THIS contest required an understanding of both
the POBO and the exemption granted to the chief
executive from sections three and eight.
Section three of the POBO says that any ‘prescribed
offi cer’ who, without the CE’s permission, solicits or accepts
any advantage shall be guilty of an offence. And section
eight says any person who, while dealing with a government
department or public body, offers advantages to a ‘public
servant’ shall also be guilty of an offence.
In the third preliminary round of the Sing Tao Inter-School
Debating Competition’s English Section, this debate focused
on aspects of equality, accountability and public confi dence
in relation to the motion.
Both teams – Chan Sui Ki (La Salle) College as the
affirmative and Diocesan Girls’ School as the opposition –
did an excellent job framing the motion in their advantage
and avoided making irrelevant statements.
On equality
THE captain of the affirmative team, Larry Lau Yu-ka (劉
宇嘉), cast valid doubts on the status quo: “There is no
genuine reason for the chief executive to be exempt from
sections three and eight of the POBO.” He mentioned that
the exempted sections are the most effi cient and effective in
putting public servants under scrutiny.
Captain of the opposition, Tania Chan (陳劭頤), rebutted:
“Besides sections four, fi ve and ten of the POBO, the chief
executive is subject to the regulation of bribery offences
under the common law, and the offence of ‘misconduct in
public offi ce’ under the common law also applies to CE.”
On accountability
THE first speaker of the affirmative, Agustin Earl Joshua
Goniales (嚴樹華), continued to press their argument:
“The chief servant should practise the highest level of
conduct and should also be subject to sections three and
eight.” Later, the second speaker of the team, Christian Yuen
Ka-hang (袁家恒), added, “Why should the CE be exempt
from just these two sections?”
The Diocesan team, meanwhile, calmly replied: “Section
three is about public servants seeking the CE’s permission,
and in this case, if you want to change the law, you need
to seek the approval of the central government.” The first
speaker of the opposition, Gwyneth Gunawan (阮朗蘋), said,
“The target of section three is not the CE. If you make the CE
accountable, whose permission should the CE seek?
On public confidence
“THE public needs to see that even the CE is subject to
the same rules,” Christian Yuen Ka-hang said. “Other than
strengthening public confidence in the CE, it sets a better
image for the entire workforce of public servants.”
However, the opposition raised a valid counterargument:
“Political opponents would use sections three and eight as
political weapons to slander the CE, in turn harming public
confidence in the CE,” second speaker of the Diocesan
team Lee Cheuk-lam (李卓藍) explained. “The CE needs to
declare his or her assets and is also subjected to the tight anticorruption
measures stipulated in the Basic Law as well as
o t h e r sections of the POBO. Sections three and eight
will only provide a new way for political
opponents to fi libuster in Legco.”
Winner : Chan Sui Ki (La Salle) College
Vocabulary
dissect (v) 剖析
status quo (n phr) 現狀
exempt (v) 豁免
scrutiny (n) 仔細審查
slander (v) 誹謗
Vocabulary filibuster (v) 拉布 (議會)
|
 |
|
 |
L-R: Chan Sui Ki (La Salle) College second speaker Christian
Yuen Ka-hang, fi rst speaker Agustin Earl Joshua Goniales and
captain Larry Lau Yu-ka represented the affirmative team.
|
 |
L-R: Diocesan Girls’ School captain Tania Chan, fi rst speaker
Gwyneth Gunawan and second speaker Lee Cheuk-lam.
|
|
