Letter to Hong Kong
Audrey Eu
4 Feb , 2001
After 22 years of legal practice, I took a recent pledge into politics. My decision to run in
the December by-election for the vacant HK island Legislative Council seat came as a
surprise to many not the least to myself and my family.
Indeed I was recently invited to give a talk and the topic set for me was: "The Legislative Council - why bother?" About 3 years ago, whilst I was the Chairman of the Bar, a reporter asked me whether I would ever get into politics, my response at the time was a very prompt and very resolute no. The reporter, much wiser than I was, laughed and advised me that one should never be that definite about such questions. Many of you would say that being Chairman of the Bar was unavoidably political.
But to many lawyers, this is never a problem. Just because law and politics do overlap, that does not mean that we should refrain from speaking out on issues which we rightly and proudly regard as falling within our duty as lawyers. By that, I mean matters relating to the rule of law and the administration of justice.
So if we have to stage a silent march against the NPC interpretation, if we have to defend the right of abode seekers, if we have to question the Department of Justice on its prosecution (or non-prosecution) policy, if we have to speak out on the freedom of assembly, we do not regard these as being politically inclined. So why this sudden change?
Indeed I was recently invited to give a talk and the topic set for me was: "The Legislative Council - why bother?" About 3 years ago, whilst I was the Chairman of the Bar, a reporter asked me whether I would ever get into politics, my response at the time was a very prompt and very resolute no. The reporter, much wiser than I was, laughed and advised me that one should never be that definite about such questions. Many of you would say that being Chairman of the Bar was unavoidably political.
But to many lawyers, this is never a problem. Just because law and politics do overlap, that does not mean that we should refrain from speaking out on issues which we rightly and proudly regard as falling within our duty as lawyers. By that, I mean matters relating to the rule of law and the administration of justice.
So if we have to stage a silent march against the NPC interpretation, if we have to defend the right of abode seekers, if we have to question the Department of Justice on its prosecution (or non-prosecution) policy, if we have to speak out on the freedom of assembly, we do not regard these as being politically inclined. So why this sudden change?
Indeed why bother, when veteran politicians have chosen to give up? I can do no better
than quote the answer given by ex-legislator Christine Loh when asked about it. She
reported as saying: "Audrey is fresh enough to bash her head against the wall a few
times." When asked to endorse my candidacy for the purpose of my election
advertisement, Christine wrote: "I support her also because she has an enormous capacity
to learn." In other words, her reasons can be summed up in one word: "Green".
Incidentally, that was what I chose for my campaign colour. But seriously, to come back
to the question, why bother.
When mulling over the decision as to whether I should do it, I consulted others. One ex-legislator said: "Yes, there is a point in Legco. It is an intense political arena on which the glare of public lights is focused." I agree with him. Years ago, when there was no recording device in the courts, the judges could behave atrociously and there was little recourse.
Now, with the recording in all the courts, judges have to put on their best behaviour. If they don't, you can complain and the evidence is all down in the transcript and on tape. Legco serves a similar function. The glare of publicity ensures that the government put on its best behaviour. Officials can be called on to account for their deeds and to explain their policies. More importantly, through the process, the public gets to know and comment on the actions and intentions of government. So Legco is a stage where public opinion can be created or public scrutiny exercised. And that is what makes a democratic society. Talking about public opinion, I must say the public does not have a high opinion of Legco. The voter turnout rate is far from satisfactory. But this is a vicious circle. The more you shun the system, the worse it becomes. You can only go one way - and that is down.
When mulling over the decision as to whether I should do it, I consulted others. One ex-legislator said: "Yes, there is a point in Legco. It is an intense political arena on which the glare of public lights is focused." I agree with him. Years ago, when there was no recording device in the courts, the judges could behave atrociously and there was little recourse.
Now, with the recording in all the courts, judges have to put on their best behaviour. If they don't, you can complain and the evidence is all down in the transcript and on tape. Legco serves a similar function. The glare of publicity ensures that the government put on its best behaviour. Officials can be called on to account for their deeds and to explain their policies. More importantly, through the process, the public gets to know and comment on the actions and intentions of government. So Legco is a stage where public opinion can be created or public scrutiny exercised. And that is what makes a democratic society. Talking about public opinion, I must say the public does not have a high opinion of Legco. The voter turnout rate is far from satisfactory. But this is a vicious circle. The more you shun the system, the worse it becomes. You can only go one way - and that is down.
Many professionals do not believe in direct election. The businessmen even less so. They
think it favours the grassroots. They prefer the functional constituencies. But so long as
that remains an alternative, we are never going to progress towards direct election of all
seats in Legco, the ultimate goal as set by the Basic Law. It is important that we have
more people willing to run in direct elections. Of course, I confess that when the
proposition was first put to me, my first reaction was not to run but to run away. And that
was my second and my third reaction as well. But in the end, I have to be true to myself. I
could not say, direct election is a good thing, but no, not for me. Put to the test, I could
not say no.
What tickled the media during my campaign was the number of professionals who rallied to the cause. They came in large numbers, to the housing estates visits, to the streets, to the rallies, to the tea houses, in their 3 piece suits, some in their bow ties and many with their briefcases.
They were a bit awkward, and slightly embarrassed when distributing leaflets and addressing the passers-by through the microphones but they all did that in the best spirit. I was pleasantly surprised when some very senior doctors, who are the most conservative when it comes to politics or advertising, agreed to lend their names to a large newspaper advertisement to endorse my candidacy. Many who voted this time confessed that they have never voted before. For the good of Hong Kong, we must encourage more people that Legco is an institution worth bothering about.
What tickled the media during my campaign was the number of professionals who rallied to the cause. They came in large numbers, to the housing estates visits, to the streets, to the rallies, to the tea houses, in their 3 piece suits, some in their bow ties and many with their briefcases.
They were a bit awkward, and slightly embarrassed when distributing leaflets and addressing the passers-by through the microphones but they all did that in the best spirit. I was pleasantly surprised when some very senior doctors, who are the most conservative when it comes to politics or advertising, agreed to lend their names to a large newspaper advertisement to endorse my candidacy. Many who voted this time confessed that they have never voted before. For the good of Hong Kong, we must encourage more people that Legco is an institution worth bothering about.
Legco has presented a new dimension to my legal training. Take the Bills Committee. In
the past, I look at a finished piece of legislation arguing with the judge as to what it is
supposed to mean. Now I look at it during its making as to what it should mean.
But I enjoy best the work that goes on outside Legco. This is the district work, or what I would rather call the community work. A lawyer can only offer legal remedies but these are often costly and time consuming. It is hardly the answer for the man in the street who now turns up in my Legco office. However, I may be able to bring about a solution after discussion with the relevant government department. This can be far more efficient than any number of judicial review applications.
In a way, Legco provides a platform to co-operate with the administration to improve, to become more transparent, more equitable and more efficient. I am also tapping onto the support shown by professionals during the campaign. In time, with their help, I hope to build up a professional aid centre for consumers. We are still at a very early stage of developing the One Country Two Systems concept. Whether the two systems will thrive under the one country and what degree of high autonomy we are going to have depend not just on what Beijing is prepared to give but also on what we in Hong Kong are prepared to fight and stand up for.
Thus there is every reason for each and every one of us to be bothered, whether in taking up public office, casting our vote, expressing our opinion, or even just taking an interest in the affairs of Hong Kong. We should all take part, be it a small part, in shaping our destiny and our future.
But I enjoy best the work that goes on outside Legco. This is the district work, or what I would rather call the community work. A lawyer can only offer legal remedies but these are often costly and time consuming. It is hardly the answer for the man in the street who now turns up in my Legco office. However, I may be able to bring about a solution after discussion with the relevant government department. This can be far more efficient than any number of judicial review applications.
In a way, Legco provides a platform to co-operate with the administration to improve, to become more transparent, more equitable and more efficient. I am also tapping onto the support shown by professionals during the campaign. In time, with their help, I hope to build up a professional aid centre for consumers. We are still at a very early stage of developing the One Country Two Systems concept. Whether the two systems will thrive under the one country and what degree of high autonomy we are going to have depend not just on what Beijing is prepared to give but also on what we in Hong Kong are prepared to fight and stand up for.
Thus there is every reason for each and every one of us to be bothered, whether in taking up public office, casting our vote, expressing our opinion, or even just taking an interest in the affairs of Hong Kong. We should all take part, be it a small part, in shaping our destiny and our future.
成功的演說，必須先有一枝具文采的筆，草擬好演講詞，再由明星型的政治巨匠在台上宣讀出來。這樣的演詞才有可能成為千秋傳世之筆。
今日要介紹的是前大律師公會主席余若薇，獲選為立法會議員後，在香港電台英文台發表的一篇香港家書。她在演說中，用了一些非常形象化和富文采的詞句，表達其理念，勸喻香港的大律師和專業人士踴躍投票。
余若薇在演說中已開宗明義說清楚︰Many professionals do not
believe in direct election. The businessmen even less so. They think it favours
the grassroots. 很多專業人士都不相信或不贊成直接選舉，因為他們認為直選只會選出草根和勞工階層的代表。她不同意這種看法，因此在演說中，運用了重覆的技巧，極力勸人去投票。
以下一段非常值得欣賞︰ They came in large numbers, to
the housing estates visits, to the streets, to the rallies, to the tea houses,
in their 3 piece suits, some in their bow ties and many with their briefcases.
They were a bit awkward, and slightly embarrassed when distributing leaflets
and addressing the passers-by through the microphones but they all did that in
the best spirit. 說的是在民主選舉下，專業人士穿著三件頭西裝，在路上派單張、去屋村洗樓，協助余若薇拉票的場面。
They came in large numbers, to the housing
estates visits, to the streets, to the rallies, to the tea houses… 這一段令人聯想起馬丁路德金運用together、以及林肯運用dedicated等字眼，利用不斷重覆的技巧，描寫出一種熱鬧的景象。這一段說話也令人想起邱吉爾。
邱吉爾（Winston Churchill）1940年在倫敦國會發表過一篇著名的演說，呼籲全國團結一致，支持他領導下的保守黨政府，向納粹德國宣戰，邱吉爾的說話今日看來仍鏗鏘有力︰
We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on
to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we
shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall
defend our island, whatever that cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we
shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never
surrender.
We shall fight… 我們在法國戰鬥、海上戰鬥、空中戰鬥、沙灘上戰鬥，不斷重覆，造成巨大的感染力。邱吉爾、林肯、馬丁路德金都不斷在演說運用重覆的技巧，余若薇亦聰明地借鑑了他們的手法。
余若薇在演說中亦不斷用bother這個字，來宣傳她的論點︰For the good of Hong Kong, we must encourage more people that Legco
is an institution worth bothering about. 她希望告訴香港人，立法會的投票是值得我們花一些心力的worth bothering about。
演說的一個瑕疵，是余若薇用了institution這個字，這在英語裏是一個艱深的字眼，一個政府部門、一所大學、一間學院、甚至香港電台，都是一個機構（institution），這個字眼本身太抽象，而且帶有濃厚的學術色彩，如果改為Legco is a house 或Legco is a teahouse、甚至Legco is a play house，相信會令演講更加淺白。
總括來說，這是一篇極為出色的演說，具備邱吉爾文采風流的影子。
沒有留言:
張貼留言