星期四, 9月 04, 2008

和氣收場

會計界功能組別5名候選人,龔耀輝譚香文、嚴定偉、陳茂波及黃宏泰,經過多次出席各大小傳播機構舉辦的選舉論壇後,前天終於再次回到主場,出席由會計師公會主辦的第二次選舉論壇,直接面對及接受選民提問。今次出席的會員比上次為多,但比較2萬多名登記選民,可能連1%都不到。希望投票當日各會員能夠行出來投票,增加整體投票率,讓人知道專業會計師,並不是政治泠感的一群。

不知是否馬沙上次在此專欄,要求公會為會員準備一些餅乾以作充飢之固,前晚一進場就見到有餅乾及小蛋糕供應。值得一讚再讚的是論壇中段休息時間,公會特別安排茶點招待會員,差點以為自己去咗上市公司股東周年大會。

講到論壇氣氛,感覺上就比之前幾場祥和。至於各候選人的表現,就各有千秋。

上次被馬沙批評EQ要加以改善的龔耀輝,前晚的表現就相當出色,不溫不火。如果當晚奇兵突出,勇敢地企起身向會員說一句「對不起」,就真係做足100分。

上次被馬沙指答案千篇一律同經常答非所問的譚香文,似乎依然固我。

而終於不做其隱形人的嚴定偉,真係不提也吧。

被指為大熱門的陳茂波,今屆真係準備充足,上次開出為會員設立資源中心的期票,前晚再開出為會員組織工會,如果真係當選,做到先好!

黃宏泰繼續以棟篤笑方式答問,成晚帶俾會員好多歡樂。但攞雲英未嫁的譚香文同已婚的龔耀輝來玩,何止低俗,簡直係爛gag!

(2008年9月4日刊於《am730》)

(以上為完整版 Uncut Version)


******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************

後話:

以下為馬沙在論壇進行其間的小小個人觀感:

記者比上一次少咗好多。

飛哥今次對會員只能同時向5名候選人發出相同問題的規則解釋似乎略有不足,以至好多會員向單一會員發出問題,最後問題被飛哥取消。

曾經有一時段,有候選人大插公會,坐第一行的公會CEO張總反應好激動,口中唸唸有詞,仲幾乎想企起身反駁,好彩公會會長坐係張總旁邊!

比較上次,今次好多四大的名人都冇到場,公會理事會成員好似亦只有幾名列席!

嚴定偉連向對手發問題的權利都可以放棄,實在令人摸不著頭腦!

波哥繼上次要求文姐公開用普通話答佢問題,今次又叫文姐用英文作答,好似D名校小學生鬥氣!

又...又....有一名會員要求5名候選人各自用普通話郎讀一段報紙文章,用咗好多寶貴時間,攪到媽聲四起!

9 則留言:

Carl W 說...

It's a pity that I cannot participate in the forum, however, I did watch the later half in HKICPA's WEBCAST by internet.

Though you may find it less than 1% of all members, I may think that it's really hard for one (include me) to attend the forum by 6pm.

I am passionate on this election too even though I didn't attend it in person. I watched those other forum which I can search in Youtube, and those links posted by you too. Thanks a lot! Your links save me a lot time to search.

This is the first time I can vote in Accountancy functional unit, I won't want to waste my vote. So, it's my responsibility to each candidates. And so do all of us, right ?

Let's vote on 7Sept

shiode 說...

以陳茂波與HKICPA以及各大小事務所的友好關係, 就算陳茂波真的攪一個工會出來, 我唔相信真的幫到業界從業員爭取利益. 因為從業員的利益全是由陳茂波鐵票陣的荷包中掏出來的...可以預計他的工會都是攪d course出來比d平d價錢儲cpd之類...

shiode 說...

我相信如果龔耀輝要說對不起, 這應是一個代表公會說給會員的對不起. 這個對不起應該由Winnie Cheung親口說出來, 而不是龔耀輝為了選票而代她說.

CB1668(2) 說...

我到今日為止, 都唔明大家咁著意呢D talk show.

唔通, 大家會認為我地果幾位人兄,
會當住大庭廣眾, 講一d 不中我們的說話??

匿名 說...

"又...又....有一名會員要求5名候選人各自用普通話郎讀一段報紙文章,用咗好多寶貴時間,攪到媽聲四起!"

呢條友低B!

匿名 說...

Ms Tam must be very pissed. Please read the 5th paragraph, where she said "Technically I did not due HKICPA."

Was "due" supposed to be a cantonese swear word?

;-)



JUDICIAL REVIEW AGAINST HKICPA

This is a reluctant topic that Paul Chan forces me into writing today.

It may be just counter-intuitive. But the fact is, I am the one least vocal in public on the issue of JR and on the happenings leading to it.

It is factual, however, that recently the issue of JR has been frequently brought up in election forums (believe it or not, altogether ten forums were held). More often then not, it was the other candidate who brought up the questions to address the responsibilities of Ronald Kung and Paul Chan, both as members of the Council that decided to stop my mails.

Personally, I had kept a very low profile on the JR while it was a favorite of the press. I had not taken a stance of victory when the JR decision falls in my favor. To me it was not a winning, but just a sad situation that damaged the image of our profession at large through the illegal acts of the Council.

For the first time on record, I am also dispelling the general misbelief about the lawsuit. Technically I did not due HKICPA. I did not sue for damage. JR is a special process under the English legal system whereby a review could be made by the Court as to whether a public body has done wrong. At best, when I win the JR, the HKICPA would be ordered to resume the service. At worst, I could have lost HK$5 million. As accountants you all know this is not a profitable proposition. The odds are against me. I gamble with all my monies for zero payout, but the Council gambles with members’ money.

If I lost, I would be a bankrupt, and I could not hold my Legislative Councilor position any more.

Was I crazy to do it?

I looked for my answer deep in my soul. If there was only one thing I have to do as a Legco member, what was it?

My answer is: if I cannot uphold freedom of speech and the members’ right to know, i.e. by accepting the illegal sanction on my newsletter to members, I might as well not be qualified to hold the Legco membership.

Well the rest is history. The JR ruled that it was wrong for the Institute to stop the postal service for me. My relationship with the new Council has since been normalized.

What is also history was the untold part of what happened between Paul Chan and I before the JR and whether the Presidency of Paul Chan was a contributing factor to the JR.

This part of history was fully documented in Council papers. I had never said one word about it in the last 3 years. It was unfortunate that Ronald Kung during the debates mentioned the existence of these papers, and the fact about the alleged “table banging” by Paul Chan. In his rebuttal, Paul Chan made reference to a complaint letter I wrote to the Council on March 15, 2006. Paul said according to the letter I banged the table first. Paul even challenged me in the NOW forum (August 23) to publish the letter. Of course I do not think it a good idea, for it is in my opinion not very nice to expose him. I did not reveal the letter, as I always would not.

Yesterday morning (September 3), at the RTHK forum, Paul again openly challenged me to publish the complaint letter. This time, I decided that I should give it some thought. Last evening at the HKICPA forum I distributed the complete papers comprising four letters:

March 15, 2006, my complaint letter against Paul Chan
March 23, 2006, reply from HKICPA
January 16, 2007, my ultimatum letter to HKICPA
January 17, 2007, reply from HKICPA
For details please browse http://www.mandytam.com/mini/b5_event_detail.php?date=1220284800

At midnight last night, Paul also posted his comments on my complaint letter of March 15, 2006.

I will not discuss Paul’s responses and I leave it entirely up to you to formulate your view of the whole matter, now that 100% of the points of view from both sides are all opened.

I have only one question for Paul: why did he not reply to my complaint letter then, instead of now?

All I had been asking was an apology. He had turned it into a legal battle costing $5 million borne by all members.

Election Advertisement

Quantity Delivered:

Delivered by: Mandy Tam’s Office

Room 202A, Lung Poon Court Commercial Centre, Diamond Hill, Kowloon

Tiger 說...

「曾經有一時段,有候選人大插公會,坐第一行的公會CEO張總反應好激動,口中唸唸有詞,仲幾乎想企起身反駁,好彩公會會長坐係張總旁邊!」

我坐Winnie the pooh 後幾排,我都有留意到Winnie the pooh 好鬼慶 ^_^

匿名 說...

真是難以選擇! 原是希望選出的議員能替業界爭取利益,但看見候選人的表現及爭市論議題,真是無法接受,最後只能舉手投降!

匿名 說...

Mandy said she was the one least vocal in public on the issue of JR and on the happenings leading to it.

That's not my understanding.

She said if she lost, she would be a bankrupt, and could not hold her Legislative Councilor position any more.

She owns two properties at 星河明居. She is not poor.