BNO Visa

BNO visa 計劃推行已經有三年時間，最初申請30個月的申請者亦都係時間申請多30個月的renew。當然，如果現時的情況同三年前申請時有變，renew多30個月Home Office唔一定會同意。例如，配偶dependant的身份，現時已經離婚，申請就唔一定會批。

另外，IHS的有關收費都加左好多。如果30個月後，未能滿足Indefinite Leave to Remain的條件，到時IHS的收費可能會進一步增加。

申請人在地5年間需要注意保持行為良好，唔好有刑事犯罪。因為，如果係嚴重刑事案，非英籍犯罪者會係完成刑期後，Home Office會deport佢返家鄉。再重新申請BNO visa的難度會好大。可以揾移民律師試下申請，十萬八萬律師費就畀硬。

有啲申請人，係申請之前已經有刑事過失，如果唔係好嚴重的案件，而犯案時又好耐之前，之後申請人一路都保持行為良好，申請BNO visa通常都批。呢種情況，申請人最好一次過申請60個月，因為如果需要30個月後返黎renew，Home Office係會重新考慮申請。第一次批你唔代表第二次一定會批你。

注意5年後申請永居，成過居留期間都要保持行為良好。申請人需要滿足criminality同conducive to public good的suitability條件。

樓宇買賣

 樓宇買賣 - 

近日，樓宇買賣活躍返，希望想賣就賣得出，想買就買到。香港樓宇買賣程序算直接。買賣雙方都有律師代表，賣方最簡單，收左錢就無手尾跟。買家收左樓，重怕係有漏水，可能凶宅，或有靈體寄居，等等。

買家必須係臨約簽署前，問清楚單位係唔係凶宅，重要臨約寫明。問地產代理，同賣方的有關問題。及其回覆都要有當時書面證明。如果，簽約前無問，簽約後就無仇報。另外，凶宅法律上無清楚定義，最好寫清楚，單位無發生過凶殺，跳樓，自然死亡，等等。

香港的物業註冊制度係所謂 unregistered title。買方律師需要睇樓契 title deeds 有無問題，去決定單位的 title 有無問題。土地註冊署唔會保證註冊物業業權無問題。所以法律責任要買方律師負責。

英國的物業主要都係 registered title。土地註冊署保證業權誰屬。買家律師的責任細好多。買家只要做 search 同 survey，保證物業質素無問題就可以。當然，亦都無凶宅的問題。因為，英國無講凶宅名單呢樣嘢。買屋之前，買家好難有資料知道間屋係唔係凶宅。通常，要到入住睇到或聽到靈體朋友，就知中召啦！

由於香港人一般都係比較唔熟悉英國的樓宇買賣程序， 好多時都希望揾香港人律師樓去處理。好處係，過程中，客人可以時不時打電話問進度，語言上較方便，唔會好似唔左下落。一般本地律師樓係唔會entertain客人打電話問進度，因為收費上唔可能有足夠人手處理。

缺點係，由於同事要要用多好多時間客戶服務，收費通常會貴多大約£100。至於，多畀100係值唔值得，就見人見智啦！

買樓宇係大數目的大決定，過程要小心啲。如果，中召先揾律師去告人，就要浪費大量的時間同金錢，而結果又無得保證。

離婚

 離婚 -

離婚有5種唔同的理由可以提出 - 通姦，不合理行為，分居兩年，同意並分居一年，遺棄一年。家法事法庭只要事實上相信婚姻已經破裂至無可挽救，就會批出離婚令。

通姦證明上比較困難，因為對方通常唔會主動承認。提出方需要證明A同B，有發生性行為，都有一定困難，除非，兩人參加AV演出。不合理行為，可以係精神上，或肉體上，打人，唔畀家用，成日唔返屋企，等等。分居兩年，可以單方面提出離婚。分居一年，但雙方同意，就好簡單。遺棄一年，人都揾唔到，就可以單方面提出離婚。按相方不同情況，最好先問下律師意見。

除非相方同意，或無未成年子女，雙方都需要處理子女的管養權問題。家事法庭一般情況會睇下邊一方係通常負責管教子女，並有更好的資源及時間繼續管教子女，去決定管養權畀邊一方。

贍養費方面，起點係婚姻財富的一半，各人平分。但法庭會考慮，相方的收入及支出，以及合理的生活條件，作出最後安排。當然，如果相方同意，法庭唔會多問。

近年，由於好多香港家庭可能已經移民外國，如英國，加拿大，澳洲等等。如果，要提出離婚，最直接當然係所在國提出。但並非所有情況都適合。例如，相方無未成年子女，係香港有不動產，香港提出離婚，家事法庭可以直接批出有關處理物業的法庭命令。如果，係所在國提出離婚，所在國的法庭命令唔可以直接係香港執行。離婚一方需要係香港高等法院提出申請普通法上執行。第一，普通法上，唔係所有法庭命令可以執行，如 order for sale 就唔得。第二，高院律師費又高又金。

按擬提出離婚一方的個別情況，最好先問下律師的法律意見，再決定係所在國，定係香港提出離婚。

遺產承辦

 遺產承辦 -

辦理遺產承辦，要去遺產承辦處。遺產承辦可分為: 有遺囑承辦，同無遺囑承辦。前者比較方便，需按照平安紙中所述的承辦人去處理承辦。攞左承辦認証後，就按照平安紙中所定的受益人去分配財產。後者，由於無立平安紙，就要按無遺囑承辦法去處理遺產承辦，同遺產分配。

簡單黎講，無遺囑承辦法把逝者的後人分為不同的先後次序。配偶次序最高。如果配偶早亡，子女可以去做承辦。如果無配偶，又無子女，父母可以去做承辦，之後就係逝者的兄弟姐妹啦。而受益人的先後次序，都係同承辦的先後次序一樣。

遺產承辦可以自己處理，或透過律師去處理都可以。通常遺產較多，受益人又多，透過律師去處理比較方便。如果遺產唔多，可以自己同遺產承辦處約時間處理。一般情況，佢地都幫到手。揾律師的缺點當然係要使律師費。

至於申請承辦的文件方面，必須注意逝者名字描述要正確同全面。理由好簡單，如果逝者在生時，曾經改名，佢有可能用唔同名買過並持有不同的不動產或其他資產。如果遺產認証中無呢個名，後人係辦唔到遺產轉名。只可以返遺產承辦處做多次更改。

同樣道理，財產的描述都要正確同全面。樓宇的描述需要按照土地註冊署的描述，銀行戶口號碼就一正要準確。財產描述唔好遺漏。否則，就要返轉頭，去遺產承辦處辦理更改。

多地遺囑

 多地遺囑-

立遺囑，或平安紙時，需要考慮兩方面的事情：(1) 何人會係平安紙中的受益人，和 (2) 財產的性質及地理上的分布情況。第 (1) 點，以前已經講過，重點係邊個係受益人，以及邊個如果唔係受益人，係法律上，可否日後法律上提出訴訟，向遺產執行人追討。

第 (2) 點而言，一般人比較少注意。就不動產黎講，如果立遺囑人在香港，以及海外都有財產，如果生前只立左一份平安紙，唔理係香港立定係海外立。如係香港所立，日後係香港做遺產承辦，去處理香港的不動產，當然唔會有問題。問題就發生係點樣去處理海外的不動產了? 因為香港遺產承辦處的遺產認證，係唔可以攞去海外任何一個國家做所謂 resealing 。如加拿大就唔可以。

結果，後人就唔可以簡單直接係加拿大辦理所在地的不動產。後人需要係加拿大重新做一次遺產承辦。立遺囑人過身的永居地就變得好重要，因為，假如立遺囑人係香港過身，加拿大的遺產承辦需要用香港的承辦法律去處理。當中的律師費支出會大好多。呢個係所謂 conflict of laws 的問題。呢種情況下：客人最好係香港及加拿大分別立一份平安紙。日後，後人可以分別係香港同加拿大辦理遺產承辦。律師費支出會比較低。

如果，海外的不動產處於英國，後人可以用 resealing 的方法去處理承辦。如只得一份香港平安紙，後人可以係香港遺產承辦處攞左遺產認證之後，去英國做 resealing 。反過黎，只得一份英國平安紙，後人就要係英國做遺產認證之後，返香港做 resealing 。但較簡單的方法都係香港同英國分別立一份平安紙。日後，後人可以分別係香港同英國辦理承辦。律師費支出會比較低。

上述因不動產而引起的 conflict of laws 的問題，同樣會發生係如銀行存款上。如後人係加拿大攞住遺產承辦認證返香港的銀行要求提款，香港銀行唔會承認，亦唔會采你。

移民律師

 移民律師 -

一般在英國生活了十年，八年，或者時間更長的華人，如果是逾期居留，都希望有一天能夠正式獲得合法身分。由於，沒有合法身分，無論在生活，工作，以及子女教育上都會面對許多困難和問題。若果能經法律途徑獲得合法身分，以上種種困難和問題自然會一一解決。

英國移民法規對逾期居留者提供多條不同的路徑可獲得合法身分，因應申請人的不同情況，可以透過不同的路徑進行申請。理論上，申請人可以以個人身分直接向內政部提出申請。由於英國移民法規非常複雜，又經常更改，一般人在沒有移民律師代表的情況下，能滿足內政部的申請要求，最後成功獲得合法身分的機會不大。

所以，申請人通常都會找移民律師或移民顧問的服務。到底移民律師或移民顧問有何分別? 前者為經過正式法律訓練，已經成功通過律師專業試的正式英國註冊律師。但後者不是律師，只是從事移民服務的工作者。某些移民顧問可能有多年的經驗，由於沒有經過正式法律訓練，當申請人情況比較複雜時，處理上會有困難。申請人最好初次會面時，正式要求服務提供者透露到底是移民律師，還是移民顧問? 申請人需要選擇正式的移民律師代表提出申請。

移民律師或移民顧問的收費相差非常之大。同一類型的申請事項收費可以為2000英鎊到5000英鎊不等。申請人要如何選擇呢? 一般而言，申請人要多走數間不同的移民律師問下初步法律意見。初步會面，通常不收費的。經驗所得，收費太低的移民律師不會用心和用足夠時間去處理申請，因為每項申請收費太低，只能用數量換質量。收費太高的都不能選，因為收費高並非代表服務好，只是希望用市場不透明獲取最大利益。以上述2000英鎊到5000英鎊的收費為例子，申請人應該選擇律師收費為大約3000英鎊最合適。

授權書

 授權書-

授權書的種類有好多種，即所謂 power of attorney。一般情況下，香港人日常會接觸到的授權書係授權他人幫手賣樓，或者放租。現時，不少港人因為政治，或者其他的原因，需要短時間內離開香港，在港物業又唔可以離港前賣出或者租出。無理由叫地產代理放賣或放租成功後，親身回港辦理手續及簽署交易文件。費時失事。

較理想的方法係離港前，親身上律師樓一趟，係律師面前簽份授權書，再交畀被授權人，去負責簽署買賣，或者放租的文件。注意: 授權書的有效期限為一年。如果係簽署後一年內物業都賣唔出，或者租唔出，原本個份授權書就會失效。授權人係呢種情況下，就需要揾律師簽過份新授權書。當然，律師費要畀多次。

如果離港前，黎唔切揾律師做份授權書，或者做左，但一年已過，物業都未賣出或者租出。現時已經身在海外，可能政治上，或者其他的原因，唔可能或者唔方便再返香港。點樣再做份新的授權書呢? 如果身在海外的國家，能係附近揾到香港律師，去處理授權書的文件，以及見證簽署，之後把簽署好的授權書寄回香港畀被授權人便可。

授權人好多時間侯都擔心如果揾左個靠唔住既被授權人。物業最終賣出，或者租出，被授權人會將所得賣價或租金據為己有。呢個唔使擔心，因為被授權人的權限只在於賣出或租出物業，款項係會按照授權書指定直接畀返授權人，即業主本人。

其他注意事項: 授權書上的授權人簽署式樣必須同對上樓宇買賣文件 (即 last assignment) 簽署式樣一致。否則，一年內揾到買家都無用，因為買家代表律師唔會接受係出於業主的簽署，並視授權書為無效。

Democracy

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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。

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！

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。

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。

民事訴訟

民事訴訟

好多時候，個人又好，公司又好，同其他人，或者其他公司，產生爭議，這時就要面對民事訴訟。當然，一般來說，如果你是訴訟的提起方，你會被稱為原告人；但若是被動的一方，你就是被告人了。爭議會係那一個法庭去處理，和爭議的性質，爭議額的多寡會有直接的關係。

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。