星期三, 11月 19, 2008

一個棄權者的告白

昨天收到一個棄權者的告白:

Dear Friends,

Not the right time to invoke LegCo special powers

LegCo voted last week to approve the motion to invoke special powers to investigate the minibonds matter. Even before the debate began, Members returned by direct election overwhelmingly favoured the motion. Support among Members returned by functional constituencies was less clear. It was a controversial issue and some Members were weighing the pros and cons till the end.

My position on the minibonds matter has been clear and firm all along. There were clearly cases of misselling by the financial institutions, and there were loopholes/weaknesses in the current regulatory regime and process. I believe that the banks, the regulatory authorities and the investors all have their share of the responsibilities in this financial mishap. A review of the regulatory regime should be made to find out where the system failed and to close the loopholes. I am also greatly disappointed by the tardy response and the slow progress in the settlement of the grievances of those retired and underprivileged persons who had been misled into investing in such risky derivative products. I have been a critic of the banks all along.

However, I do not support invoking LegCo’s special powers & privileges to investigate into the matter at this time. I believe the better approach is to set up a committee of highly credible independent experts to investigate into this matter and submit its report to the government and LegCo for consideration. Invoking LegCo’s special powers to investigate should only be the last resort.

My vote was abstention. Why did I vote ‘abstain’ instead of ‘No’ the motion? Let me explain. Under the prevailing LegCo rules governing the decision on motions, an abstention vote has a strong effect of disapproving a motion, though of a lesser degree than outright objection. Let us look at the following simplified illustration.

Suppose at a meeting with 29 members present, 14 votes ‘Yes’, 12 ‘No’ and 3 ‘abstain’. Although the number of ‘Yes’ exceeds the number of ‘No’, the motion cannot be carried because it needs 15 votes (i.e. over 50% of those present) for the motion to carry. Abstention in effect works against the carriage of a motion.

Stemming from several major concerns, I have strong reservations about supporting the motion:

1. Given the large number of parties involved and the complexity of the issues and legal technicality, the investigation process is expected to take a long time, thus diminishing the timeliness and usefulness of the outcome in helping the victims;

2. Invoking special powers of the LegCo at this time may force the banks to resort to a legalistic approach to all the cases and hold up the handling of disputes pending the outcome of the investigation. This may jeopardize the interest of investors whose priority is to salvage as much money as early as possible;

3. In the investigation process, sensitive and confidential business information may be revealed. This will adversely affect the business operating environment of Hong Kong and undermine Hong Kong’s reputation as a world-class financial center. Although some advocates of this motion argued that confidentiality would be strictly observed by members of the LegCo Committee while dealing with highly sensitive information, there are, sadly, precedents where sensitive and confidential information leaked nonetheless; and

4. The bigger challenge that Hong Kong now faces is the sudden downturn of the economy and rising unemployment. Hong Kong’s economy is bleeding badly and needs emergency care. Precious time and energy should not be diverted to the post-mortem investigation of the minibonds matter at this stage, or else all the people of Hong Kong may have to pay a very dear price for this.

If you would like to read the full text of the floor speech I gave, please follow this link:
http://www.paulmpchan.org/mailing/081119/Speech.html

My floor speech was in Chinese. If you would like to read the English translation, please let me know by sending an email to paul@paulmpchan.org. My staff will arrange to have the transcript forwarded to you as soon as it becomes available.

As always, I shall be pleased to hear your views on this highly controversial, and somewhat divisive, issue.
 
Sincere regards,

Paul M P Chan

Telephone No. : (852) 2165-7887
E-mail address : paul@paulmpchan.org
Personal web site : http://www.paulmpchan.org/


呢個解釋,大家接受嗎?

對我嚟講,“support” 就投“Yes”! “do not support” 就要投“No”!

把口話自己其實“do not support”, 但走去投“棄權”,仲要長篇大論去解釋投“棄權”票嘅好處,簡直係會計界嘅笑話!

如果你當日有投波哥一票,請話比我聽你現在有否後悔,謝謝!

15 則留言:

匿名 說...

rediculous

DAB is the best! 說...

I totally agree with you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
remember 2 vote for good policital party !!!!!! vote someone that sure make functional grolup forever!!!!!!!!!!!!

小瓶子 說...

I do think he is finding an excuses to justify his abstention.

He is so clear that he objects the motion, I can't see the reason that he vote abstention in stead of "No"

I didn't vote Paul. I voted Ronald Kung but unluckily, he was not elected to represent us.

Webman 說...

如果立場咁清晰,就應該表達出嚟!
"是其是,非其非"

如果因為怕得罪苦主或銀行同業,怕"失去選票"而咁樣做。咁樣係將自己既利益放係首位,而唔係為公眾既利益而出發。

大家都應該知道,引用特權法只會造成社會資源既虛耗而未必能夠為苦主追回更多或更快追回所損失既投資。

會計師 說...

終於明白為甚麼陳先生在競選時說自己"方方面面都兼顧到", 果然是成功人士! 我愈來愈尊敬他!

匿名 說...

咪就係你當日話香香冇可能贏,不如一齊投龔龔先令波波贏囉!同當年李登輝叫人投連戰唔投宋楚瑜令陳水扁贏有什麼分別?

匿名 說...

雲泥叫了杯LATTE,小嘴在咬著STARBUCK的飲管,看著ASUS Eee PC900的她,冷不防收到一封電郵,驚叫道:焯,這個人不是代表我們的嗎?怎麼 ……

白焯呷了啖VODKA後,義憤填膺地說:人bid字母而人冇G。

雲泥:你咁早飲大左?

白焯:我冇醉,佢真係代表緊我地!佢可以代表到我地,都係因為好多人投棄權票。佢深明棄權票的威力!都米話佢睇得唔遠。

雲泥:對!果然(竟然咁都)做得到!

大口仔 說...

越來越唔知陳生講乜,其實佢知唔知自己講乜?

"DO NOT SUPPORT"但投棄權?

仲話"My position on the minibonds matter has been clear and firm all along."?

即係好CLEAR同FIRM地棄權定乜?佢訓醒未?

匿名 說...

Ball Ball said he will consult all members before voting for important issues....
did anyone ever been consulted before he voted abstention?

How dare you treated us as a fool of making such excuses and believing that we will accept your excuses!
Don't try to fool us with your foolish and illogical excuses!

渣估 說...

請問那裡可以讀到這封信的中文版?

hermanwest 說...

典型港仔!

匿名 說...

馬沙話踢波, 即是話踢走 POO, 可惜中聯辦發功, 所以POO出唔到局, 不過都要怪那些不願意出來投票的選民, 如果未來4年, POO POO做左的對唔住的會員的事, 你地千萬不要怪POO, 要怪就怪你地自己有票唔去投, 自招.

9/08/2008 10:57 下午

記得係之前都話 "要怪就怪你地自己....", 現在你地真係睇清楚呢位"波波"係點樣的建制派和早餐派的人. 你地自招.

多多 說...

I don;t like him. He even does not have the courage to admit that he has a different view from most of us here.

P.S. I did not vote for him.

方潤 說...

不贊成但投棄權的議員,邏輯真強。

不過,曾幾何時,都有班讀會計既學生同學生會講,系會依法要停止活動既期間竟然有支出(仲有活動),只係因為「計錯數」。
自此之後,就令我對會計師的操守再無期望(當然咁講唔係話所有會計師都冇操守),我亦唔會對呢位議員既行徑覺得奇怪。

佢同果班同學一樣,都只係聰明香港人既人版。

AAT, CPA 說...

聽朋友說,陳茂波的票是過往一眾PC候選人的鐵票。