Integrity of the law upheld

Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma
In the past few months, the law and the Judiciary have very much been the focus of discussion by many people from all walks of life. This is hardly surprising: even if one does not encounter the courts or judges in the course of one's normal life, the law and the decisions of the courts can actually affect one's life, sometimes in a profound way. Last year, I said how critical it was for the community that the courts should be able effectively to resolve disputes. This year, I begin by reminding everyone of what can conveniently be called the integrity of the law. This is the foundation of the operation of the law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: this integrity and all its facets are what the community can expect - indeed demand - of its legal system.

Integrity of the law
I begin with the constitutional role of judges. Article 92 of the Basic Law declares that judges are chosen on the basis of their judicial and professional qualities. Each judge is required under the law to take a judicial oath - all in the same words - that he or she will uphold the Basic Law, serve Hong Kong in accordance with the law and safeguard the law without fear of or favour from anyone. It is therefore the law, under which all persons are equal, that is served by Hong Kong's judges and to which the courts owe their loyalty.

The core activity of the courts is to administer justice in accordance with the law. I am often asked whether the courts take into account the public interest when deciding cases, particularly those cases which involve public law and constitutional principles. Of course they do, but this does not mean that in the determination of cases, the courts will look to what sectors of the public or the majority of the public or even the Government may desire as the outcome in any given case. That is not what is meant by the public interest. The public interest that is served by the courts is in the adherence to fundamental concepts of fairness, dignity and justice in the application of the law. I refer to these fundamental concepts because the courts are mandated to apply not just the content of the law but, sometimes more importantly, its spirit. But it is always the law and its spirit that dominate. No one, no institution, is above the law.

It is in the nature of a decision in a court case that someone will win the case and, correspondingly, for there to be a loser or losers. And in the area of public law where there may be matters of the utmost social, political or constitutional sensitivity at stake (for example, in immigration matters), the interest of the community as a whole may be engaged as well. In these areas, different sectors of the public representing different interests will each have radically different and diametrically opposed views as to what they regard as the "right result" in a case. In this type of situation, which can certainly pose challenges for the courts, what will guide the courts in making a just and right decision, knowing that whatever the result, substantial sectors of the public may not be satisfied with it?

The answer is ultimately a simple one and one which, I believe, the public expects. As in all cases that came before the courts for determination, the approach is exactly the same: adherence to the law and its spirit. This is what Hong Kong's courts do every day of the week in relation to every case that comes before them, whether the courts are dealing with simple money disputes, petty crimes or cases of the greatest constitutional importance. And no judge approaches the determination of a case with any pre-conceived ideas: a judge will approach a case with an open mind and always apply the law. It is not within a judge's constitutional mandate to do otherwise.

Transparency in the judicial process
Crucial to what I have just said about the court's approach in the resolution of cases, is that the court's activities are transparent. Transparency in the judicial process - meaning that it is clear for all to see that the courts and their judges are discharging their constitutional duty of deciding cases according to law without fear or favour - this transparency must exist as an important part of the integrity of the law.

The transparency in the judicial process is demonstrated by two facets. First, save for limited exceptions, all proceedings in court are open to the public. Any member of the public is able to attend each stage of a court hearing: the opening of a case, the testimony of witnesses, counsel's submissions and the decision of the court or, where there is one, of a jury. The only limited exceptions to this are where the content of the court proceedings are so sensitive that it would not be in the public interest to have an open hearing, such as where the interests of children are involved.

The second facet of the transparency of the judicial process is in the reasoning of the court in arriving at its decision. It is an established feature of Hong Kong's system of law that every decision or judgment of the court will have the reasons for it clearly and explicitly available for all to see. This process of providing reasons serves at least two purposes. First, it enables the immediate parties to the relevant dispute before the court to know the precise grounds for the judgment. This will have particular relevance to the losing party, who would be given an opportunity to appeal the adverse judgment. In Hong Kong, the system of appeals is made effective by the fact that the appellate courts are able to scrutinise closely the reasons for any judgment of the court below. Secondly, from the public's point of view, the court's reasoning in a judgment will enable everyone to see for themselves exactly how the court has applied the law and fulfilled its constitutional mandate. This last point is crucial in my view.  As I have indicated earlier, particularly in public law and other high profile cases, sections of the public may hold quite radically different points of view as to what should be the result of a case. It is only by looking at a court's reasoning that the respect for the integrity of the law can be maintained: this reasoning makes acceptable to the public what might otherwise be an unpopular result. It is made acceptable precisely because it can be seen that in arriving at a determination, the court has applied and remained faithful to the law. The Hong Kong community expects its courts and judges to apply the law fairly and equally rather than to determine cases by vague and arbitrary notions of what may be more popular or more attractive as an outcome. The reasoning of our courts is there for all to see. From the District Court to the Court of Final Appeal, the judgments of the courts are readily available to the public on the Judiciary's website without charge.

Fearless, independent Judiciary
Of course the feature that provides the foundation of the integrity of the law is the independence of the Judiciary. I am often asked about the independence of the Judiciary and what evidences the existence of the independence of the Judiciary in Hong Kong. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Hong Kong has a fearless and independent Judiciary, and that the concept of the independence of the Judiciary - a concept that is synonymous with Hong Kong's success in many people's minds - very much exists in Hong Kong. I do not, however, expect that everyone should merely take my word for it, even though it comes from the Chief Justice, but to look at two objective facts. The first of these is the content of the Basic Law itself: that Hong Kong should have an independent Judiciary as part of the constitutional model for Hong Kong, is stipulated in no fewer than three Articles of the Basic Law (Articles 2, 19 and 85).

The second objective fact which demonstrates the existence of an independent Judiciary is something to which I have already made reference: the reasoning that is contained in the court's judgments. This, perhaps more than anything else, shows exactly how the courts and judges in Hong Kong operate in practice.

I have now discussed at some length the way I view the integrity of the law in Hong Kong. As I remarked earlier, the law has been the focus of much attention recently. It is of course inappropriate for me or indeed any judge to comment on individual cases, particularly those cases yet to be heard by the courts, but it is right to remind everyone of the basic framework and foundation of the law in Hong Kong. I would also like to remind everyone of the fact that although the courts do on occasion have to deal with the legal questions arising out of political matters, the courts and their activities ought not to be politicised. I entirely respect the rights of individuals to exercise their freedom of speech - indeed I think it is healthy in a society for this to happen and it is in any event guaranteed as a fundamental right here in Hong Kong - but the courts and judges will not be influenced by the very many different points of view to which one is exposed these days. The courts and judges will at all times adhere only to the law and to its spirit - the community expects nothing less of the Judiciary.

Quality of Hong Kong's judges
The independence of the Judiciary requires judges of the highest quality and standing to serve the administration of justice. I have earlier made reference to Article 92 of the Basic Law which provides that members of the Judiciary shall be chosen on the basis of their judicial and professional qualities. These stated qualities provide the only criteria for the appointment of judges and it is of course not difficult to see why. Apart from the Chief Justice and the Chief Judge of the High Court, there is no nationality requirement in the Basic Law for any other judge. Quite the contrary, the Basic Law (in the same Article 92) refers to members of the Judiciary being able to be recruited from other common law jurisdictions. Consistent with this is Article 94 of the Basic Law which states that the Hong Kong Government may make provision for lawyers from outside Hong Kong (as well as local lawyers) to work and practice in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is after all a common law jurisdiction and recognised worldwide as one. Our courts enjoy an enviable and respected reputation internationally. The Basic Law of course provides that Hong Kong applies the common law. The common law system has served Hong Kong well in the past and will continue to do so in the future. The common law and its operation are ultimately founded on fairness and justice being administered for the benefit of the community and its people.

The power of final adjudication in Hong Kong rests with the Court of Final Appeal, the highest court for Hong Kong. Article 82 of the Basic Law specifically provides that the Court may "as required invite judges from other common law jurisdictions to sit" on the Court. Since July 1, 1997, the Court of Final Appeal in almost all its full appeals has invited a judge from an overseas common law jurisdiction to sit on the Court. These common law judges, comprising holders and former holders of the very highest judicial offices in their respective jurisdictions, have been tremendous assets for the Court of Final Appeal and for Hong Kong. At present, there are 10 judges in the panel of judges from common law jurisdictions: two former Chief Justices of the High Court of Australia, a former Justice of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, three former members of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, two present members of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the immediate former President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and the present President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The presence of these judges has without doubt added a significant dimension to the Court of Final Appeal and its work. Many of the leading judgments in the appeals heard by the Court of Final Appeal have been written by the common law non-permanent judges. It is widely recognised by judges, the legal profession and legal scholars that the "Fifth Judge" (as the common law non-permanent judges have been called) has made a significant contribution to Hong Kong's jurisprudence. They enjoy the confidence of the community and will continue to do so for very many years to come. It is to be remembered that when a common law non-permanent judge is appointed to the Court of Final Appeal, that judge takes the same judicial oath as every other judge in Hong Kong and becomes a Hong Kong judge.

Relocation of Court of Final Appeal
Finally, I want just to provide an update on the planned relocation of the Court of Final Appeal from its present address at Battery Path to Jackson Road. It is now anticipated that the move will take place in the middle of 2015. This may seem to be a long way off but the project, involving as it does structural tests, careful restoration of the historical features of the old building and of course the design of a functional (and larger) chamber for the Court itself, is a large project. I look forward greatly to seeing the building welcome not just the users of the Court of Final Appeal but also members of the public. It will provide a constant, imposing and unshakeable reminder of the rule of law in Hong Kong.

Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma made this speech at the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2013.

終審法院首席法官馬道立於2013年法律年度開啟典禮的演辭全文(中文譯本)

律政司司長、大律師公會主席、律師會會長、各位嘉賓﹕

我謹代表香港司法機構全體仝人，熱烈歡迎各位蒞臨本年度的法律年度開啓典禮。藉此機會，讓我向遠道而來的海外貴賓，特別是澳洲高等法院的Susan Kiefel法官表示歡迎。

過去數月以來，社會各界人士討論的焦點總離不開法律及司法機構。這實在不足為奇。即使人們在平常生活中與法庭或法官沒有接觸，法律及法庭的判決仍會為他們的生活帶來實際的影響，有時甚至是深遠的影響。去年，我提及法庭能夠有效地解決糾紛，對社會至為重要。今年，讓我跟大家重申一下香港特別行政區法律運作的基礎，就是可稱之為「法律持正的精神」這個議題。法律持正的精神以及它所包含的各個層面，是社會對本港法律體制所抱的期望，更是社會對法律體制的訴求。

法律持正的精神
首先，我想從法官的憲制角色開始。《基本法》第九十二條訂明，法官應根據其本人的司法和專業才能選用。法律規定，每名法官就任時必須宣讀一式一樣的司法誓言，宣誓擁護《基本法》，奉公守法，為香港服務，以無懼無偏的精神維護法制。因此，香港法官所致力維護的是法律，法庭所效忠的也是法律。務須達致法律面前，人人平等。

法庭的核心職能是依法秉行公義。我常被問及，在法庭判案時，尤其是當案件涉及公法和憲法原則時，會否考慮公眾利益。法庭當然會考慮公眾利益，但這並不表示法庭在判案時，會受社會某些界別，或大多數人士，甚至政府所樂於得見的判決結果所影響。公眾利益的意思並非如此。法庭致力維護公眾利益，所指的是法庭在執行法律時，必會遵循公平、公義和維護尊嚴的基本理念。我提及這些基本理念，是因為法庭不單必須引用法律條文的內容，有時候更重要的是要體現法律條文的精神。但無論如何，一切均須以法律及其精神為依歸。不論任何人士或任何機構都不可凌駕於法律之上。

基於法庭判決的性質，每宗案件必會有一方勝訴，同時亦有一方或多方敗訴。以公法範疇而言，案件可能關乎極為敏感的社會、政治或憲制事宜（例如入境事務），而社會的整體利益亦可能受到影響。在此等範疇內，社會中各個界別人士對案件持有不同的利益，對於何謂案件的「正確判決結果」，亦會各持完全不同甚至截然相反的意見。這類案件定必會為法庭帶來挑戰，因為我們都明白到，無論結果如何，社會上眾多界別的人士仍會對判決感到不滿。在這種情況下，法庭在致力作出公正及正確的判決時，又會以甚麼為依歸？

這問題最終只有一個簡單的答案。我相信這答案亦是合乎公眾期望的。法院處理所有訴諸法院的案件的方式都是完全一致的，就是恪守法律條文，依據法律精神判案。香港法院一日復一日，都是以此方式處理每宗案件，不論是簡單的金錢糾紛、輕微罪行或具重大憲法意義的案件。法官判案時，絕不會抱有既定的看法。法官在處理案件時，必定會保持開明態度，貫徹始終地依據法律判案，絕不偏離憲法所賦予他們的權力範圍以外。

剛才所談及法院處理案件的方式，關鍵在於法院工作是高度透明的。高度透明的司法程序，意味着法院及法官在履行憲法職能，無懼無偏依法斷案時，大眾可以有目共睹。法律持正的精神當中一個相當重要的元素就是司法程序必須有透明度。

司法程序的透明度，展現於兩方面。首先，除僅有的例外情況外，所有法院程序都是對公眾人士公開的。任何市民皆可旁聽法院每一階段的聆訊﹕開案陳詞、證人證供、大律師陳詞，以至法院或陪審團（如有的話）作出的決定。僅有的例外情況是指當法律程序涉及過於敏感的內容時，例如有關兒童權益的案件，若案件進行公開聆訊，則不符合公眾利益。

展現司法程序透明度的第二方面，是法院會為其所達致的決定提出理據。香港法律體制久已確立的特點之一，就是法院會為其所作出的每一決定或判決，提出清楚明確的理據，讓所有人都可以得知。法院提供理據，最起碼可以達到兩個目的。首先，直接參與相關訴訟中的各方，均可得悉法院作出判決的明確理由。這對敗訴的一方尤為重要，以便它有機會就對其不利的判決提出上訴。在香港，上訴制度行之有效，是由於上訴法院可以仔細審核下級法院所作每項判決的理由。第二，從社會大眾的角度來看，任何人皆可從法院判決中的理由，得知法院具體上如何引用法律，如何履行其憲制職能。我認為最後這點正是關鍵所在。正如我剛才提到，就關乎公法的案件和其他備受矚目的案件而言，社會各界人士對於法院應如何判案，或會持有完全不同的看法。唯有提供法院的判決理據以便公眾人士參閱，才可維持他們對法律持正精神的尊重。這些理據使公眾人士接受一些看似不受歡迎的判決結果。案件結果之所以令人接受，正正因為大家得以見到法院在達成判決的過程中，引用法律並一直忠於法律。香港社會期望法院和法官能夠公平、公正地引用法律，而非依據一些含糊、任意的概念來斷案，以圖得出或會較受歡迎或較易接受的裁決。本港法院的判決理據是公開的，讓所有人都可以得知。由區域法院至終審法院，法院的判決書均會上載至司法機構的網站，方便公眾人士免費查閲。

誠然，獨立的司法機構是法律持正精神的基礎。我經常被問及有關司法獨立的情況，以及如何證明香港的司法機構是獨立的。毫無疑問，香港的司法機構是無懼和獨立的，這是一個確實存在的概念，一個在許多人心目中等同於香港成功的概念。我並不期望人人只單憑首席法官的話，便欣然接受香港的司法制度是獨立的。反而大家更應考慮兩項客觀的事實。首先是《基本法》本身的內容﹕香港應有獨立的司法機構，它是香港憲制體系的一部份。此項規定，至少在三條《基本法》的條文中訂明（第二條、第十九條及第八十五條）。

第二項證明司法獨立的客觀事實，可從法庭判決中的理據看到，就是我剛才提及的一點。這也許比任何其他的事情，更能確切地顯示香港的法院和法官實際上如何運作。

剛才，我詳細闡述了我對香港法律持正精神的看法。正如我之前所說，法律最近成為備受關注的焦點。當然，我或任何法官都不適宜評論個別案件，尤其是有待法院審理的案件。然而，必須提醒各位有關香港法律的基本架構和基礎。我們應當謹記，雖然法庭有時候須要處理由政治事件衍生的法律問題，但是法庭及其工作不應被政治化。我完全尊重個人行使言論自由的權利。事實上，我認為可以自由表達言論的社會是健康的社會，而在香港，言論自由始終是受保障的基本權利之一。不過，法庭和法官是不會受近日眾多不同意見所左右。法庭和法官從不間斷恪守法律及法律的精神。這絕對是社會大眾對司法機構的期望。

香港的法官
獨立的司法機構，仗賴才能卓越、地位尊崇的法官來秉持公義。剛才我已提及《基本法》第九十二條，此條文規定司法人員應根據其本人的司法和專業才能選用。這些法律所訂明的才能是委任法官的唯一準則，原因亦當然不難理解。除了終審法院首席法官和高等法院首席法官外，《基本法》並沒有對其他法官的國籍作出規定。實際上，《基本法》（同樣是第九十二條）訂明司法人員可從其他普通法適用地區聘用。《基本法》第九十四條與此相符，訂明香港政府可作出有關外來的律師（和本地律師）在香港工作和執業的規定。香港畢竟是普通法的司法管轄區，並獲世界各地承認為普通法適用地區。我們的法庭在國際社會間享有盛譽，備受推崇。《基本法》清楚訂明普通法在香港適用。普通法制度過往在香港行之有效，將來亦會如此。而普通法及其運作，是以能為社會及市民的利益秉持公正公義作為依歸。

終審法院作為香港最高級的法院擁有香港的終審權。《基本法》第八十二條特別規定，終審法院可「根據需要邀請其他普通法適用地區的法官參加審判」。自1997年7月1日起，終審法院在差不多所有的上訴案件中，均邀請一名來自海外普通法適用地區的法官參加審判。這些來自普通法適用地區的法官，包括目前及曾經在其本身的司法管轄區擔任最高級別司法職位的人士。他們對於終審法院和香港來説，一直是不可多得的骨幹成員。目前，我們有10名來自普通法適用地區的法官：兩名前任澳洲高等法院首席法官、一名前任新西蘭最高法院法官、三名前任英國最高法院成員、兩名現任英國最高法院成員、前一任英國最高法院院長及現任英國最高法院院長。這些法官無疑為終審法院及其工作開拓了重要的層面。終審法院審理的上訴案件中，不少權威性的判決書是由其他普通法適用地區非常任法官撰寫的。法官、法律界及法律學者廣泛認同，終審法院的「第五名法官」（對其他普通法適用地區非常任法官一貫的稱謂）對香港的法學發展作出了莫大的貢獻。他們獲得市民的信任，將來也必如是。我們必須謹記，當一名普通法適用地區的法官獲委任為終審法院非常任法官時，他與香港其他法官一樣，必須作出相同的司法誓言，成為香港的法官。

終審法院遷址
最後，就終審法院從炮台里現址搬遷至昃臣道的計劃，我想簡述一下最新情況。我們預期，終審法院將於2015年年中遷至新址。乍眼看來，這似是很久以後的事，然而搬遷計劃涉及結構測試，仔細修復這座古老的建築物，使它重現昔日的風貌，當中需要為終審法院設計實用（及更寬敞）的法庭，因此是一項規模龐大的計劃。我熱切期盼大樓日後不僅可供終審法院使用者使用，亦歡迎市民大眾到訪。這座莊嚴的建築物將屹立不倒，時刻標誌着香港的法治精神。

結語
聖誕節剛剛過去，農曆新年即將來臨。這是我們與家人歡聚慶賀的日子。我謹代表司法機構全體仝人，祝願各位和你們的家人身體健康，生活愉快！謝謝。

馬道立：法庭恪守法律精神

終審法院首席法官馬道立說，法庭的核心職能是依法秉行公義，在法庭判案時會考慮公眾利益，但並不表示法庭在判案時，會受社會某些界別，或大多數人士，甚至政府所樂於得見的判決結果所影響。

馬道立今天（1月14日）在2013年法律年度開啟典禮上表示，即使市民在平常生活中與法庭或法官沒有接觸，法律及法庭的判決仍會爲他們的生活帶來實際的影響，有時甚至是深遠的影響。法庭致力維護公眾利益，所指的是法庭在執行法律時，必會遵循公平、公義和維護尊嚴的基本理念。

法庭不單必須引用法律條文的內容，有時候更重要的是要體現法律條文的精神。但無論如何，一切均須以法律及其精神為依歸，不論任何人士或任何機構都不可凌駕於法律之上。

他說，雖然法庭有時候須要處理由政治事件衍生的法律問題，但是法庭及其工作不應被政治化。言論自由在香港是受保障的基本權利之一，但法庭和法官是不會受近日眾多不同意見所左右；法庭和法官從不間斷恪守法律及法律的精神，絕對是社會大眾對司法機構的期望。

馬道立說，《基本法》沒有對其他法官的國籍作出規定。一名普通法適用地區的法官獲委任為終審法院非常任法官時，他與香港其他法官一樣，須作相同的司法誓言，成為香港的法官。他預期終審法院於2015年年中從炮台里現址搬遷至昃臣道新址，期望大樓日後不僅可供終審法院使用者使用，亦歡迎市民到訪。

律政司司長袁國強在典禮上表示，他作為律政司司長，定必堅定不移地維護法治和司法獨立。大家都認同，法治是香港賴以成功的其中一個重要原因。

他說，每當有法律程序對社會、經濟或政治帶來重大影響，都會引起公眾爭議。然而，法律問題應該透過司法制度解決，這是法治概念的重要一環。因此，如真的尊重法治，則不論訴訟人是個人、公司或政府部門，都應絕對尊重訴訟人透過司法體系解決法律問題的法律權利。

香港擁有世界級的司法機構，亦享有真正的司法獨立，所以應有信心案件如何具爭議性，法官也會完全獨立地嚴格按照法律就案件作出裁決。當局絕對尊重言論自由和公眾發表意見的法律權利，但必須保持謹慎，讓法官能夠在沒有不當干擾或任何形式壓力的環境下判案。

(Source)

中國夢，憲政夢---終於找到南周原版新年獻詞

《南方週末》評論部編輯戴志勇

天地之間，時間綻放。

這是我們在2013年的第一次相見，願你被夢想點亮。

2012年，你守護自己的生活，他們守護自己的工作。守護這份工作，就是在守護他們對生活的夢想。

2012年，廟堂之上發出的憲政強音嗡然迴響：“憲法的生命在於實施，憲法的權威也在於實施。”我們期待憲法長出牙齒，憲政早日落地。惟如此，才能成就這個滄桑古國的艱難轉型；惟如此，國家與人民，才能重新站立於堅實的大地之上。

今天，已是能夠夢想的中國，今天，已是兌現夢想的時代。經歷過憲政缺失的“文革”夢魘，我們花費三十多年的時間來逐漸回歸常理與常情。從土地聯産承包責任制到個體戶、鄉鎮企業到“民企”，稍稍歸還國人自主安排生活的權利，我們便創造了繁華城市，收穫了滿倉糧食。

我們重新體認什麼是真，什麼是假，是其是，非其非；我們重燃對公義的熱愛，對自由的嚮往。面對暴虐強力，我們雙手相握，一起走過艱難時刻，迎接生活轉機。

今天，我們終於可以從厚厚的歷史塵埃中挺起胸，從瑣碎的日常生活中抬起頭，重走先輩的憲政長征，重溫先輩的偉大夢想。

一百七十多年前，我們開始從天朝上國的迷夢中醒來。先敗于英，後敗于日。百姓愈加民不聊生，恥感深深刺痛中國士人。保國！保種！由洋務而君憲，由立憲而革命。從器物到制度再至文化，激憤者不惜徹底打倒“孔家店”，決絕地將自己的文明連根拔起。

辛亥革命後，清帝退位，先輩們終於建立了亞洲第一個共和國。但是，一個自由、民主、富強的憲政中國並沒有隨之而來。

國家內外，戰爭連連；人群內外，殘酷不斷。

一度，人們遠離仁，遠離義，遠離天道，遠離對自由的堅守。

一度，人們認錯為對，指鹿為馬，萬千生靈生機斷絕。

美夢與山河，齊齊破碎。自由與憲政，雙雙消隱。

度盡人世劫波，深味人性幽暗，我們依然是能做夢的人，有顆能做夢的心。

今天，我們斷斷不只夢想物質豐盛，更希望性靈充盈；我們斷斷不只夢想國力能強盛，更希望國民有自尊。新民和新國，救亡與啟蒙，誰也離不開誰，誰也不能壓倒誰。而憲政便是這一切美夢的根基。

兌現憲政，堅守權利，人人才能心如日月流光溢彩；鰥寡孤獨才能感受冬日暖意而非瑟瑟發抖；“城管”與小販才能談笑風生；房屋才能成為自己與家人的城堡；

兌現憲政，限權分權，公民們才能大聲説出對公權力的批評；每個人才能依內心信仰自由生活；我們才能建成一個自由的強大國家。

兌現憲政大夢，每個人才能做好個人的美夢。而這需要我們就從手邊做起，就從守護此時此刻的生活做起，而不要將重任留給子孫.

很多人一直深深懂得這一點，很多人早就努力踐行這一點。

不是傑出者才做夢，是善於做夢者才傑出。

你的天賦權利就是可以夢想，並且兌現夢想！

為你的夢想鼓掌，為這個國家的夢想加油，這就是很多新聞人的夢想，是他們不大不小的野心。他們忠於新聞，更忠於內心。願你也有個玫瑰色的美夢；自由成就自己，完成天之所賦。

總會夢想人人都可以做一個有尊嚴的人，不論身居高位，還是街頭賣藝；

總會夢想人人內心有愛，即使罪犯也未必窮兇極惡，總有惻隱之心自由閃動；

總會夢想階層只是引人自由流動的動力，而不再是相互猜忌和仇視的天塹；總會夢想這五千年文明生生不息，為改善人類的現代處境，捧出一掬甘冽清泉……

兌現這一千一萬個夢想，才能撫平這一百多年的刻骨痛楚。

兜兜轉轉一百七十年，美夢成真何其難！一百七十年後，依然有人渴望良知萌新芽，重溫天命之謂性；依然有人堅持要求權利一一落地，政治復歸於正，公義自在流淌。

依然有人相信，不管多難，夢想終會落實為憲政良制，風行為敦敦美俗。

先輩們篳路藍縷，踐義成仁。如今，後人承繼其志，燃燈前行。

兌現夢想，自然要借鑒前賢智慧，與古人的信仰、習俗和情感和解。儒釋道法墨，百家皆是源泉；周漢唐宋明，代代皆有可取。

但這決不是要復古，古人不能給予今天所需的一切。只是不再輕易貶損先輩，平心靜氣地吸收轉進，以讓中華文明開新花，結新果。

兌現夢想，自然要吸取世界經驗。所以要認真審視希臘民主，羅馬法治，借鑒英美憲政，追趕現代科技文明。

但這也不是僅僅作一個西方文明的優等生，西人有西人演進的軌跡，同樣未必能直接給予我們今天所需的一切。

我們要站在自己的大地上，與各國人民一起，生活出一種古今相融的新生活，文明出一種中西合璧的新文明。在古今中西的激蕩中，要遵循人類共通的價值，也要不憚于做自己的新夢。

稱美古人，讚揚鄰居，不是因為他們足夠完美，而是因為我們熟悉他們眼中洋溢的快樂，心底流淌的自由。

中國人本應就是自由人。中國夢本應就是憲政夢。

憲政之下，才能國家持續強盛，憲政之下，才有人民真正強大。兌現憲政夢想，才能更好地外爭國權，維護國家的自由；才能更好地內爭民權，維護人民的自由。而國家的自由最終必得落腳於人民的自由，必得落腳於人人可以我口説我心，人人可以用心做美夢。

生而為人，誰能不熱愛自由？這自由，不僅是權利針對權力而言，也是寬恕針對報復而言，是般若針對無明而言，是仁愛針對暴虐而言，是有道針對無道而言。

大道之行，天下為公；萬物自在，各正性命。這就是古人的夢想，先輩的夢想，也是今天很多人的夢想。

中國夢，自由夢，憲政夢。

萬物速朽，但夢想永在。萬物誕生，因夢想不滅。夢想就是生生之幾，就是當你失敗了一百次，那第一百零一次充實你內心的不死之希望。

依然有人傾聽你的夢想，期待你敢於做夢。你從苦難中爬起，他們為你加油；你嘗盡人世冷暖，他們為你加油；你收穫美好生活，他們為你加油……他們別無所資，惟有對夢想的執著；他們別無所長，惟有對真相的追求。

一句真話能比整個世界還重，一個夢想能讓生命迸射光芒.

�X�B:中國夢，憲政夢---終於找到南周原版新年獻詞　　傳承香火做真中國人 - 龍騰天下 - udn部落格http://blog.udn.com/amlink/7208801#ixzz2HRUxLOnp