檢安排的權力來源」之說,於多個重要方面不正確。公會就該說明中提及的《基本法》條文有以下見解:

 (a) The HKSAR’s authority to maintain its own immigration control system pursuant to Article 154(2) of the Basic Law is the reason for the HKSAR, not the Mainland authority, to maintain exit control check for Mainlandbound passengers using the XRL and entry control check for Hong Kongbound passengers using the XRL.

 特區政府根據《基本法》第 154(2)條享有特區出入境管制權,說明是由特區政府(而非內地部門)於西九龍站對由香港前往內地的高鐵乘客進行出境檢查,及對由內地進入香港的高鐵乘客進行入境檢查。

(b) Although the directions in Articles 118 and 119 of the Basic Law for the HKSAR to formulate appropriate policies to promote and co-ordinate the development of various trades and to provide an economic and legal environment for encouraging investments, technological progress and the development of new industries may suggest or make it desirable for the adoption of certain policies by the HKSAR Government to promote, coordinate or facilitate economic development, they do not authorize the HKSAR Government to act inconsistently with the systems provided for under the Basic Law.

縱使特區政府根據《基本法》第 118 及 119 條可制定政策促進和協調各個行業的發展,及提供經濟及法律環境鼓勵投資、技術進步及開發新興產業,這等指引性的條文並不授權特區政府作出任何不符合《基本法》下制度的舉動。

(c) While Article 7 of the Basic Law may enable the HKSAR Government to enter into an agreement with another person in respect of the granting of the use of a piece of land within the HKSAR, it does not authorize the HKSAR Government to divest all institutions of the HKSAR (including the HKSAR courts) from having the jurisdiction they have pursuant to the various provisions of the Basic Law over that piece of land. 

《基本法》第 7 條授權特區政府可將特區境內的土地使用權批出予他人,但該條文並不授權特區政府剝奪所有特區機構(尤其包括司法機構)對於該特區境內的土地上的人和事的管轄權。

  1. Accordingly, the HKBA is of the firm view that none of the Basic Law provisions referred to the Explanations provide the source of authority for the Co-location Arrangement in the Co-operation Agreement, the implementation of which will clearly mean the disapplication of the systems of the HKSAR provided for by and under the provisions of the Basic Law, pursuant to Article 31 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and Article 11 of the Basic Law, in respect of the land within the HKSAR at the Mainland Port Area at WKS. Given that Article 11(2) of the Basic Law provides that not even legislation of the HKSAR can contravene Article 11 of the Basic Law, the Co-operation Agreement (being an agreement entered into between the HKSAR Government and the Guangdong Provincial Government), by itself, has no authority to override Article 11.

公會因此堅決認為該說明中提及的《基本法》條文,沒有一條能夠為特區政府依照合作安排實施「一地兩檢」提供法理基礎,尤其是根據合作安排,內地口岸區位於特區之內卻並非受特區根據《中華人民共和國憲法》第 31 條及《基本法》第 11 條下確立的制度管轄。《基本法》第 11(2)條訂明,即使特區立法機關制定的任何法律,均不得與《基本法》相抵觸,因此合作安排(僅為特區政府和廣東省政府之間訂立的協議)不可能凌駕《基本法》第 11 條的規定。

  1. In this regard, the HKBA considers that the suggestion in the Explanations that the Co-location Arrangement does not contravene Article 18 of the Basic Law because Mainland laws only apply to a part of the HKSAR (i.e. the Mainland Port Area) – which will be regarded under the Co-location Arrangement as being situated in the Mainland – and not the entire HKSAR, goes against any plain reading of the Article. Such logic, if extended, is capable of authorizing the application of Mainland laws to any part of the HKSAR designated by the HKSAR Government (e.g. the High Court Building) as long as it does not cover the whole of the HKSAR, and completely by-passes and emasculates the requirement under Article 18(3) of the Basic Law that only national laws listed in Annex III of the Basic Law shall be applied to the HKSAR. 

公會認為,該說明中提出因內地法律的實施只限於在西九龍站的內地口岸區(而該區域根據合作安排將被視作處於內地)而非整個特區,因此並不違反《基本法》第 18 條,此說有違該條文的任何正常解讀。延伸下去,此說法可意味內地法律只要適用範圍並非全香港,便可於特區境內由特區政府指定的任何地方(例如高等法院大樓)執行,這完全漠視及閹割《基本法》第 18(3)條下只有列於附件三的全國性法律方可在特區境內實施的規定。

  1. The HKBA is appalled by the NPCSC Co-location Decision, which merely states that the NPCSC approves the Co-operation Agreement and “confirms” that the Co-operation Agreement is consistent with the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and the Basic Law without stating how this is so. This is followed by a provision phrased in terms of an “obligation” of the HKSAR to legislate to ensure the implementation of the Co-operation Agreement. This plainly amounts to an announcement by the NPCSC that the Co-operation Agreement complies with the Constitution and the Basic Law “just because the NPCSC says so”. Such an unprecedented move is the most retrograde step to date in the implementation of the Basic Law, and severely undermines public confidence in “one country, two systems” and the rule of law in the HKSAR.

人大常委決定僅指出全國人大常委會批准合作安排的落實並「確認」合作安排符合《中華人民共和國憲法》及《基本法》,卻未就此「確認」提出任何基礎及理據。然而,人大常委決定同時指令特區政府「應當」立法保障合作安排得以落實。公會對此表示震驚,此宣佈等同指「但凡全國人大常委會所說符合的便是符合」。這並無前例的舉動,是回歸後在香港特區落實執行《基本法》的最大倒退,嚴重衝擊「一國兩制」的實施及法治精神。

  1. The NPCSC does not exercise power out of a vacuum. Its functions and powers are provided in Article 67 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, and its functions and powers are prescribed (and circumscribed) in Articles 17, 18, 20, 90, 158, 159 and 160, and Annexes I and II to the Basic Law. The NPCSC must abide by these provisions of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and the Basic Law when it makes a decision in respect of the HKSAR.

公會認為,全國人大常委會不能憑空得到和行使權力,其職能及權力源自《中華人民共和國憲法》第 67 條規定,其對香港特區可行使的權限,則由《基本法》第 17、18、20、90、158、159及 160 條及附件一和附件二賦予及規限。全國人大常委會就特區事務作出的任何決定,必須依從《中華人民共和國憲法》及《基本法》的上述條文。

  1. The HKBA considers that the assertion in the NPCSC Co-location Decision that the stationing of Mainland authorities at the Mainland Port Area at WKS to exercise their duties under Mainland laws there is different from the situation under Article 18 of the Basic Law of national laws being implemented in the whole of the HKSAR begs the question of how this is different. The assertion that it is appropriate to make provision under the Co-operation Agreement to provide for the division of jurisdiction and the application of laws in the WKS Port and to confirm that the Mainland Port Area (a part of the HKSAR) shall be regarded as “being in the Mainland” again begs the question of why this is appropriate. The assertion that the establishment of the Mainland Port Area in the Port at WKS does not alter the extent of the HKSAR, does not affect the high degree of autonomy of the HKSAR enjoyed according to law, and does not limit the rights and freedoms the Hong Kong residents enjoy according to law, plainly begs the question of how and why they are so.

全國人大常委會未能指出內地於西九龍站內地口岸區派駐出入境邊防人員根據內地法律履行職責如何不同於《基本法》第 18 條下在特區實施全國性法律,亦未能解釋為何於西九龍站劃分不同管轄權區域及將內地口岸區視作處於內地的必要,更完全未能解釋設立內地口岸區如何不改變特區的範圍,如何不影響特區依法享有的高度自治,以及如何不減損港人依法享有的權利和自由。

  1. The NPCSC Co-location Decision is both wholly unconvincing and unsatisfactory in achieving its purported purpose, namely to provide a firm legal basis for the Step 3 local legislation being the last of the “Three-step Process”. The Colocation Arrangement’s disapplication of the systems of the HKSAR provided for by and under the provisions of the Basic Law means that the Step 3 local legislation will, by reason of Article 11(2) of the Basic Law, appear to be inconsistent with specific provisions of the Basic Law, including Articles 4, 11, 19, 22(3), 31, 35, 38, 39, 41, 80, 87. The HKBA does not regard as a satisfactory explanation any reliance by the HKSAR Government of the NPCSC Co-location Decision in answer to any of the above questions of inconsistency.

人大常委決定完全未能就「一地兩檢」安排「三步走」的最後一步(即本地立法)提供明確的法理基礎。合作安排下內地口岸區否定應用特區的制度,則根據《基本法》第 11(2)條,與《基本法》第 4、11、19、22(3)、31、35、38、39、41、80 及 87 條有衝突,公會認為,特區政府不可能純以人大常委決定作解脫。

  1. The HKBA considers that the NPCSC has, by reason of the NPCSC Co-location Decision and the way the NPCSC has adopted it, generated a strong perception among the legal community in Hong Kong and in the wider legal and political communities outside Hong Kong that the NPCSC is prepared to make decisions at the request of the Chief Executive of the HKSAR and the HKSAR Government under her leadership just because the subject matter concerned “is a good thing”, without due regard and respect for the provisions of (and restrictions in) the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and the Basic Law. The HKBA notes, with utmost concern and regret, that such a strong perception will surely impair and undermine the confidence of the local and international communities on the maintenance of the rule of law and the “one country, two systems” policy in Hong Kong, both of which are provided for by the Basic Law, which was enacted pursuant to Article 31 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China. Through the combined efforts of the HKSAR Government, the State Council and the NPCSC in producing NPCSC Co-location Decision, the integrity of the Basic Law has now been irreparably breached.

公會認為人大常委決定及其作出的過程,令致本港法律界以至於香港以外的法律及政治群體懷有一個強烈的觀念,就是在香港特首及其領導的政府的要求下,全國人大常委會是會作出其認為「好事情」的決定而漠視《中華人民共和國憲法》及《基本法》相關的條文及限制。此舉無可避免地削減本地及國際間對特區奉行「一國兩制」及法治的理念及決心,為此公會表示極度憂慮及遺憾。特區政府、國務院及全國人大常委會相互「配合」下作出的人大常委決定,已不能彌補地侵害了《基本法》的完整。

Dated 28th December 2017

HONG KONG BAR ASSOCIATION

 香港大律師公會 2017 年 12 月 28 日

親眼目睹

2017-12-10 (4)

今天的新聞有兩則是與「親眼目睹」有關。

年青的地盤工人被巨型三角架工字鐵撞到時,在一起工作的父親和胞弟均親眼目睹,立即上前查看及報警將他送院急救,當時事主還有意識,父和弟以為他傷勢不算太嚴重,其後兩人也趕去醫院看望,誰知來到醫院,才知道兒子/胞兄已不治,頓時慟哭。

另一則,一位就讀中文大學的21歲青年,與母親同行,來到港鐵東鐵線沙田站月台候車的時候,青年趁列車埋站那一刻跳軌,遭列車輾過,當場死亡,母親目睹經過的一切,情緒怎樣可想而知。

目睹悲劇的一刻是最悲慟,好像將燒紅了的鐵板壓在心上,永遠留下難忘的「烙印」。我也曾「目睹」,雖然是在銀幕上目睹,但也感到很痛楚,而這個「烙印」已藏在內心40年,至今也難以揮走。

40年前,在東方戲院看哥普拉導演的《現代啟示錄》,看到下半場的一場祭典儀式,一頭活生生的牛被拉到祭壇,劊子手舉起刀向牛的頸部一斬,牛的身和頭分離,牛迅速倒下。看到這一幕,我感到很震驚,整個人呆了,銀幕上的影像頓時變成了模糊的光影,我沒繼續看下去,離開了戲院。

離開戲院之後,我不停的告訴自己來自欺:「那頭牛是道具」、「是剪接的效果」。

事實上,在越南古代的祭典上都是以殺牛為樂,難怪這個民族數百年來所經歷的盡是悲哀的痛楚。

另一齣香港電影《第一類危險》,把貓從唐樓的天台上拋下,直插入鐵枝,令貓隻痛苦死亡。導演採用一鏡過直落拍攝,中間沒經剪接,我不知是導演以這樣的鏡頭來向觀眾作震撼性的衝擊,抑或以此來自我取樂。然而,鏡頭直落的good take以外,有很多貓無緣無故的由天台被拋落地死去了。

很多人都說,香港是個「福地」。但,若不珍惜,福也會有完的一天。當福遠離之後,禍便會來臨。

可是,當中有多少人是懷恨香港的福、或懷有別人的目的而去毀滅香港的福,將禍加害於香港呢?