Proposal other than Revision of Fugitive Offenders Ordinance除了修改逃犯條例的建議

Proposal other than Revision of Fugitive Offenders Ordinance

            I would like to give out my proposal. It is an arrangement similar to international arbitration. The judges and lawyers of the related jurisdiction will be invited to Hong Kong, and proceed the hearing in Hong Kong. Then, the court of Hong Kong will grant a ‘lease’ for the ‘award’ of the hearing in the similar way of s84 Cap 609. It can be enforceable after the court of Hong Kong grant the ‘lease’ and considered as ruled by the Court of Hong Kong. It may need some creations in Hong Kong Law, for there should be some technical issues to be solved, such as arbitration is not used in criminal case. But, it may not too difficult in law reform for it is similar to arbitration that Hong Kong has plenty of experience. The real problem is both HK government and pan democratic camp seek for their own political interest only, but not welfare of the people of Hong Kong.

            Someone may concern whether the murderer of the Taiwan murdering event will be punished properly. I have another proposal. Someone may sue for injunction by equity. Someone seek for injunction of mandatory request the suspected murderer come back Taiwan to fulfill all his legal duty. He will not obey the injunction. Then we can sue him for imprison for breach of injunction. After he is released from prison, he will still not fulfill the injunction and will be sued under breach of injunction again until he really come back to Taiwan to fulfill his legal duty. It can be create a situation similar to life imprisonment of him. It upheld the justice as defined in the present legal system of HK nowadays.

            Wish my proposal can be accepted.

除了修改逃犯條例的建議

      所以，我提出我的建議。我們可以採用一種類似國際仲裁的模式，邀請相關司法權下的法官及律師，到香港來審訊，然後按如香港法例609第84項相同的模式，由香港法庭確認審訊結果，使逃犯如在香港法庭中受審而執行一般。對！香港從來沒有這樣的做法，也可能有點技術上的問題，如仲裁不會處理刑事法。只是，這個做法跟國際仲裁相當類似，要創造一條類似法例，應該不太困難。困難在於，不論是政府或民主派都只為自身的政治利益，管得港人死活。上到位的人高高在上，人家提議什麼都說沒有可能，敷衍了你、打發你走。

      還有一事，大家關注的，就是如何可使台灣殺人案殺人犯得到應有懲罰。我看可以這樣處理：首先向法庭申請強制令，強制他回台灣處理其未完成的法律責任。但是，他當然會違令。然後我們以其違反強制令為由，送他入獄。當他出獄後，再強制他回台灣。他再違令，再入獄。如此便能創造出一個類似於終生監禁的結果。他可以不接受這樣的安排，那就回台灣接受應有的懲罰吧！

      希望有人接納我的意見。

Outside the Site Boundary

Outside the Site Boundary

        Site boundary is an important concern in the civil engineering field. Site boundary represents the extent of liability a person, group of people or even the whole society owed. Two issues may be resulted if our works have been implemented outside the site boundary. First, it may trespass to others and may damages their properties. Second, it may increase the cost of construction due to money spent on dispensable works. Owing to the extra cost and liability resulted, civil engineer used to consider the issue of site boundary.

         The concept of site boundary pushes civil engineer to create a special practice in planning works. They may consider the liability and, thus, the extent of their works before the concern of social value and the product function in the society. A lot of effort will be paid on clarification of responsibility of a particular works. The engineers are tended to stand on a side after they have clarified that the liability is not belong to them. This custom makes engineers concerned only on their own job rather than the community where they live.

        There are so many problems in the society of Hong Kong required improvement contributed by an energetic and responsible persons. Engineers are the huge human resource in the society. However, this concept of site boundary makes them standstill. The action to serve the community by their professional knowledge may put them into a trap with liability that originally not belong to them. Moreover, their kindly action may initiate extra construction works that the public may query the responsibility of the cost and the intention of the kindly engineer. It will be an unnecessary trouble of the engineer.

        However, the society is the place where we live. We can’t treat it as a hotel. How can we live in the society comfortably if it gets worse and worse? Engineers construct the infrastructure for the future of society. How come an engineer cannot concern the problem within the society? It may a calling of engineers to get themselves outside the site boundary of their mind.

        But, how can we serve the community effectively without engaged in activities with liability that originally not owed by us? It is the role of us with the matter concerned. If we are practicing as engineers, we are engineers. If we are concerning some social issues, we are common people. While we try to help the society with our engineering knowledge and experience, we serve the society without engage into dispensable liability under the role of common person. The technical way may ensure the causation of the consequence not be created by the interference of the engineer. The engineer can be a source of knowledge and innovation.

        The problem of engineer does not involve in service of the society is not the way of their interaction, but their worry of the involvement of liability. It might need the change of the mind of engineers in their role in the society. The site boundary bound not only engineers’ sites, but also their minds.