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)

大國崛起

大國崛起是中國中央電視台第一部以世界上強國歷史為題材的紀錄片。主要是探討國家強盛的原因。這套紀錄片在去年年底推出，全片共１２集，每集５０分， 涵蓋了葡萄牙、西班牙、荷蘭、英國、法國、德國、日本、俄羅斯、美國。

難得的是在資訊並不很自由的地方，勇敢地並比較客觀地討論政治，促使國民思考。相反，在資訊自由的香港卻少見這類記錄片。可見，國民對資訊渴求，對國家前途的關心，眼光並不狹窄。

可是，以紀錄片的長度來說，其實很難作出深入的討論。當大眾對外國歷史缺乏認識，便需要紀錄片來陳述歷史。在悠長歷史中，從１５世紀講起，橫跨５００年，陳述歷史便會佔了很多篇幅。

歐洲的１５世紀是什麼樣的世紀？其實是歐洲文藝復興的年代。紀錄片選擇了葡萄牙、西班牙航海及殖民掠奪的策略；荷蘭人利用商業來買下自治權；英國光榮革命和工業革命；法國的啟蒙思想；德國的教育與科技；日本的國家工業化；美國的科技、教育、自由。

從這些題材可見，探討的層次在於科技、教育、自由、憲法、工業、金融等等，思想及文化的層次並不是很足夠。無論怎樣，也是值得一看。

文化、價值、制度

什麼是文化？我們有流行文化、次文化、電影文化、公司文化、藝術文化、飲食文化等等。可見，文化包括了精神與物質，是人類社會的精神與物質產物的綜合體。當中的物質產物並不會僅僅有外觀，更會有箇中含意。因此，文化的重點是反映著社會的價值觀。

無論社會是開放與否，社會總有一定的價值觀。問題是有怎麼樣的價值觀。價值觀當然不是無中生有，而是建基於歷史。當歷史事件曾使人狂熱、盲目、反智、激發衝突，而後來只懂得高舉經濟發展，社會便充滿自私自利和不信任。當社會缺乏誠信，人對什麼都不信任，對法律不信任，對制度不信任。

這種情況下的制度會怎麼樣？缺乏信任制度的人，制度難以推行，甚至失效。人們不信任制度，制度怎能健康發展。沒有有效的法律制度，人們怎能安居樂業？

令人痛心疾首

道德淪亡!民工誘騙2名外地女子暴力輪奸6個小時數人旁觀!

1. SOHU 報導


2. 報導 2


3. 報導 3


4. 報導 4


5. 報導 5

(搜尋)

廣州女孩遇劫被砍14刀 附近數十人無一相助

廣州女孩遇劫被砍14刀 附近數十人無一相助
2005-08-25 16:23:34　來源: 南方都市報

　　本報訊(記者林勁松)前晚9時45分許，花都區新華鎮團結村一名女孩在電話亭打電話之際，兩名騎摩托車的歹徒突然對她實施搶劫，女孩被砍14刀，左手手腕神經被砍斷。事發時，女孩大聲呼救，附近數十人卻無一相助，相距不到十米的一個治安崗亭也無人值守。
　　
　 　昨天，22歲的蔣麗玲躺在病床上向記者描述了事發過程。前晚9時45分許，她在距離工廠大門約30米處的IC電話亭打電話，“一輛摩托車突然在路邊停了 下來，從車上下來兩個男的。”蔣麗玲說，兩人突然沖到她跟前，其中一人一把揪住了她的頭髮，她稍微掙扎了一下，那人竟活生生地把她的頭髮給扯掉了。

　　
　　“我這時才看到他們拿著刀，就不敢再動了，連忙把手機給了他們。”但讓蔣麗玲意想不到的是，凶徒仍然揮刀朝她的雙手和胳膊一頓猛砍後，才跳上摩托車揚長而去。
　　
　　昨日淩晨1時許，事發現場，血跡斑斑的草地上飄零著女孩被拽下的長髮。“當時我拼命喊救命，卻沒有一個人過來！”蔣麗玲說，當時至少有四五十人在附近唱卡拉OK和打桌球。
　　
　 　“因為我們隔得遠，只聽見有人在那邊喊，不知道發生了什麼事，開始我們還以為是兩公婆在打架呢！”一家四川菜館的老闆昨日淩晨向記者證實，蔣麗玲被搶 時，附近的卡拉OK廳有很多人，確實沒有任何人上前相助。距離蔣麗玲被搶僅五米的地方，就有一個治安崗亭。昨日淩晨1時許，崗亭上警燈閃爍，卻沒人值守。
　　
　　昨日淩晨，女孩在花都區人民醫院接受手術。據醫生診斷，她雙手手腕和胳膊上共有14處刀傷，其中受傷最嚴重的左手腕刀口，已深可見骨。

http://news.163.com/05/0825/16/1S104J9J0001122E.html
http://news.sina.com.cn/s/2005-08-25/09246779484s.shtml
==========
路人冷血,不聞不問,冷眼旁觀,已經見怪不怪.
最奇怪的是記者林勁松的文章已經不能在南方都市報網站中找得到.

搶劫很猖狂,路人卻旁觀

嘿!站在附近的老兄,你袖手旁觀?下一個就是你啊!

雙方對憲法的理解

西方用憲法表達社會契約
東方卻認為憲法是權力的象徵

因為對憲法理解不同,所以產生不同效果.

法治精神

法治精神 是 一切事務必定以法律為依歸
無論是行政,外交,軍事,經濟甚至法律本身,都以法律為依歸.

透過法律程序去解決法律問題
法律程序本身也要有法律依據

人人皆必定要遵守法律
不能選擇性地遵守法律