又講法治﹐兼 post 南早的評論

可能真的太多人批評民間電台拒絕遵從法庭禁制令﹐說他們破壞法治﹐這次是余若薇出手﹐因為文章太好﹐自己先做文抄公﹕

法治（rule of law）與「以法而治」（rule by law）最大的區別，是前者必須「以法達義」，人民和政府同受法律約束，雙方尊重法律背後的平等公義精神；後者只不過是當權者利用法例，依法辦事而罔顧公理。單求合法（lawful）而不能做到合法兼合理（legitimate），往往是政府的通病。特區政府處理民間電台一案的仗勢凌人手段，正好突顯兩個概念之間的分別。
事情在過去3星期火速發展，裁判法院裁定《電訊條例》違憲，撤銷對民間電台無牌廣播的控罪，律政司向法庭申請暫緩執行上述判決，繼而申請臨時禁制令，禁止民間電台繼續廣播。這個時候，香港律師會和大律師公會異口同聲地發表聲明，呼籲尊重法治，遵守法院頒布的臨時禁制令。兩個律師團體把責任完全放在民間電台的頭上，卻沒有指出另一面的事實─政府才是始作俑者。
幸而，高等法院法官夏正民拒絕延長上述禁制令，他從法治的角度出發，指出案中的禁制令出師無名。就刑事案件申請民事禁制令，是政府在極罕有情下才應該使用的工具。他說，要處理的核心問題，不是有人守法不守法，因為有關法例本身受到質疑，最重要是證明民間電台一旦繼續廣播，會否威脅公眾安全，損害公眾權利和利益，律政司在這方面卻拿不出證據，電訊管理局每年收到合法使用電訊系統人士的3000多宗投訴，沒有一宗涉及民間電台。夏正民法官亦指出，當律政司尋求法庭協助，促使任何人遵守一條清晰的法例（enforcing obedience to a clear provision of the law）時，法庭不應該輕易拒絕這個要求，但民間電台一案情不同，《電訊條例》不是一條清晰的法例。
其實早於2006年，法庭已指出30多年前訂立的《電訊條例》的其他漏洞。條例早已不合時宜，要求開放大氣電波及數碼廣播的聲音持續了十餘年，世界各地的民間電台數以千計，技術上完全可行，只是特區政府有過多的政治考量，無動於中。當民間電台再次挑起這老問題，政府為何不盡快宣布修訂《電訊條例》，反而申請禁制令以扶持這古老的法例？何解捨本逐末？大抵是要彰顯政府的權威吧。法例賦予執政者莫大的合法權力，怎樣運用，何時運用，視乎政府的胸襟是否廣闊。超過十年的爭取，面對不講理的政府，市民如何推動改革？
公民抗命是一把雙刃刀，往往是逼不得已的所為，亦未必為市民、甚至法律專業團體所諒解。臨時禁制令生效期間，民間電台繼續抗命，反而當禁制令撤銷後，民間電台宣布停播3個月，呼籲政府好好利用這段時間修訂《電訊條例》，可算是使事件降，亦釋出善意。現在，有待特區政府提出修訂《電訊條例》的方向和時間表，同樣展示積極的態度。

我雖然沒有親身經歷極權國家「以法而治」（rule by law）或者以法治人﹐但久在網上﹐好多基督教網站就非常活靈活現發揮了極權國家「以法而治」（rule by law）或者以法治人的精髓。在一些基督教網站來說﹐網站功能和網站規則絕對不是「以法達義」或者「以法求真」﹐例如一次我在國內一個基要派網站和一個信徒激烈辯論天主教對聖徒敬禮的教導﹐我引用天主教所謂 Latria 和 dulia的分別﹐指出兩者區分令天主教做法沒有違背聖經。那個蠢才信徒大概根本不懂得聖經﹐就說 Latria 和 dulia按照聖經﹐都只可以用在對神的崇拜。我早有準備﹐二話不說就貼出希臘文聖經原文和解釋。結果版主馬上用含糊的版規﹐說我令信徒跌倒﹐令我無法使用論壇帳戶發言﹐刪除了所有我的資料﹐然後改版規針對我。
極權的統治這也是如此﹐當事實理據對他們不利﹐他們就會馬上改變游戲規則﹐或者改法律﹐立新法令針對異己﹐而不是關注真理和事實。
如果基督教的手段和極權政權的手段沒有分別﹐他們可以告訴人他們的福音是又真又活的嗎﹖

南早今天的評論﹐也是對所謂和諧當頭棒喝﹕如果社會有多數人感到無助﹐絕對不是和諧﹗
Michael Chugani was spot-on in his article ("Suspicious minds", January 22).
A sense of helplessness is pressing heavily on Hong Kong and it is not a good thing.

He said: "We will do nothing about profiteering by our supermarkets or meat traders. We will accept the greed of our landlords, the dictates of our tycoons, the mediocrity of our bureaucrats and the widening rich-poor gap. We do all this because we believe that's just the way things are."

We feel helpless when we have to accept something we don't like, and have to resign ourselves to the reality that we can do nothing about it. This is what I believe most people mean when they say they accept the decision of the National People's Congress on our constitutional reforms. But somehow, this "acceptance" is seen by the government and pro-government camps as "welcoming" the reforms.

We also have to accept that our Legislative Council has been hijacked by the pro-government and vested interest groups, and that directly-elected lawmakers are being called dissidents and denied entry to the mainland. Pan-democrats' motions cannot get passed, however much they advance common interests. In its present state, the Legislative Council is not a place where reason prevails. In the Legco chamber, vested interest groups cast their collective votes. In the '60s and '70s, most people were poor but they did not feel helpless. They refused to accept they had to remain poor and this attitude fuelled the miraculous growth of Hong Kong.

However, nowadays, the rich-poor gap has become impossible to bridge, because the rules are set by the rich.

It is a pity, because Hong Kong could become a truly harmonious and equal society where there is no need for anyone to feel helpless.

Should we accept our plight in the name of pragmatism and reality? We should not forget that as human beings, change is always possible and that is the challenge we face.

J. Y. K. Cheng, Quarry Bay