It is very difficult to define what democracy means. It comes in all shapes and forms. We would love to believe that America is a democracy and the UK is also a democracy. In fact, it is not a black and white thing - it has different shades of meaning to it. A lot of people lament that democracy in America is dead, because they have got a new president in Donald Trump. They believe that the very fact that he has been elected the new president is sufficient to prove democracy is not working.
Obviously, without first defining what democracy means before going into all sorts of problems with democracy (whatever that term means) is futile and probably not worth your time reading this article. Loosely, I think democracy can be said to be a political system in which people can freely vote and elect to be voted to public office without hindrance. The voting system itself must be fair meaning one person one vote and each vote carries the same weight. According to these principles, democracy is not a point but a spectrum.
For example, the US system would fail these principles. Clinton won the popular votes but lost the collegial votes due to the fact that the presidential election is not a direct one. Therefore, each vote in a smaller state would often carry more weight than one in a bigger state, say California. This compromise is built-in in the US system so that smaller states would still have a say in the Federation.
Apart from the fairness dimension of a democracy, any political system including democracy (no matter what that means) must be able to regenerate itself from time to time. Sadly, all system be it physical, biological or social will all become degenerate and corrupted over time. You may probably call it the second law of thermodynamics - all orderliness will become orderless over time.
After the election, we heard that Clinton was blamming the FBI and we-don't-know-what for her loss in the election. This reflects how detached the US elite of which she is a member has become over the past decades. Clinton lost because she ignored the unfairness and the injustice of the system which has made the rich richer and poor poorer. This only proves why she would never win this election in the present social context of uncontrolled globalisation which is the root cause of where we are at this point.
This is the beauty of the system - when someone so entrenched in the vested interest of the Establishment - the system will be forced to regenerate itself because they will be voted out of the office and, someone else would have a chance to start anew. Of course, they may not succeed where others have failed and they will also become corrupted in time before they are in trun being voted out again.
In short, Donald Trump as the new president is not itself a problem. It is only symtomatic of the underlining problems of the system. Trump was elected because the system is corrupted and people want to have a real change from the status quo. Ironically, this proves that the system is working, as it is trying to regenerate itself.
2016年11月23日 星期三
2016年11月10日 星期四
Where do we go from here?
It is tempting for us to predict what will happen in future. However, more often than not these predictions will later be proved to be wrong. Nevertheess, if we look from a distance and try not to pass the woods for the tree, we may be able to see things in their proper perspective. That said, how will Donald Trump use his powers and what consequences there will be for the world of his actions or inactions?
Again, if we get to the bottom of it, it is actually a problem of fair distribution of wealth and opportunity (or rather the lack of it). People have expectation that there should be a leveled playing field so that everyone would have a fair opportunity to succeed if they choose to work hard enough. Sadly, the reality is just the opposite and becoming more and more so. People are so angered and frustrated that they would have chosen anyone other than someone who is perceived as within the Establishment as the next president of the USA. It is really in this context someone so unfit for that office has been elected the next president.
Ironically, history will prove in the coming years that someone as unfit as Donald Trump would actually have turned things around if he would indeed carry his words into action. It sounds contradictory, does it not? When we say he is unfit for the office, we are thinking conventionally and presume only someone within the Establishment is fit for this office. Don't forget that the Establishment has grown so corrupted and detached from the people in the past few decades, it is precisely because Donald Trump is so unfit for the office that makes him fit for that office.
What is so interesting about the trajectory of human affairs and history is that it seldom develops predictably in a linear way. There is a real chance that Donald Trump - someone seemingly coming out of the woodwork - could make history. Don't forget that a lot of this uneven distribution of wealth and opportunity stems from the globalization of trade which has provided the capitalists with a system in which to exploit the labour on a global scale. Yes, the pie has got bigger but the Establishment has also grabbed a much bigger portion of the pie. People on the lower rungs of the ladder are left with ever less wealth and opportunity. A rising tide does not lift all boats, because the globalization of trade is not a rising tide.
The truth of the fact is that trade ipso facto is not good. There is a distinction between good trade and bad trade. Probably no one today would say slave trade is good. Slave trade is certainly good and profitable for those who trade in it. But it is not good, because it is not fair and immoral and inhumane. Most economists who are themselves also part of the Establishment would tend to blind us from this important distinction. They know the price of every thing but the value of nothing. Then, what is good trade? The trade that is fair and just and enhances the value for everyone involved in it is good. The current system of world trade is not. Therefore, it should be rolled back.
There must be a connection between the incomes of the labour and the profit of the company so that unscrupulous exploitation of the labour by the capitalists can be rooted out. For example, if the company that makes iphones must be made by law to return a certain percentage of the profits to the labour as part of their wages on top of what they have already been paid, the company would still be encouraged to make as much profit as possible. But, its employees would also benefit from the increased profit. This would take away the exploitative dimension of the company which has always been factored in its formula for making profit. This should be the case regardless where in the world the company chooses to make its iphones (just as an example) be it in China or the USA. If this percentage point is properly set, the company may indeed choose to make its iphones in the USA, because there is no exploitative dimension it can take advantage of the labour in China. More working opportunities will be left in the USA, hence a fairer distribution of wealth and opportunity.
Efficiency is only part of the formula; justice and fairness is far more important than efficiency itself. Efficiency is not an end in itself and must be made to serve justice and fairness. Efficiency represents the price of things but the true value of things lies in justice and fairness. If and only if Donald Trump sees things in the same light, there is a real opportunity for him to turn things around.
Again, if we get to the bottom of it, it is actually a problem of fair distribution of wealth and opportunity (or rather the lack of it). People have expectation that there should be a leveled playing field so that everyone would have a fair opportunity to succeed if they choose to work hard enough. Sadly, the reality is just the opposite and becoming more and more so. People are so angered and frustrated that they would have chosen anyone other than someone who is perceived as within the Establishment as the next president of the USA. It is really in this context someone so unfit for that office has been elected the next president.
Ironically, history will prove in the coming years that someone as unfit as Donald Trump would actually have turned things around if he would indeed carry his words into action. It sounds contradictory, does it not? When we say he is unfit for the office, we are thinking conventionally and presume only someone within the Establishment is fit for this office. Don't forget that the Establishment has grown so corrupted and detached from the people in the past few decades, it is precisely because Donald Trump is so unfit for the office that makes him fit for that office.
What is so interesting about the trajectory of human affairs and history is that it seldom develops predictably in a linear way. There is a real chance that Donald Trump - someone seemingly coming out of the woodwork - could make history. Don't forget that a lot of this uneven distribution of wealth and opportunity stems from the globalization of trade which has provided the capitalists with a system in which to exploit the labour on a global scale. Yes, the pie has got bigger but the Establishment has also grabbed a much bigger portion of the pie. People on the lower rungs of the ladder are left with ever less wealth and opportunity. A rising tide does not lift all boats, because the globalization of trade is not a rising tide.
The truth of the fact is that trade ipso facto is not good. There is a distinction between good trade and bad trade. Probably no one today would say slave trade is good. Slave trade is certainly good and profitable for those who trade in it. But it is not good, because it is not fair and immoral and inhumane. Most economists who are themselves also part of the Establishment would tend to blind us from this important distinction. They know the price of every thing but the value of nothing. Then, what is good trade? The trade that is fair and just and enhances the value for everyone involved in it is good. The current system of world trade is not. Therefore, it should be rolled back.
There must be a connection between the incomes of the labour and the profit of the company so that unscrupulous exploitation of the labour by the capitalists can be rooted out. For example, if the company that makes iphones must be made by law to return a certain percentage of the profits to the labour as part of their wages on top of what they have already been paid, the company would still be encouraged to make as much profit as possible. But, its employees would also benefit from the increased profit. This would take away the exploitative dimension of the company which has always been factored in its formula for making profit. This should be the case regardless where in the world the company chooses to make its iphones (just as an example) be it in China or the USA. If this percentage point is properly set, the company may indeed choose to make its iphones in the USA, because there is no exploitative dimension it can take advantage of the labour in China. More working opportunities will be left in the USA, hence a fairer distribution of wealth and opportunity.
Efficiency is only part of the formula; justice and fairness is far more important than efficiency itself. Efficiency is not an end in itself and must be made to serve justice and fairness. Efficiency represents the price of things but the true value of things lies in justice and fairness. If and only if Donald Trump sees things in the same light, there is a real opportunity for him to turn things around.
2016年7月28日 星期四
The next president
The show thus far of the race for the White House has certainly taken an ugly turn. The man best qualified for the post has dropped out of the race - Bernie Sanders. He is best qualified, because it appears that amongst all the candidates only Sanders is willing to bring some real change to the country and take on the establishment. There is evidence that at least partly due to the Democratic Party's rigged internal system Sanders is now not on the Democrats' ticket.
Now we are left with these two people on offer - Hilary Clinton on the left and Donald Trump on the right. This is truely a choice of the lesser of two evils. Voters who are old enough would still have difficulties in recalling when it was the last time that they were faced with such a hard choice.
To understand why this is a hard choice, one must first have a grip on the current problems of the country. Obviously, there are many social problems facing society today. To name just a few - poverty, inequality, gun control, security. However, one must not lose sight of the root cause to all these social problems facing the country, and more broadly the world today, i.e. globalisation.
Understandably, not everyone share the above view of globalisation. There are many who have benefited from it the last three decades. The problem is there are many more who are left behind and outside the door of globalisation. Inequality is the issue.
Back to our original issue. Who should you vote for, Clinton or Trump? The voters can only take their decision on the basis of what these two people have said and done in the past. First, Clinton is an insider through and through. She has been there for too long (read this as too intertwined with the vested interest of the establishment) to be able to bring any change. It's all business as usual for Clinton no matter what rhetoric she uses.
Next come Trump. A man who has a proven track record of labour exploitation, and relentless business dealings. He is a man who would say anything to get what he wants (read this as he has no principles and no ideology). Whatever later turns out to suit his best interest at the time, he would go back on his words without hesitation. You cannot trust this man for a single second, because he is trying to figure out every second how to make use of you.
Obviously, voters may also consider voting the Liberals or the Greens or not at all. If there are enough voters who decide to vote say the Greens, they may actually create enough momentum to bring about some real change to the present corrupted system. The problem though is it is a two party system and, any candidate from other than the two main parties stands a slim chance of being elected.
Come November this year, if you still care enough to vote my advice to you is - hold your nose and vote for Trump. Yes, he still is an invertebrate liar. However, hopefully the checks and balances in the ssytem will limit whatever damage he may be able to wreak. If he becomes the president, his business instincts would tell him that it works for him with his tactics. Don't forget - he is an unprincipled bloke. He would say whatever no matter he means it or not to get what he wants. But when it comes to reality, he would always take what's best for him, and by extension hopefully for the country.
Yes, indeed this is an interesting ride from now to November this year. Let the show roll on.
Now we are left with these two people on offer - Hilary Clinton on the left and Donald Trump on the right. This is truely a choice of the lesser of two evils. Voters who are old enough would still have difficulties in recalling when it was the last time that they were faced with such a hard choice.
To understand why this is a hard choice, one must first have a grip on the current problems of the country. Obviously, there are many social problems facing society today. To name just a few - poverty, inequality, gun control, security. However, one must not lose sight of the root cause to all these social problems facing the country, and more broadly the world today, i.e. globalisation.
Understandably, not everyone share the above view of globalisation. There are many who have benefited from it the last three decades. The problem is there are many more who are left behind and outside the door of globalisation. Inequality is the issue.
Back to our original issue. Who should you vote for, Clinton or Trump? The voters can only take their decision on the basis of what these two people have said and done in the past. First, Clinton is an insider through and through. She has been there for too long (read this as too intertwined with the vested interest of the establishment) to be able to bring any change. It's all business as usual for Clinton no matter what rhetoric she uses.
Next come Trump. A man who has a proven track record of labour exploitation, and relentless business dealings. He is a man who would say anything to get what he wants (read this as he has no principles and no ideology). Whatever later turns out to suit his best interest at the time, he would go back on his words without hesitation. You cannot trust this man for a single second, because he is trying to figure out every second how to make use of you.
Obviously, voters may also consider voting the Liberals or the Greens or not at all. If there are enough voters who decide to vote say the Greens, they may actually create enough momentum to bring about some real change to the present corrupted system. The problem though is it is a two party system and, any candidate from other than the two main parties stands a slim chance of being elected.
Come November this year, if you still care enough to vote my advice to you is - hold your nose and vote for Trump. Yes, he still is an invertebrate liar. However, hopefully the checks and balances in the ssytem will limit whatever damage he may be able to wreak. If he becomes the president, his business instincts would tell him that it works for him with his tactics. Don't forget - he is an unprincipled bloke. He would say whatever no matter he means it or not to get what he wants. But when it comes to reality, he would always take what's best for him, and by extension hopefully for the country.
Yes, indeed this is an interesting ride from now to November this year. Let the show roll on.
2016年7月27日 星期三
An autocracy's dilemma
A classic difficulty for any system is control and efficiency - the more control one has the less efficient will be the system. This is a millenia old dilema for any political system as well. There is a tendency for a part of the society that is lucky enough to rise up to the highest political echelon to retain that control as much as and as long as possible. A particular example is the Chinese Communist Party in the present day China.
The dilema lies in the unsolvable difficulty in maintaining control over the system and keeping up with the efficiency of the system itself. As with other systems in general, a political system in order to survive must tackle with and solve the issue of economic efficiency of the system, i.e. the society over which it tries to maintain constant control. Without a sufficent level of economic efficiency, the marginal return on investment will stagnate and eventually diminish. Society as a whole will not be able to remain its productivity as a result of the lack of efficiency.
To keep up with that ellusive economic efficiency, an autocracy must loosen up its grips on the system economically at first and, subsequently up to certain point politically. However, the process of lossening up will undermine its much treasured control of the system. This would inevitably lead to the opening up of the political system, as in the case of Taiwan, or the demise of the antocratic regime itself. The CCP is presently subject to the dictates of its survival instincts - that is it is trying to retain its control and stifle any discontent as much as possible.
In doing so, the system itself would gradually become less and less efficient. The evidence for this is apparently the building up of the debt heaps. Now that the system is becoming less efficient, the autocratic control over it will become more difficult. The reason for this problem is - the energy of society which would have been diverted to economic activities would now be used against the very autocratic regime itself. As a result, more resources of the society will be used by the regime to maintain its control over the system, hence worsening the efficiency even further. A good example is the five-cents army of the CCP.
The other option for the autocrat will be to forego its control at all whatsoever. This is truely a choice between a rock and a hard place. The fact that the ruling echelon may continue to suck up the fats of the land is predicate upon the fact that, for example, the CCP continue to dictate the lives of billions of Chinese people. This is simply not an option open to them.
Historically, there has been no autocratic one-party system that has succeeded in solving this dilema between control and efficiency. The former Soviet Union is a good example. All the Chinese dynasties have been in a sense one-party systems and have all failed in the same way spectacularly. Therefore, at some point of its development the tension between control and efficiency would grow so severe as to break up the very fibrics of the autocrat's control once and for all. An autocratic system is indeed a very undesirable model for progress of civilization, because it lacks any linearity for progress. An autocratic system will inevitably make and then break and repeat the process again by another bunch of blokes.
The beauty of this dilema is so clear that it is almost as inherent in the nature of things as a physical law. All are subject to the dictates and effect of this dilema be it democracy or autocracy.
The dilema lies in the unsolvable difficulty in maintaining control over the system and keeping up with the efficiency of the system itself. As with other systems in general, a political system in order to survive must tackle with and solve the issue of economic efficiency of the system, i.e. the society over which it tries to maintain constant control. Without a sufficent level of economic efficiency, the marginal return on investment will stagnate and eventually diminish. Society as a whole will not be able to remain its productivity as a result of the lack of efficiency.
To keep up with that ellusive economic efficiency, an autocracy must loosen up its grips on the system economically at first and, subsequently up to certain point politically. However, the process of lossening up will undermine its much treasured control of the system. This would inevitably lead to the opening up of the political system, as in the case of Taiwan, or the demise of the antocratic regime itself. The CCP is presently subject to the dictates of its survival instincts - that is it is trying to retain its control and stifle any discontent as much as possible.
In doing so, the system itself would gradually become less and less efficient. The evidence for this is apparently the building up of the debt heaps. Now that the system is becoming less efficient, the autocratic control over it will become more difficult. The reason for this problem is - the energy of society which would have been diverted to economic activities would now be used against the very autocratic regime itself. As a result, more resources of the society will be used by the regime to maintain its control over the system, hence worsening the efficiency even further. A good example is the five-cents army of the CCP.
The other option for the autocrat will be to forego its control at all whatsoever. This is truely a choice between a rock and a hard place. The fact that the ruling echelon may continue to suck up the fats of the land is predicate upon the fact that, for example, the CCP continue to dictate the lives of billions of Chinese people. This is simply not an option open to them.
Historically, there has been no autocratic one-party system that has succeeded in solving this dilema between control and efficiency. The former Soviet Union is a good example. All the Chinese dynasties have been in a sense one-party systems and have all failed in the same way spectacularly. Therefore, at some point of its development the tension between control and efficiency would grow so severe as to break up the very fibrics of the autocrat's control once and for all. An autocratic system is indeed a very undesirable model for progress of civilization, because it lacks any linearity for progress. An autocratic system will inevitably make and then break and repeat the process again by another bunch of blokes.
The beauty of this dilema is so clear that it is almost as inherent in the nature of things as a physical law. All are subject to the dictates and effect of this dilema be it democracy or autocracy.
An autocracy's dilemma
A classic difficulty for any system is control and efficiency - the more control one has the less efficient will be the system. This is a millenia old dilema for any political system as well. There is a tendency for a part of the society that is lucky enough to rise up to the highest political echelon to retain that control as much as and as long as possible. A particular example is the Chinese Communist Party in the present day China.
The dilema lies in the unsolvable difficulty in maintaining control over the system and keeping up with the efficiency of the system itself. As with other systems in general, a political system in order to survive must tackle with and solve the issue of economic efficiency of the system, i.e. the society over which it tries to maintain constant control. Without a sufficent level of economic efficiency, the marginal return on investment will stagnate and eventually diminish. Society as a whole will not be able to remain its productivity as a result of the lack of efficiency.
To keep up with that ellusive economic efficiency, an autocracy must loosen up its grips on the system economically at first and, subsequently up to certain point politically. However, the process of lossening up will undermine its much treasured control of the system. This would inevitably lead to the opening up of the political system, as in the case of Taiwan, or the demise of the antocratic regime itself. The CCP is presently subject to the dictates of its survival instincts - that is it is trying to retain its control and stifle any discontent as much as possible.
In doing so, the system itself would gradually become less and less efficient. The evidence for this is apparently the building up of the debt heaps. Now that the system is becoming less efficient, the autocratic control over it will become more difficult. The reason for this problem is - the energy of society which would have been diverted to economic activities would now be used against the very autocratic regime itself. As a result, more resources of the society will be used by the regime to maintain its control over the system, hence worsening the efficiency even further. A good example is the five-cents army of the CCP.
The other option for the autocrat will be to forego its control at all whatsoever. This is truely a choice between a rock and a hard place. The fact that the ruling echelon may continue to suck up the fats of the land is predicate upon the fact that, for example, the CCP continue to dictate the lives of billions of Chinese people. This is simply not an option open to them.
Historically, there has been no autocratic one-party system that has succeeded in solving this dilema between control and efficiency. The former Soviet Union is a good example. All the Chinese dynasties have been in a sense one-party systems and have all failed in the same way spectacularly. Therefore, at some point of its development the tension between control and efficiency would grow so severe as to break up the very fibrics of the autocrat's control once and for all. An autocratic system is indeed a very undesirable model for progress of civilization, because it lacks any linearity for progress. An autocratic system will inevitably make and then break and repeat the process again by another bunch of blokes.
The beauty of this dilema is so clear that it is almost as inherent in the nature of things as a physical law. All are subject to the dictates and effect of this dilema be it democracy or autocracy.
The dilema lies in the unsolvable difficulty in maintaining control over the system and keeping up with the efficiency of the system itself. As with other systems in general, a political system in order to survive must tackle with and solve the issue of economic efficiency of the system, i.e. the society over which it tries to maintain constant control. Without a sufficent level of economic efficiency, the marginal return on investment will stagnate and eventually diminish. Society as a whole will not be able to remain its productivity as a result of the lack of efficiency.
To keep up with that ellusive economic efficiency, an autocracy must loosen up its grips on the system economically at first and, subsequently up to certain point politically. However, the process of lossening up will undermine its much treasured control of the system. This would inevitably lead to the opening up of the political system, as in the case of Taiwan, or the demise of the antocratic regime itself. The CCP is presently subject to the dictates of its survival instincts - that is it is trying to retain its control and stifle any discontent as much as possible.
In doing so, the system itself would gradually become less and less efficient. The evidence for this is apparently the building up of the debt heaps. Now that the system is becoming less efficient, the autocratic control over it will become more difficult. The reason for this problem is - the energy of society which would have been diverted to economic activities would now be used against the very autocratic regime itself. As a result, more resources of the society will be used by the regime to maintain its control over the system, hence worsening the efficiency even further. A good example is the five-cents army of the CCP.
The other option for the autocrat will be to forego its control at all whatsoever. This is truely a choice between a rock and a hard place. The fact that the ruling echelon may continue to suck up the fats of the land is predicate upon the fact that, for example, the CCP continue to dictate the lives of billions of Chinese people. This is simply not an option open to them.
Historically, there has been no autocratic one-party system that has succeeded in solving this dilema between control and efficiency. The former Soviet Union is a good example. All the Chinese dynasties have been in a sense one-party systems and have all failed in the same way spectacularly. Therefore, at some point of its development the tension between control and efficiency would grow so severe as to break up the very fibrics of the autocrat's control once and for all. An autocratic system is indeed a very undesirable model for progress of civilization, because it lacks any linearity for progress. An autocratic system will inevitably make and then break and repeat the process again by another bunch of blokes.
The beauty of this dilema is so clear that it is almost as inherent in the nature of things as a physical law. All are subject to the dictates and effect of this dilema be it democracy or autocracy.
2016年7月8日 星期五
A mid-summer night's walk
A mid-summer night's walk
On once familiar path
To places long last passed
Vivid images reflected 'long the way
Old melodies reverb'rated all over 'gain
On the journey of life we march
Holding onto the remains of past
Which is slippin' 'way fast
It's yesterday once mo' 'n' future no mo'
~ In memory of the death of my past
On once familiar path
To places long last passed
Vivid images reflected 'long the way
Old melodies reverb'rated all over 'gain
On the journey of life we march
Holding onto the remains of past
Which is slippin' 'way fast
It's yesterday once mo' 'n' future no mo'
~ In memory of the death of my past
2016年7月1日 星期五
The next PM
Who should be the next PM? For a start, the next PM will come from the Conservatives, unless the the Conservatives decide to call a general election. Of course, given the present divided state we find the Labours in, they may not want one at this point, either.
Since the now famous Article 50 sets out the two year period in which the exit mechanism shall be completed, the new PM has to be someone who can unite not just a divided Conservative Party but also a disunited country in a relatively short span of time.
As the votes show, the leave supporters are roughly similar in number as the remain supporters. I reckon that nation wide there may be slightly more people in the remain camp than the leave camp. If that was not true before 23 July 2016, it certainly is the case now.
What this will mean to the new PM is from whichever camp she (yes, I mean she.) is to be selected, about half the country's population in the opposite camp may distrust her as well as those in the Tories. Without this trust and confidence, it would be hard for her to negotiate any new terms with the EU.
Say, if a leaver (if this is a proper term) becomes the next PM, the vindictive Europeans may tend to make it hard on the UK when it comes to negotiating new terms. Those in the remain camp may resort to foot dragging creating more difficulties and say we told you so before.
Bo Jo may have sensed this difficulties and realised that the water is still too shallow for a full plunge at this point. In any event, Bo Jo should probably never see his days as a PM. I confess that I am not a great fan of his. I do not admire his hairdo (if indeed this is a proper word). I suspect that it is not even naturally blond and someone should help him comb his hair if he is not minded to do so. Anyway, at this point he is perceived as having stabbed David Cameron in the back. His political allies may not forget and forgive Bo Jo so lightly. He is cunning enough to pull out now and bid his time.
That said, it may be more advisable to have a remainer (again my apologies for this term) as the next PM. She would probably receive more sympathy from the Europeans on negotiating new terms and understanding or benefit of doubt from either camp.
I just hope the UK will not see another Maggie Thatcher whose policies till towards the rich and have made the poor miserable. In short, this is indeed uncertain times. Just when the UK needs to have the most capable leader at the helm to steer the country out of troubled waters, it finds itself lacking exactly this.
Since the now famous Article 50 sets out the two year period in which the exit mechanism shall be completed, the new PM has to be someone who can unite not just a divided Conservative Party but also a disunited country in a relatively short span of time.
As the votes show, the leave supporters are roughly similar in number as the remain supporters. I reckon that nation wide there may be slightly more people in the remain camp than the leave camp. If that was not true before 23 July 2016, it certainly is the case now.
What this will mean to the new PM is from whichever camp she (yes, I mean she.) is to be selected, about half the country's population in the opposite camp may distrust her as well as those in the Tories. Without this trust and confidence, it would be hard for her to negotiate any new terms with the EU.
Say, if a leaver (if this is a proper term) becomes the next PM, the vindictive Europeans may tend to make it hard on the UK when it comes to negotiating new terms. Those in the remain camp may resort to foot dragging creating more difficulties and say we told you so before.
Bo Jo may have sensed this difficulties and realised that the water is still too shallow for a full plunge at this point. In any event, Bo Jo should probably never see his days as a PM. I confess that I am not a great fan of his. I do not admire his hairdo (if indeed this is a proper word). I suspect that it is not even naturally blond and someone should help him comb his hair if he is not minded to do so. Anyway, at this point he is perceived as having stabbed David Cameron in the back. His political allies may not forget and forgive Bo Jo so lightly. He is cunning enough to pull out now and bid his time.
That said, it may be more advisable to have a remainer (again my apologies for this term) as the next PM. She would probably receive more sympathy from the Europeans on negotiating new terms and understanding or benefit of doubt from either camp.
I just hope the UK will not see another Maggie Thatcher whose policies till towards the rich and have made the poor miserable. In short, this is indeed uncertain times. Just when the UK needs to have the most capable leader at the helm to steer the country out of troubled waters, it finds itself lacking exactly this.
2016年6月24日 星期五
To leave or not to leave
Now it is official - the result has come in and people have voted to leave the EU. You may have wondered what the fuss this is all about. What are the significances of the UK leaving the EU? Or more pressing or relevant - what does it mean to you, an ordinary person on this side of the Globe? The short answer is probably not very much. However, it may mean a lot to your children and their children.
Let us put things in proper perspective. Things have not, except for the worse, changed a bit since 2008. Those in power, or positions that could make a change, are too complacent or too obsessed with their own self interest to have initiated any meaningful change to this unjust and unbalanced system (read this as the bankers and property magnates). The rich have become richer and the poor the poorer. The haves are holding on to their excesses and surplus, whilst the have nots have nothing to put on their table.
This global imbalance started in the late 1980's or early 1990's when the rich and their political agents began touting the 'merits' of globalisation and its institutional incarnate - the WTO. Their eyes can see only the price but not the value. In the name of economic efficiency, they are able to exploit the poor more efficiently and on a global scale. Never has it been before in human history easier and to a much bigger extent than the past two decades or so for the poor to get poorer. And all this has happened in the name of globalisation.
Now, the people have awoken to this true reality. The UK referendum is not so much about leaving the EU than a vote of revolt by the have nots against the haves. Real change is demanded of the complacent and, now is the time - not tomorrow and not the day after. As with their ancesters 800 years ago, the English have again set in motion this new sea change. You will soon witness in country after country the poor start demanding fairness and justice from this unjust institution. Don't be surprised if Donald Trump is elected president of the United States in November this year.
Obviously, this is going to be a long drawn out process, for the rich will not yield up what they are wielding so easily. However, the fire has been set and, it will surely spread, because the poor are fed up with this injustice for too long. Do you still remember when the last person said 'yes, we can'? Yet there is nothing we can do.
Let this date 23 June 2016 go down in history as did such dates as 4 July and 14 July. When the events of the present have run their course, and dust settled, you will see the true significance of the moment and realise that you have been part of that history having been in the making. Even better, if you are lucky and live long enough, you could live to tell the tales to your grandchildren.
God bless the people. Amen.
Let us put things in proper perspective. Things have not, except for the worse, changed a bit since 2008. Those in power, or positions that could make a change, are too complacent or too obsessed with their own self interest to have initiated any meaningful change to this unjust and unbalanced system (read this as the bankers and property magnates). The rich have become richer and the poor the poorer. The haves are holding on to their excesses and surplus, whilst the have nots have nothing to put on their table.
This global imbalance started in the late 1980's or early 1990's when the rich and their political agents began touting the 'merits' of globalisation and its institutional incarnate - the WTO. Their eyes can see only the price but not the value. In the name of economic efficiency, they are able to exploit the poor more efficiently and on a global scale. Never has it been before in human history easier and to a much bigger extent than the past two decades or so for the poor to get poorer. And all this has happened in the name of globalisation.
Now, the people have awoken to this true reality. The UK referendum is not so much about leaving the EU than a vote of revolt by the have nots against the haves. Real change is demanded of the complacent and, now is the time - not tomorrow and not the day after. As with their ancesters 800 years ago, the English have again set in motion this new sea change. You will soon witness in country after country the poor start demanding fairness and justice from this unjust institution. Don't be surprised if Donald Trump is elected president of the United States in November this year.
Obviously, this is going to be a long drawn out process, for the rich will not yield up what they are wielding so easily. However, the fire has been set and, it will surely spread, because the poor are fed up with this injustice for too long. Do you still remember when the last person said 'yes, we can'? Yet there is nothing we can do.
Let this date 23 June 2016 go down in history as did such dates as 4 July and 14 July. When the events of the present have run their course, and dust settled, you will see the true significance of the moment and realise that you have been part of that history having been in the making. Even better, if you are lucky and live long enough, you could live to tell the tales to your grandchildren.
God bless the people. Amen.
2016年5月8日 星期日
法律 x 歷史
這樣的題目，真的難寫，要寫得有趣就難上加難了。筆者希望盡力一試。法律，講得簡單，就是人與人之間，或人與政府之間的規範。目的是保障個人權利，及令個人行為有所指引。這當然不是法律的完整定義。歷史就更難定義了。一般而言，歷史是記錄過去人類社會行為的文獻。由於歷料不一定足夠，或什至，在某種情況完全不存在，所以歷史學家寫史書時，所表達出的看法未必全面。因為，歷料是事實的記錄，而歷史就是歷史學家在史料基礎上所作出的看法。於是，在新的史料出現後，歷史是可以改寫的。
之後，大家會問法律和歷史有什麼關係呢？而它們之間的關係和大家又有什麼關係呢？如果和大家沒有什麼關係，看不看本文又有什麼關係呢？首先，若果大家只對個人的利益才關心，大家只會是一個好狹窄的人。繼續睇 cctvb ，應該係唔錯的選擇。話說回來，法律和歷史的確和大家有所關係的，就算不是直接關係，也算得上是間接的。
法律的關係應該較易說明。只要大家想像沒有法律時，社會會變成怎麼樣子，大家自然就會明白了 - 在1967年到1977年間，偉大的無產階級文化大革命中的中國社會就是一個無法無天的情境。所以，當有法律時，大家不會覺得它的重要，到沒有時，法律的重要就好明顯了。
歷史的進程和法律係有好大的關係的。在過去二百年，看看歐洲和亞洲的發展，就是從專權走向民主。大家看到這裏，可能會有所懷疑，中國並非走這條發展的道路呀！其實，現時的中國在程度上要比滿清時代較民主了。當然，中國的歷史進程要走的路還很長，估計，筆者有生之年是看不到突破的了。起碼，今時之國人已不再是滿洲奴了。
如果大家同意過去二百年人類的歷史進程是從獨裁走向民主的話，那麼，在此進程中，法律就扮演一個重要的角色 - 在法律的規範下把權力分配到人民的手上。雖然，很多時候並非直接放到人民的手上，而是議會代表的手上。換言之，法律就是民主得以表述的機制。筆者好多時聽到有人用菲律賓，或者，印度等國家做例子，用以說明民主對經濟無幫助。首先，這些國家算不算上民主先不說，但它們都有一特點 - 法律制度跟不上。
可見法律和歷史和大家有所關係，可能是長線而又非直接的。若言大家和筆者一樣是人生中點已過之人，可能會覺得不大打緊了。若言閣下還有後人的話，起碼對他們的再來會有關係。
之後，大家會問法律和歷史有什麼關係呢？而它們之間的關係和大家又有什麼關係呢？如果和大家沒有什麼關係，看不看本文又有什麼關係呢？首先，若果大家只對個人的利益才關心，大家只會是一個好狹窄的人。繼續睇 cctvb ，應該係唔錯的選擇。話說回來，法律和歷史的確和大家有所關係的，就算不是直接關係，也算得上是間接的。
法律的關係應該較易說明。只要大家想像沒有法律時，社會會變成怎麼樣子，大家自然就會明白了 - 在1967年到1977年間，偉大的無產階級文化大革命中的中國社會就是一個無法無天的情境。所以，當有法律時，大家不會覺得它的重要，到沒有時，法律的重要就好明顯了。
歷史的進程和法律係有好大的關係的。在過去二百年，看看歐洲和亞洲的發展，就是從專權走向民主。大家看到這裏，可能會有所懷疑，中國並非走這條發展的道路呀！其實，現時的中國在程度上要比滿清時代較民主了。當然，中國的歷史進程要走的路還很長，估計，筆者有生之年是看不到突破的了。起碼，今時之國人已不再是滿洲奴了。
如果大家同意過去二百年人類的歷史進程是從獨裁走向民主的話，那麼，在此進程中，法律就扮演一個重要的角色 - 在法律的規範下把權力分配到人民的手上。雖然，很多時候並非直接放到人民的手上，而是議會代表的手上。換言之，法律就是民主得以表述的機制。筆者好多時聽到有人用菲律賓，或者，印度等國家做例子，用以說明民主對經濟無幫助。首先，這些國家算不算上民主先不說，但它們都有一特點 - 法律制度跟不上。
可見法律和歷史和大家有所關係，可能是長線而又非直接的。若言大家和筆者一樣是人生中點已過之人，可能會覺得不大打緊了。若言閣下還有後人的話，起碼對他們的再來會有關係。
2016年5月6日 星期五
律師費
客人揾律師時，除了最關心當前要揾律師解決有關的問題，之後，相信就是律師的收費啦！律師費的多寡，主要和有關的服務的性質，律師樓的名氣，負責處理的律師的年資等等事項都有關係。在客人正式聘用律師去處理事務前，最好先簽署聘用書，而有關的聘用書須標明有關服務的收費條款，就可以防止日後發生爭議的機會。這樣對律師和客人相方都較有保障。
先講不同的服務性質。一般常見的法律服務包括樓宇買賣，証婚，遺囑，訴訟等等。現時，一單樓宇買賣的律師費由六千到萬幾元不等。真係好難揾食。証婚就一單三千五到四千幾都有。出名的律師，可以收近萬都有人揾，做都做唔切。遺囑最平一千元都做到，有名的專做遺囑的律師，可以收成萬，都大把生意。訴訟的收費就通常以律師的時薪來計算。即如律師時薪為每小時2000元，佢處理有關服務用了10小時，收費就是20000元了。
律師樓的名氣同收費的關係好大。大律師樓，即國際行，合伙人的時薪可以每小時一萬元，兩年經驗的律師可能已經收3000元的時薪。細律師樓，合伙人最多時薪可能是4000元。所以相差可以好大。當然，按照不同的客人需求，有時可能揾大行較適合，有時就細行可能已經足夠解決問題了。當然，如果揾大行，最好客人指定那位律師去負責處理，否則，佢揾個二打六去做，收費又不平，服務又不太理想，真係一肚氣。筆者的睇法，如果業務的性質不算太特別，揾大行定細行都不重要，最重要係那位律師去負責處理。問下有經驗的朋友去介紹就較理想啦！
一般而言，細行的五至十年經驗的律師，每小時收費大約二千元至四千元不等。同樣年資的律師，在大行就要四千元至六千元了。當然，一位律師的年資只能代表一般情況下他的能力。例如，一位五年經驗的律師可能會省過一位十年經驗的。理由可能係，前者做過大量有關的業務，而後者就做得較少。或者，前者較聰明。筆者經驗所見，一位律師最初五年的進步會比較大，第二個五年，進步要慢得多了。十年和二十年經驗的分別可能已經不會明顯了。所以，五至十年經驗的應該最底用 - more bang for your bucks。
最後，客人可能會問點解揾律師，特別是有關訴訟的服務，好多時還要再聘用大律師呢？大家都知道法律佬同的士佬係無分別的，有客就落標，冇客就空轉，連油費都收唔返。客人就唔明白點解上左架的士，車上會有兩位司機呢（即細律師同大律師兩位）？其實，法律行業有分工的，事務律師是只能於區域法院或以下的法庭，代表客人出庭，在高院或以上的就要大律師先可以出庭。
總而言之，聘用律師前要先定立好書面的聘用書，內有明確的明文收費條款。日後就可以減少有關收費不公的爭議。緊記，揾律師同上的士一樣 - 千祈唔好上錯林過雲嗰架雨夜的士呀！
先講不同的服務性質。一般常見的法律服務包括樓宇買賣，証婚，遺囑，訴訟等等。現時，一單樓宇買賣的律師費由六千到萬幾元不等。真係好難揾食。証婚就一單三千五到四千幾都有。出名的律師，可以收近萬都有人揾，做都做唔切。遺囑最平一千元都做到，有名的專做遺囑的律師，可以收成萬，都大把生意。訴訟的收費就通常以律師的時薪來計算。即如律師時薪為每小時2000元，佢處理有關服務用了10小時，收費就是20000元了。
律師樓的名氣同收費的關係好大。大律師樓，即國際行，合伙人的時薪可以每小時一萬元，兩年經驗的律師可能已經收3000元的時薪。細律師樓，合伙人最多時薪可能是4000元。所以相差可以好大。當然，按照不同的客人需求，有時可能揾大行較適合，有時就細行可能已經足夠解決問題了。當然，如果揾大行，最好客人指定那位律師去負責處理，否則，佢揾個二打六去做，收費又不平，服務又不太理想，真係一肚氣。筆者的睇法，如果業務的性質不算太特別，揾大行定細行都不重要，最重要係那位律師去負責處理。問下有經驗的朋友去介紹就較理想啦！
一般而言，細行的五至十年經驗的律師，每小時收費大約二千元至四千元不等。同樣年資的律師，在大行就要四千元至六千元了。當然，一位律師的年資只能代表一般情況下他的能力。例如，一位五年經驗的律師可能會省過一位十年經驗的。理由可能係，前者做過大量有關的業務，而後者就做得較少。或者，前者較聰明。筆者經驗所見，一位律師最初五年的進步會比較大，第二個五年，進步要慢得多了。十年和二十年經驗的分別可能已經不會明顯了。所以，五至十年經驗的應該最底用 - more bang for your bucks。
最後，客人可能會問點解揾律師，特別是有關訴訟的服務，好多時還要再聘用大律師呢？大家都知道法律佬同的士佬係無分別的，有客就落標，冇客就空轉，連油費都收唔返。客人就唔明白點解上左架的士，車上會有兩位司機呢（即細律師同大律師兩位）？其實，法律行業有分工的，事務律師是只能於區域法院或以下的法庭，代表客人出庭，在高院或以上的就要大律師先可以出庭。
總而言之，聘用律師前要先定立好書面的聘用書，內有明確的明文收費條款。日後就可以減少有關收費不公的爭議。緊記，揾律師同上的士一樣 - 千祈唔好上錯林過雲嗰架雨夜的士呀！
2016年5月2日 星期一
法律 x 政治
香港人一聽到政治，第一個反應是與我無關，沒有興趣。而法律呢，沒有事情發生時，亦不會關心，到有法律問題時，再去問人，或者，去揾律師。這當然不是什麽大問題啦！大部人沒事時都不會去揾醫生，到感覺有事時先會想起醫生。法律和政治呢兩樣東西，就好像空氣和水一樣，當空氣和水都無問題時，大家就不會在意，不會關心。當其中一樣發生問題時，對大家都會產生好大的影響。
例子多的是。大家只需要看看某國，法律系統不能獨立，只能為有權有勢的人服務，一般平民有事時，不管民事或刑事，都不可能得到公平的審訊。大家這時又會話：我是與世無爭，唔會與我有關的。問題是，就算你不與人爭，麻煩也會自動找上門的。大家看看某國的毒奶粉，那些為人父母的，看上去大都本是與世無爭的。
說到這時，你可能勉強承認法律真是與大家生活有關，但你仍然認為政治與你無關。你會講，不用管誰來做大官，只要老子的衣食無懮，什麼都不用管了。問題就在於，你現時的好景，可能不能代表你以後一直都會好景。此話何說呢？打個比方，政治有如癌症，搞政治的就有如癌細胞。癌症開始時，不會馬上致命，但當癌細胞發展得越大越多時，癌細胞會轉移，最後就不治。意思指，如果你不願理會政治，政治是不會立刻影響你的財富的。但假以時日，當癌細胞轉移，最後把政權都推翻，你的財富可能亦保不住了。
到這時，你聽我講的，已經聽得不耐煩了。好啦，好啦，法律和政治都與老子有關了。法律和政治之間又有何關係呢？法律和政治就好比朱古力奶一樣 - 如果朱古力味太重，牛奶味就無曬；如果牛奶味太重，朱古力味又唔夠。意思指，法律和政治有不同的社會角色，之間又互相相連，互相制衡。簡單來說，把法律的交回法律，把政治的交回政治。
法律上有一些基本原則，例如，主權在民，坐在立法會的只是人民代表，並無主權。定期的民選議會代表，目的是希望人民主權可以更好地被代表。法官不是民選的，所以不能行使主權去定立法律。法官的工作是利用法律原則去解釋法律。所以當政治敗壞時，立法者以人民代表之名立下法規，違背民意，法官就會用有關的法律原則去解釋有關的條例。
搞政治的人亦不應把政治問題交給法庭去處理。政治的東西要屬於政治。近日的掟杯案就是一個好例子。普通襲擊罪的原意，是為了保護人身的安全，免受他人損害。被告人的行為明顯是一種政治表態，並非想威脅他人的人身安全，即不是此控罪的成立原意。控告此罪的目的明顯是要打擊政治對手。
當前香港的法律和政治被搞到唔清唔楚，呢杯朱古力奶真是不是味兒。
2016年4月30日 星期六
揾律師
揾律師就好似揾醫生一樣，眼有問題，當然要揾眼科醫生啦，鼻有問題，就要揾耳鼻喉科醫生啦。律師行業亦有分科的，一般按個別律師的經驗及訓練不同，專注的範疇也有不同。例如，常見樓宇買賣的業務，通常有做開的律師。訴訟的有訴訟律師。
很多時候，客人遇到有法律問題時，才會想到要揾律師。由於是第一趟，以前又沒有揾過律師的經驗，真是不知從何入手。同時，一般客人都是沒有經過正式法律的訓練，怎會知道應該揾眼科，還是耳鼻喉科呢？（以上述醫生的比方用以說明！）這時，客人可能會想起曾經看過的報章廣告，或者，問之前揾過律師的朋友的意見。
以廣告揾來的律師，碰到好就好，唔好就唔好，一切以客人的運氣為準。問朋友的經驗一般會比較好點。如果朋友以前揾律師有關的法律問題同客人這時的法律問題是同一範疇，朋友經驗的參考價值自然要較高。若果，範疇不同，例如，朋友以前揾律師是有關樓宇買賣，而客人現時的問題是有關訴訟的，朋友過往經驗的參考價值可能會不太適用。
在香港，大部份的律師行都沒有做廣告的，一般客人又從何知道去那裏揾適合的律師呢？最好的方法當然是碰上有朋友以前有用過，而有關的問題又屬於相同的法律範疇，朋友又推薦客人用這位律師。若果，碰不上以上的情況，客人的問題又不算好迫切，可以揾幾間律師樓問下初步法律意見，一般律師樓是不會收費的，除非大律師行，因為佢地唔會睬你。當客人獲得幾間律師樓的初步法律意見之後，可自行比較那一間較適合，然後再聘用。
除非客人是財力豐厚，否則亦必須老慮律師收費的問題。律師的收費通常同律師的年資有關，經驗越高收費就越高。但這又不代表客人要揾經驗最高的律師。理由是：第一，經驗高的律師可能好忙，沒有時間親自同客人處理事務，把事務下放給下屬經驗較淺的律師。第二，律師雖然經驗好高，但近年已專注律師行生意的發展，無做業務一段時間了。通常揾中級經驗比較適合。經驗太淺的律師，收費雖然平，但佢可能真的唔識點做。
最後，一個有關的問題就是，到底，客人應該揾老實律師，定係古惑呢？老實律師對每個人都老實，這裏包括自己的客人，以級對家。對於自己的客人收費老實，當然是好事。問題就發生在對對家時也老實。若果，對家是沒有律師代表的，問題不會好大。如果，對家有律師代表，同時是古惑律師一名，這時對客人就會很不利了。古惑律師應該比較適合，但客人必須揾屬於對對家古惑的品種，但對自己客人收費就要老實啦！
總的而言，當客人碰上法律問題時，需要揾律師幫忙，必須注意上述三點，即：律師要有相關的法律範疇的經驗，適合的年資，以及，適合的古惑情度。
很多時候，客人遇到有法律問題時，才會想到要揾律師。由於是第一趟，以前又沒有揾過律師的經驗，真是不知從何入手。同時，一般客人都是沒有經過正式法律的訓練，怎會知道應該揾眼科，還是耳鼻喉科呢？（以上述醫生的比方用以說明！）這時，客人可能會想起曾經看過的報章廣告，或者，問之前揾過律師的朋友的意見。
以廣告揾來的律師，碰到好就好，唔好就唔好，一切以客人的運氣為準。問朋友的經驗一般會比較好點。如果朋友以前揾律師有關的法律問題同客人這時的法律問題是同一範疇，朋友經驗的參考價值自然要較高。若果，範疇不同，例如，朋友以前揾律師是有關樓宇買賣，而客人現時的問題是有關訴訟的，朋友過往經驗的參考價值可能會不太適用。
在香港，大部份的律師行都沒有做廣告的，一般客人又從何知道去那裏揾適合的律師呢？最好的方法當然是碰上有朋友以前有用過，而有關的問題又屬於相同的法律範疇，朋友又推薦客人用這位律師。若果，碰不上以上的情況，客人的問題又不算好迫切，可以揾幾間律師樓問下初步法律意見，一般律師樓是不會收費的，除非大律師行，因為佢地唔會睬你。當客人獲得幾間律師樓的初步法律意見之後，可自行比較那一間較適合，然後再聘用。
除非客人是財力豐厚，否則亦必須老慮律師收費的問題。律師的收費通常同律師的年資有關，經驗越高收費就越高。但這又不代表客人要揾經驗最高的律師。理由是：第一，經驗高的律師可能好忙，沒有時間親自同客人處理事務，把事務下放給下屬經驗較淺的律師。第二，律師雖然經驗好高，但近年已專注律師行生意的發展，無做業務一段時間了。通常揾中級經驗比較適合。經驗太淺的律師，收費雖然平，但佢可能真的唔識點做。
最後，一個有關的問題就是，到底，客人應該揾老實律師，定係古惑呢？老實律師對每個人都老實，這裏包括自己的客人，以級對家。對於自己的客人收費老實，當然是好事。問題就發生在對對家時也老實。若果，對家是沒有律師代表的，問題不會好大。如果，對家有律師代表，同時是古惑律師一名，這時對客人就會很不利了。古惑律師應該比較適合，但客人必須揾屬於對對家古惑的品種，但對自己客人收費就要老實啦！
總的而言，當客人碰上法律問題時，需要揾律師幫忙，必須注意上述三點，即：律師要有相關的法律範疇的經驗，適合的年資，以及，適合的古惑情度。
2016年4月23日 星期六
民事訴訟
民事訴訟
例如，爭議額為七萬五千元或者以下的，而有關爭議的性質為違約，疏忽等等，原告人須於小額錢債審裁處提起訴訟。由於小額錢債審裁處成立的目的為方便訴訟相方節省律師費用，在小額錢債審裁處審理的案件，是不能有律師代表的。原告和被告必須親自出庭處理。當然，律師雖然不能代表出庭，但可以在背後幫手處理一切法庭的文件。
某些訴訟的性質較為特別，法律上可能有規定必須於特定的法庭去審理。最常見的，例如僱員合約有關的糾紛，不論爭議額為多少，必須在勞資審裁處提起訴訟。情況同小額錢債審裁處一樣，都是不能用律師代表的。當然，訴訟相方可以聘用律師，尋求意見，幫忙處理相關的法律文件。
另一個例子，就是土地審裁處。有關的租務合約，法定鐵路興建而引起有關商戶的損失等等，不論爭議額為多寡，都必須在土地審裁處提起訴訟。分別在於，訴訟相方都可以有律師代表出庭的。以筆者的經驗，由於土地審裁處案件的爭議額一般都幾大，通常都會用大律師代表出庭。
若果，爭議額多於七萬五千元，又不多於三百萬，原告人須於區域法院提起訴訟。訴訟相方可以用律師代表，或者，親自出庭都可以。當然，較理想的方法，都係要揾律師代表比較好。如無律師代表出庭，非常不利。好似打籃球一樣，你識得點打，又知球例，對手初哥一名，你點會唔輸。
至於多於三百萬爭議額的案件，原告人須於高等法院提起訴訟。某些特定性質的案件，通常有關較複雜的法律爭議，不論爭議額多少，都須於高院提起訴訟。例如近日常見的司法覆核。司法覆核的申請一般涉及比較複雜的法律問題，在高院審理較適合。
爭議在那一個法庭提出訴訟，有時好重要。因為，律師費可能會多過爭議額本身，變成令對家同你和解的理由。筆者近日處理一單漏水案，就係此原因對手願意坐下討論和解。
2016年4月15日 星期五
股權糾紛
唔知大家有無同朋友合作做生意呢？如果生意開始時唔算做得好大（通常都是這樣開始的），大家可能會用 partnership 的形式，或者，用註冊公司的形式。前者一般比較非正式，可能口講就算，大家只是所謂 bound by honour , 並非受正式法律所限。有啲正式啲，例如律師行的 partnership , 一定會用書面協議。更加多保障的，就應該用註冊公司了。
幾位合作者會按照投入資金的多寡，分配股份的多少。當然，由於公司條例的各種要求，成立同經營公司的成本會高於合伙人形式。當然股東之間唔代表無事會發生啦！通常股權糾紛會用什麼形式發生呢？發生的形式會同股權的分配組成有一定的關係。用兩個想像的劇情做例子：前者，兩位股東合作，各佔百分之五十；後者，股權用六四之分。
前者會怎樣出事呢？無事就無事。如果意見不合，因為無人有過半數的股權，真係做什麼都不成。連選董事，都要過半數股權先做得到。如果兩位都係董事，如果意見不合，開董事會議都無足夠 quorum 。簡而言之，就係 deadlock 。後者又會點呢？就係大股東蝦細股東，所有只需要簡單大多數股權就可通過的議案，大股東就可以事。
所以，同朋友合組公司時，應該正式做好法律文件，例如，shareholders agreement ，loan agreement , 和 debenture 。到有事時，就有法律文件的保護。最好就係大家同意分家，和平分手。這樣係成本最底的。如果事情並沒有按這情況發生，股權糾紛又可以怎樣發展呢？
通常，受壓股東一方可以用所謂 unfair prejudice 的理據向法庭提出清盤的申請。就算目的不是最終要公司清盤，因為公司可能好揾錢，但沒有好多資產，清盤對相方都不是最有利的結果。可能所謂 buy out order 係最好的結果。通常係用一個合理的價格細股東把其股權賣畀大權東。所以，向法庭提出清盤申請只是一種 tactic ,逼大股東坐低講數。因為，清盤的結果對佢都不利，理性會叫佢和解。
筆者的經驗所見，都常去到呢個位，大家就會有計傾啦。出嚟行多數係為銀，唔係為氣。當然，唔係所有結局都係和解。燒鵝記單嘢，就上曬報紙啦。兄弟間啲嘢，真係唔只錢銀般簡單。條氣有時比錢更加重要。呢啲係律師的 dream case 。不過就希望唔會發生在閣下身上了。
幾位合作者會按照投入資金的多寡，分配股份的多少。當然，由於公司條例的各種要求，成立同經營公司的成本會高於合伙人形式。當然股東之間唔代表無事會發生啦！通常股權糾紛會用什麼形式發生呢？發生的形式會同股權的分配組成有一定的關係。用兩個想像的劇情做例子：前者，兩位股東合作，各佔百分之五十；後者，股權用六四之分。
前者會怎樣出事呢？無事就無事。如果意見不合，因為無人有過半數的股權，真係做什麼都不成。連選董事，都要過半數股權先做得到。如果兩位都係董事，如果意見不合，開董事會議都無足夠 quorum 。簡而言之，就係 deadlock 。後者又會點呢？就係大股東蝦細股東，所有只需要簡單大多數股權就可通過的議案，大股東就可以事。
所以，同朋友合組公司時，應該正式做好法律文件，例如，shareholders agreement ，loan agreement , 和 debenture 。到有事時，就有法律文件的保護。最好就係大家同意分家，和平分手。這樣係成本最底的。如果事情並沒有按這情況發生，股權糾紛又可以怎樣發展呢？
通常，受壓股東一方可以用所謂 unfair prejudice 的理據向法庭提出清盤的申請。就算目的不是最終要公司清盤，因為公司可能好揾錢，但沒有好多資產，清盤對相方都不是最有利的結果。可能所謂 buy out order 係最好的結果。通常係用一個合理的價格細股東把其股權賣畀大權東。所以，向法庭提出清盤申請只是一種 tactic ,逼大股東坐低講數。因為，清盤的結果對佢都不利，理性會叫佢和解。
筆者的經驗所見，都常去到呢個位，大家就會有計傾啦。出嚟行多數係為銀，唔係為氣。當然，唔係所有結局都係和解。燒鵝記單嘢，就上曬報紙啦。兄弟間啲嘢，真係唔只錢銀般簡單。條氣有時比錢更加重要。呢啲係律師的 dream case 。不過就希望唔會發生在閣下身上了。
2016年4月13日 星期三
漏水
落左幾日雨，今人想起漏水。大部份港人都居於多層樓宇，其中有不少都有漏水的問題。漏水問題通常發生於舊樓內的單位。如果你不幸同樓宇漏水發生聯系（或者，關係），可能有兩種情況：樓上漏水落你個單位，或者，你漏水落樓下單位。
先講前者。樓上漏水落你的單位，最直接的做法，走上樓上通知有關單位的業主，要求他馬上進行必要的維修，解決漏水的問題。如果樓上業主願意負責，進行維修，並賠償你因其漏水而引致的損失，這當然是最理想的劇情。好可惜，在香港要揾這種樓宇業主，未必會係住你樓上那位。
問題就發生於，第一，樓上業主根本連門都唔開畀你，更加唔會主動去進行必要的維修，解決漏水的問題。第二，佢可能會開門畀你，但就死口唔認有漏水落樓下你的單位。佢重大大聲話係你單位外牆漏水，唔關佢事。到你揾左漏水辦，或者，漏水專家，佢就唔畀你入佢單位做測試。有些這種業主，雖然死口唔認，但係都會自己揾人去維修，解決漏水的問題。佢死唔認漏水是怕你要求佢賠償你因漏水而引起的損失。
如果漏水問題解決了，你的損失又唔算太大，你通常都會算數，不再追究。最大的問題就發生於，第三，樓上業主一方面唔認佢有漏水落樓下，另一方面，又唔揾人去做維修，令漏水問題繼續發生，你想揾人維修都無用，因為佢唔會畀你入佢的單位。
這時，你就只能揾漏水專家入你的單位做測試，寫專家報告，証明樓上漏水落你樓下的單位。揾律師出律師信畀佢，嚇下佢。如果佢重無反應，你可以入稟告佢。如果佢都無反應，你就登入判決，再釘佢契。到佢要賣樓時，你就連利息都收佢。否則，無買家會買佢的單位。
當然，如果樓上單位業主是不理性的。佢會一樣去揾律師，同你打到底。你的入稟狀要佢賠償你十萬蚊的損失，佢可以使二十萬律師費，都唔願同你和解，賠償你的損失。如果佢揾到個有良知的律師（呢個係一種受保護的物種），律師會叫佢收手。最怕碰上死打形的對家律師，佢會同你打到底。
當然，你的漏水問題最終都會解決到。除非，你的運氣差到，樓上漏水落你樓下的單位，樓上業主又死口唔認，又唔揾人維修，到你入稟告佢，佢又揾到個死打形的律師同你玩到底。如果，上述問題一連串地發於 閣下身上，你唔應該去揾律師 - 你去揾黃大仙啦，或者，去揾上帝。
講完樓上漏水落你單位，如果你漏水落樓下人哋單位，應該點做，相信筆者唔使多講啦！
先講前者。樓上漏水落你的單位，最直接的做法，走上樓上通知有關單位的業主，要求他馬上進行必要的維修，解決漏水的問題。如果樓上業主願意負責，進行維修，並賠償你因其漏水而引致的損失，這當然是最理想的劇情。好可惜，在香港要揾這種樓宇業主，未必會係住你樓上那位。
問題就發生於，第一，樓上業主根本連門都唔開畀你，更加唔會主動去進行必要的維修，解決漏水的問題。第二，佢可能會開門畀你，但就死口唔認有漏水落樓下你的單位。佢重大大聲話係你單位外牆漏水，唔關佢事。到你揾左漏水辦，或者，漏水專家，佢就唔畀你入佢單位做測試。有些這種業主，雖然死口唔認，但係都會自己揾人去維修，解決漏水的問題。佢死唔認漏水是怕你要求佢賠償你因漏水而引起的損失。
如果漏水問題解決了，你的損失又唔算太大，你通常都會算數，不再追究。最大的問題就發生於，第三，樓上業主一方面唔認佢有漏水落樓下，另一方面，又唔揾人去做維修，令漏水問題繼續發生，你想揾人維修都無用，因為佢唔會畀你入佢的單位。
這時，你就只能揾漏水專家入你的單位做測試，寫專家報告，証明樓上漏水落你樓下的單位。揾律師出律師信畀佢，嚇下佢。如果佢重無反應，你可以入稟告佢。如果佢都無反應，你就登入判決，再釘佢契。到佢要賣樓時，你就連利息都收佢。否則，無買家會買佢的單位。
當然，如果樓上單位業主是不理性的。佢會一樣去揾律師，同你打到底。你的入稟狀要佢賠償你十萬蚊的損失，佢可以使二十萬律師費，都唔願同你和解，賠償你的損失。如果佢揾到個有良知的律師（呢個係一種受保護的物種），律師會叫佢收手。最怕碰上死打形的對家律師，佢會同你打到底。
當然，你的漏水問題最終都會解決到。除非，你的運氣差到，樓上漏水落你樓下的單位，樓上業主又死口唔認，又唔揾人維修，到你入稟告佢，佢又揾到個死打形的律師同你玩到底。如果，上述問題一連串地發於 閣下身上，你唔應該去揾律師 - 你去揾黃大仙啦，或者，去揾上帝。
講完樓上漏水落你單位，如果你漏水落樓下人哋單位，應該點做，相信筆者唔使多講啦！
2016年4月9日 星期六
信託
信託 -
大家會問，使大量律師費成立一個離岸信託為什麼？好處好多。主要係唔想其他人知道你有的財富。一般的做法，先成立一間 BVI 公司，財主成為公司的股東及董事。所有唔見得光的財產，就用這間 BVI 公司持有。然後，成立一個巴拿馬離岸信託，把上述的公司股份 declare 為信託下的 trust fund 。以後再用 letters of wishes 去畀指令巴拿馬的專業信託人去如何管理信託資產。由於無人會知道 BVI 公司背後誰是股東及董事，就唔會有人知道財主是誰。
所以，上述安排就可以瞞稅。當然，更重要的作用係使黑錢。如果無人會知道啲錢係你的，你就可以公然把以權謀私的財富注入上述公司，自然變為信託之下的基金（欲知詳情，請問强國相關人士）。下刪五萬字...
由於上述離岸信託要透過 BVI 及巴拿馬的有關專業人士先可以做到，筆者無相關經驗。筆者只會做近岸信託，即以香港法律為 proper law 。上述一切同離岸信託有關的好處，近岸信託都冇。大家會問做近岸信託嚟托呀？
筆者的經驗一般嚟講，如果財主想在生時或死後，可以規管受益人如何使錢，唔想佢地一野分身家，信託係一個幾好的方法。例如亞梅叫滙豐做嗰隻。當然唔一定要揾信託公司，因為收費真係會瘋。一些做開信託的律師可能會願意做信託人，收費會平好多。
到底，客人需唔需要用信託，就要睇個別情況。通常資產太少，受益人之間無爭議的，可以用遺囑方法去處理財產，不須用信託，可以省些費用。
2016年4月8日 星期五
合約糾紛
合約糾紛 -
一般這種大工程的糾紛要打五至七年。律師費要過千萬。大家現知道起高鐵，醫院就要 cut budget 哪。當然，日常對大家最有直接影響的唔係呢種大工程，而係例如，僱員合約，小型裝修工程合約等等。所以大家會比較關心這種合約若發生糾紛時的處理方法。
就以家居裝修工程合理為例，一般合約金額由幾萬到幾十萬不等。如發生合約糾紛，爭議額可能會講緊十幾萬，對於打工仔嚟講，都係一筆唔細的數目。加上裝修工程又做得唔理想，重要揾人去重做，真係火都嚟。
好多時這種小型工程合約條款都寫得比較簡單，只有項目的金額，手工費，交貨的時間。而在工程進行期間，往往屋主又會要求改動工程，即 variation orders ，如果當中有計算不清的話，最後發生合約糾紛的機會都幾大。
最好就在起初定立清晰及詳盡的合約條款，加入例如去九留一，保修期等的保障條款，對屋主會較為有利。當然，近年工程好多，想揾人裝修都唔易，屋主希望加入新合約條款，裝修佬應該都唔會得閒理你啦！
所以，對屋主的法律保障，合約實際能發揮的作用可能都幾有限。這時，較能幫到屋主的可能係小心選擇承建商，先問下朋友，叫佢介紹用過的裝修佬。當然，如果已經出事，就要揾律師，出律師信，或進一步入稟告佢。問題係，唔係每一個裝修佬都值得告。若佢無錢畀你，贏左都只係 paper judgment 。
2016年4月5日 星期二
求情
求情 - 只希望閣下不會碰上此劇情。因為當你需要律師幫你求情時，就可能有兩種情況己經發生在閣下的身上了：第一，你未經審訊就己認罪，或者，第二，經過審訊閣下被法庭定罪。律師在此情此景下，就要同你求情了。目的就係希望法庭會減輕刑罰。當然，若果閣下係無律師代表的，你就要自行求情了。
點先算係理想的求情呢？就要先睇下唔理想的求情啦！筆者曾經於庭上就目睹一個不太理想的例子。被告為來往中港的職業司機，控罪係帶幾十部埃瘋去中國而無報關。被告人認罪，之後，大律師就同佢求情啦！大律師一開波就話：如果被告人不是司機，只是一般過境乘客的話，就唔會犯上唔報關罪，因為只係貨車司機過關先要報關，一般遊客係無此法律需要。
法官即時問控方點睇呀？控方同意，但係同時指出，被告人會觸犯另一條罪。法官明顯睇唔到求情的邏輯係邊。即時話依家佢唔係遊客，佢係貨車司機，係唔爭議事實。結果，司機被判入獄。故事教訓：求情理由必須有邏輯，合情合理。不然，求情可能會變成求刑，求情變成慘情。
筆者處理過一單求情。客人被控襲警，結果被定罪。法官命令攞福利報告，十四日後返庭判刑。判刑日，筆者先向客人解釋報告內容，幸運地，報告對客人有利，建議社會服務今。由於，客人無前科，良好工作，良好家庭背景。筆者自然講呢啲好嘢。然後總結，筆者話案情好個別，一個良好背景的人，碰上個別的情景，案件先發生，重犯的機會不大，而經此事後，被告的教訓好大，希望法庭可以接納報告的建議。
法官判刑時講，同被告講，你聽到你律師頭先講啦，你要知道案情係個別，你要珍惜呢次教訓。最後，法官只判社會服務今。呢個係好的指示，因為法官重覆律師的講法，即代表認同睇法。叫做 strike the chord 。當然，唔係每一次客人都有好的求情理由畀律師啦。有時，客人前科滿營，求情的空間真係唔大。
但係，有一點必須緊記，就係求情理由要有邏輯，並且合情合理。否則，法官聽到火都嚟，求情分分鐘會變成求刑。筆者見過兩個被告人，被控同一種罪行，被同一個法官定罪並判刑，兩個都無律師代表，要自行求情，結果求情嗰個，罰得重過無求情嗰個。所以，如果唔適講，唔講好過講。
點先算係理想的求情呢？就要先睇下唔理想的求情啦！筆者曾經於庭上就目睹一個不太理想的例子。被告為來往中港的職業司機，控罪係帶幾十部埃瘋去中國而無報關。被告人認罪，之後，大律師就同佢求情啦！大律師一開波就話：如果被告人不是司機，只是一般過境乘客的話，就唔會犯上唔報關罪，因為只係貨車司機過關先要報關，一般遊客係無此法律需要。
法官即時問控方點睇呀？控方同意，但係同時指出，被告人會觸犯另一條罪。法官明顯睇唔到求情的邏輯係邊。即時話依家佢唔係遊客，佢係貨車司機，係唔爭議事實。結果，司機被判入獄。故事教訓：求情理由必須有邏輯，合情合理。不然，求情可能會變成求刑，求情變成慘情。
筆者處理過一單求情。客人被控襲警，結果被定罪。法官命令攞福利報告，十四日後返庭判刑。判刑日，筆者先向客人解釋報告內容，幸運地，報告對客人有利，建議社會服務今。由於，客人無前科，良好工作，良好家庭背景。筆者自然講呢啲好嘢。然後總結，筆者話案情好個別，一個良好背景的人，碰上個別的情景，案件先發生，重犯的機會不大，而經此事後，被告的教訓好大，希望法庭可以接納報告的建議。
法官判刑時講，同被告講，你聽到你律師頭先講啦，你要知道案情係個別，你要珍惜呢次教訓。最後，法官只判社會服務今。呢個係好的指示，因為法官重覆律師的講法，即代表認同睇法。叫做 strike the chord 。當然，唔係每一次客人都有好的求情理由畀律師啦。有時，客人前科滿營，求情的空間真係唔大。
但係，有一點必須緊記，就係求情理由要有邏輯，並且合情合理。否則，法官聽到火都嚟，求情分分鐘會變成求刑。筆者見過兩個被告人，被控同一種罪行，被同一個法官定罪並判刑，兩個都無律師代表，要自行求情，結果求情嗰個，罰得重過無求情嗰個。所以，如果唔適講，唔講好過講。
2016年4月4日 星期一
清明
是日清明，唔講法律啦！只分享下述舊作一篇 - 念亡母 - 藉以思念。唔好意思，小弟才疏，無中文版本。
Life to you was a burden too heavy;
Now, death has come as a release to ease.
Your love for us knew no bounds;
Now, reciprocation finds possibility no more.
We were part of you;
Now, a part of us has forever departed us.
Your every deed filled our needs;
Now, only every image of you can still fill our memory lanes.
Life could separate you from us;
Now, death shall in time join us together.
Life to you was a burden too heavy;
Now, death has come as a release to ease.
Your love for us knew no bounds;
Now, reciprocation finds possibility no more.
We were part of you;
Now, a part of us has forever departed us.
Your every deed filled our needs;
Now, only every image of you can still fill our memory lanes.
Life could separate you from us;
Now, death shall in time join us together.
2016年4月2日 星期六
工傷
工傷，今人心傷。早幾日將軍澳發生的工傷，工人死亡，遺下孤寡。真希望這種事不要再發生。若不幸事情真的發生了，孤寡能從工傷賠償得到一點的經濟支持，希望能暫時渡過困難。當然，大部分的工傷工友只是受傷，死亡事件，幸運還是小數。
所以工友一定要瞭解工傷賠償的法定權利。所謂工傷賠償，是指僱員受僱於僱主，僱主有法定責任要為僱員買勞工保險。當僱員於受僱期間，從事工作中發生了意外，而受傷，或死亡，就是工傷了。僱主有責任向勞工處報工傷。
之後勞工處會安排受傷工友去驗傷。從而計算永久受傷的程度。工傷賠償額的計算方法，是法定的計算方法。簡單而言，同永久受傷的程度，意外發生時工友的年齡，都有關係。只要工友能証明，或者僱主承認有僱員關係，同意外發生時工友是從事受僱有關的工作，保險公司就要賠償了。
保險公司幾時唔會賠呢？一般來講，如果發生意外的地方唔係受保的工作地方，保險公司就會反對。如果僱主不在一個月內報告保險公司有關意外的發生，保險公司都可能會唔保。所以，工傷發生時，工友要注意下述事項。
當工作時發生意外，第一時間要通知公司，報警，之後要馬上入醫院急症室。困為入左政府醫院的急症室，醫生會問工友意外點發生，傷左身體物地方，然後同工友驗傷。一切上述的過程醫院都會留有記錄，日後申請工傷賠償時，記錄就會成為証據。保險公司的律師睇到上述記錄，就唔會反對意外唔係工作期間發生。
工友要注意，有時有啲公司，特別係地盤工程公司，好多時唔想保險第二年會加 loading ，唔報工傷，私下同工友和解，畀錢佢。工友就要小心啦！第一，公司唔報保險公司有意外發生左，或者遲左再報，保險公司係會 decline liability , 即唔賠。如果公司係無錢賠，工友就會中計。
第二，做完工傷賠償之後，工友可以追討普通法的賠償。所以通常都會多過私下同公司和解的金額。當然，有啲不良公司，用繼續僱用工友做條件，要求私下解決，工友就要小心了。其實，唔打東家都重可以打西家的。
最重要，若果僱主唔主動向勞工處報告意外的發生，工友要自己報呀！
所以工友一定要瞭解工傷賠償的法定權利。所謂工傷賠償，是指僱員受僱於僱主，僱主有法定責任要為僱員買勞工保險。當僱員於受僱期間，從事工作中發生了意外，而受傷，或死亡，就是工傷了。僱主有責任向勞工處報工傷。
之後勞工處會安排受傷工友去驗傷。從而計算永久受傷的程度。工傷賠償額的計算方法，是法定的計算方法。簡單而言，同永久受傷的程度，意外發生時工友的年齡，都有關係。只要工友能証明，或者僱主承認有僱員關係，同意外發生時工友是從事受僱有關的工作，保險公司就要賠償了。
保險公司幾時唔會賠呢？一般來講，如果發生意外的地方唔係受保的工作地方，保險公司就會反對。如果僱主不在一個月內報告保險公司有關意外的發生，保險公司都可能會唔保。所以，工傷發生時，工友要注意下述事項。
當工作時發生意外，第一時間要通知公司，報警，之後要馬上入醫院急症室。困為入左政府醫院的急症室，醫生會問工友意外點發生，傷左身體物地方，然後同工友驗傷。一切上述的過程醫院都會留有記錄，日後申請工傷賠償時，記錄就會成為証據。保險公司的律師睇到上述記錄，就唔會反對意外唔係工作期間發生。
工友要注意，有時有啲公司，特別係地盤工程公司，好多時唔想保險第二年會加 loading ，唔報工傷，私下同工友和解，畀錢佢。工友就要小心啦！第一，公司唔報保險公司有意外發生左，或者遲左再報，保險公司係會 decline liability , 即唔賠。如果公司係無錢賠，工友就會中計。
第二，做完工傷賠償之後，工友可以追討普通法的賠償。所以通常都會多過私下同公司和解的金額。當然，有啲不良公司，用繼續僱用工友做條件，要求私下解決，工友就要小心了。其實，唔打東家都重可以打西家的。
最重要，若果僱主唔主動向勞工處報告意外的發生，工友要自己報呀！
2016年3月28日 星期一
爭產案件
爭產 -
先人不願看見，後人樂於進行的行為。大家一聽見爭產，一定會想起多年前城中的數百億争產案。其實，香港有好多身家幾千萬，到幾億的富豪，有更多的争產案其實係這種家產為背景的。争產的方式其實五花八門。多年前老爺同家嫂，之後家嫂同風水佬的案件，都係遺囑的案件。有的係公司法的案件。有啲係信託的案件。
一般而言，最少身家有幾百萬可能已經可以争下啦！若果，遺產中有物業，遺產的價值可能就不只五百萬了。如果律師費係五十萬，只係十分之一不用，好多人都會願意争下。所以争產的情況比大家想像的要多。
最常見的一種争法係，先人無立遺囑，或者，所立遺囑不理想，一些係法律上可從先人遺產中得到合理經濟濟助的人士，若因先人無立遺囑，或者，所立遺囑無佢份，都可在遺產承辦後半年內提起訴訟，告遺產。如果成功，除了可以攞到合理經濟濟助，重有機會攞返自己的律師費。當然，通常都會相方尋求和解。所以律師費不會好大。
有物人可以攞到合理經濟濟助呢？一般黎講，死者的同居女友，死者生前有不時及予金錢的。或者，係死者老婆，但遺囑無佢份（可能死者知佢不忠？）。上述兩種人士通常有機會申索到合理經濟濟助。但亦不只上述兩種人，具體情況，最好尋求法律意見。
如果先人在生時己成立信託，而信託人又在信託下有酌情權去處理信託財產，受益人有權去要求信託人按信託的條款去處理。有争詨，受益人可向信託人提起訴訟。亞梅老母單案就係今啦！因為信託人係代表信託去應訊，所用律師費會由信託中扣除。後果現在大家都知啦，好快財產就畀左律師啦！
公司法又如何呢？早十年，燒鵝記單嘢，大佬同二佬争身家，就係打公司法啦！老豆係做生意，希望死後一家人繼續經營落去，所以以某種比例將股份分畀後人，但點分將來都可能會出問題。大股東蝦細股東，公司法下，細股東可向大股東提起訴訟，所謂 unfair prejudice 。要求合理價賣出股份，或公司清盤。
筆者有幸，上述三種品種都處理過。心明訟費的問題。所以最好揾律師做下財產安排，避免主懷安息之時，就係後人争產之始。
一般而言，最少身家有幾百萬可能已經可以争下啦！若果，遺產中有物業，遺產的價值可能就不只五百萬了。如果律師費係五十萬，只係十分之一不用，好多人都會願意争下。所以争產的情況比大家想像的要多。
最常見的一種争法係，先人無立遺囑，或者，所立遺囑不理想，一些係法律上可從先人遺產中得到合理經濟濟助的人士，若因先人無立遺囑，或者，所立遺囑無佢份，都可在遺產承辦後半年內提起訴訟，告遺產。如果成功，除了可以攞到合理經濟濟助，重有機會攞返自己的律師費。當然，通常都會相方尋求和解。所以律師費不會好大。
有物人可以攞到合理經濟濟助呢？一般黎講，死者的同居女友，死者生前有不時及予金錢的。或者，係死者老婆，但遺囑無佢份（可能死者知佢不忠？）。上述兩種人士通常有機會申索到合理經濟濟助。但亦不只上述兩種人，具體情況，最好尋求法律意見。
如果先人在生時己成立信託，而信託人又在信託下有酌情權去處理信託財產，受益人有權去要求信託人按信託的條款去處理。有争詨，受益人可向信託人提起訴訟。亞梅老母單案就係今啦！因為信託人係代表信託去應訊，所用律師費會由信託中扣除。後果現在大家都知啦，好快財產就畀左律師啦！
公司法又如何呢？早十年，燒鵝記單嘢，大佬同二佬争身家，就係打公司法啦！老豆係做生意，希望死後一家人繼續經營落去，所以以某種比例將股份分畀後人，但點分將來都可能會出問題。大股東蝦細股東，公司法下，細股東可向大股東提起訴訟，所謂 unfair prejudice 。要求合理價賣出股份，或公司清盤。
筆者有幸，上述三種品種都處理過。心明訟費的問題。所以最好揾律師做下財產安排，避免主懷安息之時，就係後人争產之始。
2016年3月26日 星期六
刑事，出事？
刑事，出事？
所以市民必須了解自己的權利，先可以保護個人的人權。筆者不願在此扮講師，但必先講明背後的理念，道理先會自然流出。人權係與生俱來（即self evidenced）。由於個人單靠一己之力，係好難保護個人的人權，所以大家組織左政府，之後組織左警察，這種組織都對個人自由有一定的限制，但出發點係用警權去保人權。
搞清上述理念之後，大家就明白當前香港對人權最大的挑戰，就係警權。如果警隊要玩你，佢有幾萬人，要人有人，要物有物。加上律政的支源，你點同佢玩呀？這時可以幫到你的，只有你的律師同公正的法律系統。
先講律師點幫你。如果你畀差佬周左，有兩種可能會發生的情形：第一種，佢地已經夠料做你，返警局只係例行工事，去落charge。第二種，未夠料，上左警車已經chok你，攞料。返到警局，就落口供，希望chok夠料，落charge做你。筆者經驗所見，通常情況係後者。這時，你一定要明白你的個人權利。首先，被調查人士係無義務協助警方調查的（係呀！叫你唔好睇今多警訊啦！）。其次，你有權揾律師一齊落口供。律師到前，你有權唔落口供，同保持緘默。筆者幾年前處理過一件案件，只係一蕉保持緘默，警方就落唔到charge，最終close file。可算代表作啦！
法律系統又點幫你呢？英國法官，深明國家機器對個人權利的威脅。普通法就發展出在刑事審訊中，控方必須在無合理疑點之下，證明被告人犯左被指控的罪行，先可入罪。如果被告可以解釋並提出合理疑點，在疑點歸於被告的前題下，係入唔到罪的。這就可平衡警權的威脅。
警權威脅人權，就好似癌細胞威脅好細胞一樣。癌症一定係預防勝於治療。即保持緘默，無料就自然做唔到你。筆者未見過因為保持緘默而入到罪，但就見過好多講左嘢，落左口供，成為証據，反唔到口，罪名成立的例子。
2016年3月25日 星期五
律師信
律師信 - 客人好多時揾律師，就係出律師信。到底幾時要出律師信，而律師信的目的及功效又如何呢？一般嚟講，客人對某人有申索，而申索的法律基礎為：違約，侵權，租務，人身傷亡，等等。出律師信就係向對家提出你的要求，要佢係指定的時間內回覆要求。講得白啲，就係嚇下佢。
律師信的功效又如何呢？筆者的經驗真係一半一半。即一半時候可以成功嚇到對家，另一半時候嚇唔到。成功時，對家會按照你的要求去做。但另一半時間會否浪費律師費呢？又唔一定。因為，差不多所有的官司都由律師信開始的。入稟告人前，通常要先向對方出律師信，否則日後就算贏左官司都可能攞唔返自己的律師費。因為對家可以講入稟係不必要的，如果你一早出信，佢就按你的要求做啦！
當然，出左律師信後，嚇唔到對方，都唔代表你一定要入稟去告對方的。入稟與否，主要考慮兩方面：第一、你的法律理據有幾强，即俗語所謂有無 case ；第二、對家的可能反應係點？
就上述第一點而言，如果你無物理據，打起官司，好大機會會輸，就唔好輕言入稟。打官司好比打擂臺，你叫得對手上擂臺，唔係話唔打就唔打。要相方同意和解先可終止案件。如對方已耗用了一筆律師費，唔係你話唔打就唔打。對方通常會要求你支付佢的律師費作為和解的其中一個條件。
話分兩頭講。有理據又唔一定要入稟去告人，因為要考慮費用同申索額是否對稱。另一方面，有時無物理據又唔代表唔入稟。這時就要考慮上述第二點了。例如，客人好清楚對家係省錢類型，一定唔會請律師，這時贏面會大好多。或者，對家闊佬懶理，客人就可以係被告人唔應訊的情況下登入判決。
筆者的經驗中，上述情況時有發生，由其申索額八萬、十萬到十多萬的。因為對方揾律師的費用都要十幾萬，計唔掂數。或者，係揾左律師，做左啲嘢，不過收到律師的第一張收費單，要畀幾萬蚊，即時停左佢，轉做個人自辯。
總而言之，不能一概而言。要看個別情況先可決定入稟與否。但係律師信就可以出左先，因為費用有限，效用可能好大。好多人從來無收過律師信，真係會畀你嚇親。
律師信的功效又如何呢？筆者的經驗真係一半一半。即一半時候可以成功嚇到對家，另一半時候嚇唔到。成功時，對家會按照你的要求去做。但另一半時間會否浪費律師費呢？又唔一定。因為，差不多所有的官司都由律師信開始的。入稟告人前，通常要先向對方出律師信，否則日後就算贏左官司都可能攞唔返自己的律師費。因為對家可以講入稟係不必要的，如果你一早出信，佢就按你的要求做啦！
當然，出左律師信後，嚇唔到對方，都唔代表你一定要入稟去告對方的。入稟與否，主要考慮兩方面：第一、你的法律理據有幾强，即俗語所謂有無 case ；第二、對家的可能反應係點？
就上述第一點而言，如果你無物理據，打起官司，好大機會會輸，就唔好輕言入稟。打官司好比打擂臺，你叫得對手上擂臺，唔係話唔打就唔打。要相方同意和解先可終止案件。如對方已耗用了一筆律師費，唔係你話唔打就唔打。對方通常會要求你支付佢的律師費作為和解的其中一個條件。
話分兩頭講。有理據又唔一定要入稟去告人，因為要考慮費用同申索額是否對稱。另一方面，有時無物理據又唔代表唔入稟。這時就要考慮上述第二點了。例如，客人好清楚對家係省錢類型，一定唔會請律師，這時贏面會大好多。或者，對家闊佬懶理，客人就可以係被告人唔應訊的情況下登入判決。
筆者的經驗中，上述情況時有發生，由其申索額八萬、十萬到十多萬的。因為對方揾律師的費用都要十幾萬，計唔掂數。或者，係揾左律師，做左啲嘢，不過收到律師的第一張收費單，要畀幾萬蚊，即時停左佢，轉做個人自辯。
總而言之，不能一概而言。要看個別情況先可決定入稟與否。但係律師信就可以出左先，因為費用有限，效用可能好大。好多人從來無收過律師信，真係會畀你嚇親。
2016年3月23日 星期三
醫療失誤
醫療失誤事件時有發生，往往令人不快。因為醫療失誤事件發生的後果，好多時會導致病人健康受損，甚致死亡。處理醫療失誤案件時，筆者往往需要同時辦演法律上及心理上的角色。當然，最終能幫助到客人，滿足感還是很大的。
一般而言，醫療失誤事件可分為兩類︰可成功申索的，同不能成功申索的。理由係，要成功申索，原告人必須證明︰第一、有關的醫生有違反責任，第二、有關的違反責任導致原告人有損失，以及第三、相關的損失必須是實質性的。上述三點任何一點如原告人不能證明，申索都不可能成功。
問題係病人點先知道有可成功申索的醫療失誤事件？筆者遇醫療失誤事件的客人時，第一時間會向客人解釋，首先要有醫學專家的報告，證明相關的醫生有無違反責任。由於醫學領域非常專門，法官同律師必須依賴醫學專家的報告，才能判定醫生有無違反責任，即上述第一點。上述第二及第三點為法律問題，由法官判決。
由於香港的醫學界長久存在醫醫相衞的情況，筆者為客人揾適合的醫學專家去撰寫專家報告時，通常不會選擇本地的醫學專家。英國的醫學專家通常更專業同操守更佳。很奇怪，英國的醫學專家收費一般要比本地的平宜。筆者現時正處理一件醫療失誤的案件，有關的英國專家看完了有關的醫學記錄之後，在無須撰寫專家報告下，己有專家意見，認為相關的香港醫生無違反責任，通知不用撰寫專家報告下，幫客人省下了一筆費用。本地專家發生這種情況機 會不大。
醫療失誤案件最大的功能係為申張公義。好多人聽到公義兩個字時會笑出口，不會相信有公義這回事。如果一位醫生可以醫死人之後沒人追究，沒有後果，當然就一定無公義啦！如果他的同行，即另一位醫生證明佢有違反責任，就算最終申索不成功，都成功證明佢有違反責任。到時係人都知佢冇醫德。當然，如果成功申索的話，原告人更可以得到賠償。
所以，尋求專業的法律意見好重要。等律師分析下有無可申索的醫療失誤事件，然後再睇下有無需要揾醫學專家撰寫專家報告。要防止醫療失誤事件的發生，就係等大家知道它已經發生。醫生要知道有後果，以後就會小心好多。
一般而言，醫療失誤事件可分為兩類︰可成功申索的，同不能成功申索的。理由係，要成功申索，原告人必須證明︰第一、有關的醫生有違反責任，第二、有關的違反責任導致原告人有損失，以及第三、相關的損失必須是實質性的。上述三點任何一點如原告人不能證明，申索都不可能成功。
問題係病人點先知道有可成功申索的醫療失誤事件？筆者遇醫療失誤事件的客人時，第一時間會向客人解釋，首先要有醫學專家的報告，證明相關的醫生有無違反責任。由於醫學領域非常專門，法官同律師必須依賴醫學專家的報告，才能判定醫生有無違反責任，即上述第一點。上述第二及第三點為法律問題，由法官判決。
由於香港的醫學界長久存在醫醫相衞的情況，筆者為客人揾適合的醫學專家去撰寫專家報告時，通常不會選擇本地的醫學專家。英國的醫學專家通常更專業同操守更佳。很奇怪，英國的醫學專家收費一般要比本地的平宜。筆者現時正處理一件醫療失誤的案件，有關的英國專家看完了有關的醫學記錄之後，在無須撰寫專家報告下，己有專家意見，認為相關的香港醫生無違反責任，通知不用撰寫專家報告下，幫客人省下了一筆費用。本地專家發生這種情況機 會不大。
醫療失誤案件最大的功能係為申張公義。好多人聽到公義兩個字時會笑出口，不會相信有公義這回事。如果一位醫生可以醫死人之後沒人追究，沒有後果，當然就一定無公義啦！如果他的同行，即另一位醫生證明佢有違反責任，就算最終申索不成功，都成功證明佢有違反責任。到時係人都知佢冇醫德。當然，如果成功申索的話，原告人更可以得到賠償。
所以，尋求專業的法律意見好重要。等律師分析下有無可申索的醫療失誤事件，然後再睇下有無需要揾醫學專家撰寫專家報告。要防止醫療失誤事件的發生，就係等大家知道它已經發生。醫生要知道有後果，以後就會小心好多。
定立遺囑
遺囑 -
香港人傳統上對定立遺囑都有點不安。有如英國人所講的 tempting the faith 。有時等到情況很緊急時，才揾律師去辦理。筆者最近於一月時，就到訪了一間醫院為一位客人辦理了一份遺囑。客人已差不多八十歲了。並患上了末期癌症。很不幸，立遺囑後十二天便主懷安息。如果辦理的時間晚一個星期，客人的精神狀態可能已經不能立遺囑了。或者，再晚一點，主懷安息後亦再不能立了。
正如人生中的其他事項，盡早安排不論對本人及後人，都有好處而又無壞處的。定立遺囑一般而言有兩種做法：立囑人可以在家中自行撰寫遺囑，在香港不論中文或英文遺囑都可於遺產承辦處直接做承辦。其他的語言所撰寫的遺囑辦理上就比較複雜了。另一種做法當然是揾律師啦！一般情況，定立遺囑其中一個重要目的就避免日後後人會內有争產的情況發生。所以在定立遺囑時，能有專業的法律意見，會比較理想。
筆者處理過一些争產的案件，就是先人一係無立遺囑，一係遺囑立得不理想。那麼，點先算係理想的遺囑呢？在立遺囑時，律師必須了解客人的財產的數目及種類，客人有什麼後人及其希望承受遺產的親人。重有一種往往不理想遺囑都會忽略的人：就是法律上認為立遺囑人應該有責任提供合理經濟濟助。例如，立遺囑人的同居女友，立遺囑人生前定期為其提供經濟濟助的。
如果，遺囑沒有為上述人士提供任何安排，她們可以在承辦完成後半年內向死者遺產提起訴訟。而一般情況下，所產生的律師費用可從遺產扣除。如果遺產不算很大，可能律師費都花去大半。這種遺囑當然不理想啦！所以在定立遺囑時，這方面的專業法律意見就很重要了。
筆者現時正在理處兩件這樣的案件。所以有切身的經驗。在定立遺囑時，筆者會同客人開一次會，通常需時一至兩小時，解釋上述的事項。當然這種做法，客人的費用會較高，但係就避免了日後可能會產生的大量律師費用。
遺囑的另一目的是合理安排身後遺產轉攘，盡量減少所需費用。這種安排當然同財產的數量及性質，後人的數目及同立遺囑人的關係有關。好難一概而論。呢個就係點解一般自行撰寫的遺囑有不理想的地方。表面上省了錢，日後可能問題多多。
由此可見，定立遺囑係好嚴肅的事情。大家應該認真對待，亦不能只在省錢的角度去看。
正如人生中的其他事項，盡早安排不論對本人及後人，都有好處而又無壞處的。定立遺囑一般而言有兩種做法：立囑人可以在家中自行撰寫遺囑，在香港不論中文或英文遺囑都可於遺產承辦處直接做承辦。其他的語言所撰寫的遺囑辦理上就比較複雜了。另一種做法當然是揾律師啦！一般情況，定立遺囑其中一個重要目的就避免日後後人會內有争產的情況發生。所以在定立遺囑時，能有專業的法律意見，會比較理想。
筆者處理過一些争產的案件，就是先人一係無立遺囑，一係遺囑立得不理想。那麼，點先算係理想的遺囑呢？在立遺囑時，律師必須了解客人的財產的數目及種類，客人有什麼後人及其希望承受遺產的親人。重有一種往往不理想遺囑都會忽略的人：就是法律上認為立遺囑人應該有責任提供合理經濟濟助。例如，立遺囑人的同居女友，立遺囑人生前定期為其提供經濟濟助的。
如果，遺囑沒有為上述人士提供任何安排，她們可以在承辦完成後半年內向死者遺產提起訴訟。而一般情況下，所產生的律師費用可從遺產扣除。如果遺產不算很大，可能律師費都花去大半。這種遺囑當然不理想啦！所以在定立遺囑時，這方面的專業法律意見就很重要了。
筆者現時正在理處兩件這樣的案件。所以有切身的經驗。在定立遺囑時，筆者會同客人開一次會，通常需時一至兩小時，解釋上述的事項。當然這種做法，客人的費用會較高，但係就避免了日後可能會產生的大量律師費用。
遺囑的另一目的是合理安排身後遺產轉攘，盡量減少所需費用。這種安排當然同財產的數量及性質，後人的數目及同立遺囑人的關係有關。好難一概而論。呢個就係點解一般自行撰寫的遺囑有不理想的地方。表面上省了錢，日後可能問題多多。
由此可見，定立遺囑係好嚴肅的事情。大家應該認真對待，亦不能只在省錢的角度去看。