Borrison/hk-legicost huggingface dataset:
在今天的討論中，很多同事提出了不同的建議，我特別想說一說統一審核機制的問題。
Many colleagues put forth different proposals in the discussion today . I wish to specifically talk about the unified screening mechanism
根據政府在本年年初提供立法會的文件顯示，當局在收到免遣返聲請申請時，要給予當值律師最少49天向免遣返聲請申請人取得指示，以填寫聲請表格。
According to a paper submitted by the Government to the Legislative Council early this year the authorities are required to give the Duty Lawyer Service 49 days to obtain the consent from non - refoulement claimants for completing their claim form
表格交回後，平均再需要等13個星期，才可以安排與聲請申請人會面。
After filing the claim form non - refoulement claimants have to wait for 13 weeks on average before a meeting can be arranged with them
時間非常冗長之餘，不少聲請申請人亦借故不出席會面，繼續拖延審核進度。
The time is very long but the screening progress has been further delayed by claimants who deliberately refused to show up at the meeting with different excuses
這反映出我們現有制度存有漏洞，亟需要檢討，作出改善。
This shows that our existing mechanism is flawed and is in desperate need of review and improvement
有些同事提出，希望當局增加資源加快審核程序，壓縮審批時限，令這些個案可以盡快得到處理，將不符合資格的人士盡快遣返原居地，並且訂立處理聲請的法定時限，阻止聲請申請人無了期留在香港，我認為都是值得支持的。
Some colleagues have suggested that more resources should be deployed by the authorities on this matter so as to speed up the screening procedure and shorten the screening time limit in a hope to get the claims expeditiously processed and to quickly repatriate the claimants who fail to meet the requirements to their place of origins . They also propose that a statutory time limit be laid down on handling non - refoulement claims so as to prevent claimants from indefinitely staying in Hong Kong . I think all these proposals are worthy of our support
更重要的是，當局同時要加強邊境堵截，從源頭打擊，阻止這些不是因為酷刑對待而作出聲請的人士進入香港。
More importantly the authorities should also step up interception at border control points to stem the problem at source and prevent people who are not subject to any torture treatment from entering Hong Kong
我現在請何啟明議員就議案動議修正案。
I now call upon Mr HO Kai - ming to move an amendment to the motion
主席，我動議修正周浩鼎議員的議案。
President I move that Mr Holden CHOWs motion be amended
我現在向各位提出的待議議題是：何啟明議員就周浩鼎議員議案動議的修正案，予以通過。
I now propose the question to you and that is That the amendment moved by Mr HO Kai - ming to Mr Holden CHOWs motion be passed
代理主席，首先我想回應蔣麗芸議員剛才的發言，她說有些身為律師的議員在上屆立法會有申報利益。
Deputy President first of all I wish to respond to Dr CHIANG Lai - wan . She mentioned that some Members who are lawyers declared interests in the last Legislative Council
我可以告訴蔣議員，我本身不承接"假難民"或她所指的酷刑聲請個案，所以，代理主席，我沒有甚麼可以申報。
May I tell Dr CHIANG that I do not take bogus refugee cases or the kind of torture claim cases she mentioned . Hence Deputy President I have nothing to declare
但是，我想澄清一點，有很多香港法律界人士都有承接與酷刑聲請有關的個案，有些案件更上訴至終審法院，推翻過往政府處理難民時一些不合法及不合人權的地方。
However I wish to clarify one point . Many legal practitioners in Hong Kong take torture claim - related cases . Some of the cases were appealed to the Court of Final Appeal which reversed the previous judgment and ruled that the way the Government had handled the refugees were illegal and against human rights
所以，我希望任何議員都不要隨意地說有法律界人士教唆難民來港，說來港可以工作及取得"行街紙"，並教導他們利用酷刑聲請欺騙香港政府及香港人的資源。
Hence I hope that no Member would casually say that legal practitioners encourage refugees to come to Hong Kong and advise them to obtain a going - out pass to work here or teach them to take advantage of the torture claims to deceive the Hong Kong Government and cheat the resources of the Hong Kong people
如果議員有證據證明，有律師或大律師胡亂教導難民申請酷刑聲請的話，我希望她可以拿出證據，我相信律師會及大律師公會一定會公正處理投訴，令這些害群之馬不能夠胡亂為人們提供法律意見，說可以申請酷刑聲請。
If Member has any evidence to support that there are lawyers or barristers who blindly teach refugees to lodge torture claims I hope that she can produce such evidence . I believe the Law Society and the Bar Society will handle such complaints fairly so as to prevent black sheep in the legal sector from providing unprofessional legal advice such as saying that they can lodge torture claims to clients
但是，一定要拿出證據，不可以誣衊法律界人士。
But Member should have evidence to support her accusation or she should not smear the legal sector
代理主席，我們現時看難民問題，必須看國際形勢。
Deputy President we must look at the international situation when we consider the refugee problem
鍾國斌議員剛才說，有些商會人士對他說因為他是有色人種，在街上會被人歧視。
Just now Mr CHUNG Kwok - pan mentioned a complaint from members of a certain chamber of commerce saying that they were being discriminated on the street because of their skin colour
這是我們想看到的香港嗎？
Is this what we wish to see in Hong Kong?
當然不是，但我們是否就應如一些政黨或傳媒般，動輒把難民問題、非華裔人士的問題放大，令所有香港人覺得這個問題真的十分嚴重，香港社會現時面對難民或非華裔人士留港的問題實在十分嚴重？
Certainly not . But then is this a justified reason to frequently exaggerate the problem of bogus refugees or non - ethnic Chinese like what some political parties or mass media have done to such an extent that all Hong Kong people are misled to think that this is a very serious problem?
這正是由於公眾被誤導，才會以歧視的目光對待街上的非華裔人士或膚色不同的人。
The discriminatory treatment to non - ethnic Chinese on the street is precisely caused by misconception that people have against them
我相信這絕對不是我們希望看到的香港。
I believe this is definitely not what we wish to see in Hong Kong
現時全世界都面對難民問題，香 港所面對的難民問題是否嚴重到我們需要每天都在討論，動輒在議會提出議案，說事情十分嚴重，一定要用一些非常手段處理呢？
Countries around the world have to deal with the refugee problem . Is this problem in Hong Kong so serious that we need to talk about it every day or move a motion debate on it so as to say that it is a grave problem? . Do we need to resort to such an uncommon approach?
先別說現時本港的統一審核機制是否需要檢討，其實這個機制早應該提出來，而不是好像政府般推卸責任，不肯正視問題，到官司被上訴至終審法院敗訴後又要重新再做工作，而香港本身已經提出酷刑聲請的難民又要重新再做，結果時間拖得越來越長。
Let us first set aside the question of whether the present unified screening mechanism in Hong Kong needs to be reviewed . In fact the Government should have brought up this issue for discussion long ago but it has shirked its responsibility instead; it refused to face the issue squarely until it lost a case in the Court of Final Appeal . As a result all work has to be done again and the refugees who have already lodged torture claims have to do it again
我曾與他們接觸，他們都不想留在香港，說在香港不可以工作，子女亦不會有甚麼前途。
I got in touch with some of them . They say that they also dont want to stay in Hong Kong because they are not permitted to work here and their children will not have a future here
我希望大家聚焦問題所在，用相應措施處理現時審核機制出現的問題，最主要是要加快處理申請速度，禁止有人用不合理的理據拖延進度及防止濫用。
I hope Members will focus on the problem and adopt corresponding measures to tackle the present problems concerning the unified screening mechanism . Mostly importantly the Government must expedite the screening procedure and prevent people from stalling it without justified reasons or abusing the mechanism
至於律師團隊的訓練亦往往不足，這方面亦需要加強。
These procedures are often time - consuming and not conducive to solving the problem . Regarding the training for lawyers it has to be strengthened as well
所以，如果資源、程序及措施上可以做得更好的話，其實便可以加快改善現時所謂的難民滯港問題。
Hence if the authorities can enhance the resources procedure and measures it can alleviate the present problem of bogus refugees being stranded in Hong Kong
公民黨同意需要全面檢討統一審核機制，但我們不同意設立禁閉式難民營，因為這牽涉的資源將會非常昂貴，亦嚴重違反人權，更不能解決任何問題。
The Civic Party agrees that the unified screening mechanism should be comprehensively reviewed but we do not support the establishment of closed holding centres because it involves a substantial amount of resources and it will seriously undermine human rights and cannot solve any problem
我發言是支持姚松炎議員提出的議案。
I speak in support of the motion moved by Dr YIU Chung - yim
的確，律政司向立法會索取文件不是第一次，但是，代理主席，我們是第一次看到律政司如此大規模要求向立法會索取12份不同的文件，而當中包括很多是議員在立法會會議發言的紀錄，以及其他例如財務委員會的發言紀錄，令這次的事態與以往多次不相同。
Indeed it is not the first time for the Department of Justice DoJ to solicit documents from the Legislative Council . However Deputy President as we can see it is the first time for DoJ to solicit as many as 12 different documents from the Legislative Council . Many of them are records of Members speeches in the Legislative Council meetings and some are Members speeches in other meetings like the meeting of the Finance Committee thus making this exercise different from the previous ones
我首先要說，我非常感謝秘書處同事和法律顧問在這次事件上所做的工夫。
First of all I have to thank the colleagues of the Secretariat and the Legal Adviser for their efforts in this case
在秘書處傳閱給我們的文件中，看到一封由律政司發出的信函，日期為11月24日；但是，秘書處和法律顧問已經在之前多個月就這事件與律政司作多番周旋。
Among the documents circulated to us by the Secretariat I saw a letter dated 24 November from DoJ . Nevertheless the Secretariat and the Legal Adviser had been dealing with the matters with DoJ for a few months before that date
其實，律政司首先是以一封簡短的信函要求索取文件的，時為2016年9月14日，當中提到希望索取證據，要求我們協助。
In fact it began when DoJ asked to solicit the documents in a brief letter dated 14 September 2016 in which DoJ mentioned its wish to solicit evidence and seek our assistance
其後，律政司在11月25日再次發函，詳細解釋當中的理據。
Later in the letter dated 25 November DoJ explained the justifications concerned in detail
全賴秘書處和法律顧問非常專業的工作，馬上向律政司指出其實索取文件作這樣的用途，必須非常小心。
The Secretariat and the Legal Adviser were highly professional as to immediately highlight to DoJ that it has to be very careful when soliciting documents for such purpose
以及為何我們支持姚松炎議員提出這項議案呢？
And why do we support this motion from Dr YIU Chung - yim?
便是有很多大原則需要正式在會議廳內記錄下來。
It is because many major principles need to be formally recorded in this Chamber
因為我們現時談論言論及辯論自由的保障。
We are now discussing the protection of freedom of speech and debate
為何我們在今次事件上要很小心？
Why do we have to be very careful in this incident?
因為律政司在信件中要求索取12份文件，而當中很多都是議員在議事廳於立法會會議中作出的言論。
It is because DoJ asks to solicit 12 documents in its letter and most of them are the comments made by Members in this Chamber during the Legislative Council meetings
律政司在信件中說明不會用這些文件來盤問或質疑一位議員發言的動機，不會問梁國雄議員究竟當時發言時，是否基於這個原因或 這個動機？
In the letter DoJ makes it clear that it will not use these documents to cross - examine or question a Members motive to speak . It will not ask whether Mr LEUNG Kwok - hung was out of certain reason or motive when he made his remarks at that time
律政司有提到不會這樣用，只是想知道梁國雄議員當時有出席會議，亦有發言，會用這些紀錄作為證據。
DoJ has mentioned that it will not use them that way but only wants to know whether Mr LEUNG Kwok - hung has attended and spoke at that time . It will use these records as evidence
但是，我想問的是，如果是這樣簡單，律政司只要證明梁國雄議員有出席會議、有宣誓，當時亦有在議事廳發言，而不是質疑其發言內容，為何律政司不與辯方同意一個我們所說的"agreed facts"呢？
However my question is if it is as simple as that if DoJ only has to prove that Mr LEUNG Kwok - hung has attended the meeting has taken the oath and has spoken in the Chamber instead of questioning the content of his speech why does DoJ not prepare a statement of agreed facts with the defending party?
如果律政司單單要證明梁國雄議員當時有出席會議、有宣誓、是否知道要作出申報等問題，其實這些是無須爭議，亦無可能爭議的。
If DoJ merely wants to prove that Mr LEUNG Kwok - hung has attended the meeting has taken the oath and has learnt the need to declare interests these actually are questions beyond dispute or have no room for dispute
如果律政司要證明如此簡單的事情，是無須向立法會申請許可，索取這麼多文件的。
If DoJ has to prove such simple things it is unnecessary for it to apply for special leave of the Legislative Council for soliciting so many documents
我不知道控方會如何運用這些文件。
I have no idea how the prosecuting party will use these documents
我們要提出這項議案，即使知道這項議案很可能無法通過，因為需要分組點票。
We have to move this motion even though we know it is very unlikely that this motion can be passed as it is subject to a division
在分組點票的情況下，極有可能是建制派會否決這項議案。
Under a division it is highly possible that this motion will be vetoed by the pro - establishment camp
但是，他們否決這項議案的同時，我們亦要站起來發言，說明剛才我們所提出的一些原則及理據，而這些原則及理據，是過去300年來很多實行普通法國家的議會都有提到的。
Nevertheless while they will veto this motion we still have to stand up and speak citing the principles and arguments that we mentioned earlier which have been embraced by the councils or parliaments of many common law jurisdictions over the past 300 years
如果我們仍然尊重香港，仍然行使普通法，仍然尊重議會內有言論自由，而《條例》第3條其實是秉承了這項普通法的傳統，我們必須要站起來說清楚，記錄在案，令日後律政司再要求索取文件時......
If we still respect Hong Kong still implement common law still respect this Council for having freedom of speech while section 3 of the Ordinance is actually upholding this common law tradition we have to stand up state clearly and have our speeches recorded so that when DoJ asks to solicit documents again
主席，聽罷謝偉俊議員的發言，我認為他在法律上的分析相當清晰，但現時的問題並非法律觀點的爭議。
President having listened to the speech of Mr Paul TSE I think he has made a rather clear legal analysis yet the problem in question is not a dispute on legal viewpoint
信任問題導致這項看似正常的程序令泛民主派議員非常擔心。
Owing to the lack of confidence the pan - democratic Members are gravely concerned about this seemingly normal procedure
為何有信任問題？
Why is there the problem of confidence?
這是因為在過去一段時間，尤其是梁振英執政後，出現了社會撕裂、制度崩壞、濫用權力等問題，導致我們不得不有所擔心：這項看似正常的程序，當中有否可疑之處？
This is because problems such as social dissension collapse of the system and abuse of power have emerged over a certain period of time in the past in particular after LEUNG Chun - ying has come to power . Hence we will inevitably be concerned about whether there are any suspicious elements behind this seemingly normal procedure?
正如早前有議員指出，今次要求的紀錄，其實可以按法庭其他程序，例如以"agreed facts"的形式處理。
As pointed out by Members earlier the records requested this time can actually be handled under other court proceedings such as agreed facts
當然，我亦聽到謝偉俊議員所說，如果在這方面有爭議，控方有需要提供資料。
Certainly Mr Paul TSE has pointed out that should there be any dispute in this regard the prosecution shall provide information
我過往曾是執法人員，我明白蒐證的角度。
Since I was once a law enforcement officer I understand the perspective on evidence collection
所以，我今天要說清楚，我們不會贊成向政府提交相關紀錄。
Therefore I have to make it clear today that we will not support the submission of the records concerned to the Government
主席，如果是"假難民"，我們當然要反對，並且將他們盡快遣返，但何謂"假難民"呢？
President if we are talking about bogus refugees of course we should combat them and sent them back their home countries as soon as possible . But what does it mean by bogus refugee?
是否在座哪位議員和哪位官員說一句話，便可以證明某個人是"假難民"呢？
Can we determine someone is a bogus refugee merely on the basis of a remark made by a Member and public officer who are present in this Chamber? . The answer is no
是不可以的，因為香港是法治之區，一定要經過相關的法律程序來核實，讓人上訴，這是我們非常珍貴的法治制度，我們一定要堅守。
It is because Hong Kong is a place upholding the rule of law . We need to verify their status through the relevant legal process and we should allow them to appeal . The rule of law system in Hong Kong is extremely precious to us thus we have to uphold it at all cost
這不是我林卓廷的意見，而是上訴庭的意見。
This is not my view the view of LAM Cheuk - ting but the view of the Court of Appeal
上訴庭已經說得很清楚，在核實一個人身份之前，不能夠長期限制其自由，這是在剝削他的人權，是違反《香港人權法案條例》等規例。
The Court of Appeal has made it very clear that before the status of a person is verified his personal liberty should not be restricted . Otherwise it is an exploitation of his human rights and a contravention of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance and other relevant regulations
所以，我們不贊成建制派議員設立禁閉營的建議。
For that reason we do not agree with the idea of Members from the pro - establishment camp that a closed camp should be set up
當然，如果有關人士的難民身份已經被核實不成立，並已經過上訴程序，那麼拘留一段短時間等候遣返，是可以理解和明白的。
Of course if the refugee status of the relevant person is found untenable through the verification and appeal process then it is understandable to detain him for a short period of time pending repatriation
有議員提議設立提出聲請的時限，但這又是否可行呢？
Some Members propose that a time limit for lodging non - refoulement claims should be set . But is it practical?
其實，我們認為最重要的一點，是要考慮不同的狀況，因為有些人當初來到香港時是未必想申請難民資格的，但後來卻看到家鄉的狀況有改變，又或是家人受迫害、家鄉政治環境急劇轉變等。
In fact we consider the most important point is that we should give consideration to different circumstances . Perhaps a person does not wish to apply for refugee status upon his arrival in Hong Kong but he changes his mind since the situation in his home country has changed or his family being persecuted or the political situation in his home country has deteriorated drastically and so on
我們也要考慮這些情況，而不能"一刀切"規定他們來到香港兩星期或一星期之內提出申請，否則日後不能提出申請。
We have to take all of these situations into consideration . We should not adopt the across - the - board approach by requiring them to lodge their applications within two weeks or one week upon their arrival or else they would not be allowed to lodge an application in future
如果是這樣，將無法處理一些真正難民提出的申請。
If so we will be unable to deal with the applications of some genuine refugees
此外，有議員提議規定法援的上限。
Moreover some Members propose that we should impose a cap on the publicly - funded legal assistance
我的理解是這樣的，無論是限定某些律師行處理多少宗個案，又或是在法律服務方面，限制處理這些個案時只能用多少個時數、錄多少次口供等，這些也會有實際操作的困難。
My understanding is that no matter a cap is set on the maximum number of cases to be handled by a law firm or to restrict the provision of legal service by setting a the maximum man hours on each case or the maximum number of statements to be taken there will be practical difficulties . The reason is that with familiarity you learn the trick or practice makes perfect
原因是，律師行透過法援幫助這些申請人，也會有熟能生巧、工多藝熟的情況。他們處理這些個案越多，對這些個案的程序、 相關申請人的國家背景、歷史文化、有關政治環境的熟悉程度將會與日俱增。
As to law firms providing legal aid services to these claimants the more cases they handle they will with each passing day the more they become familiar with the procedures of these cases the background of the countries of these applicants the historical and cultural background as well as the political situations of those countries
如果找一些不熟悉這些個案的律師處理，他便要從頭開始了解這類個案的程序、處理手法、相關國家或地區的背景等資料，反而可能是費時失事。
If lawyers who are not familiar with these cases are asked to deal with these cases then they have to go back to square one and to study the procedure of these cases the approach to deal with them and to understand the background information of the relevant country or region . In that case they will waste a lot of time and efforts
很簡單，香港所有的審訊一定要公平，如果申請人真的有很多理據，或情況有變，提出很多資料，律師行便不能說因為已經達到服務時數的上限，所以無法處理，又或是說已經做足法援署規定的個案上限，所以無法處理。
It is simple each and every case to be tried in Hong Kong should be tried in a fair manner . If the claimant can produce a number of grounds or if he can provide more information due to a change in the situation of his home country then the law firm cannot tell him that they cannot deal with his case because the ceiling of the service hours has been reached or say that they cannot further handle the case because the ceiling concerning the maximum number of cases set down by the Legal Aid Department has been reached
我看不到為何可以這樣做，因為如果他是有理據的，香港的律師應該要幫助他處理，這是基本的專業守則。
I do not see why they can do that . As long as the claimant has his grounds Hong Kong lawyers should help him and this is the fundamental code of conduct of Hong Kong lawyers
我謹此陳辭，多謝主席。
I so submit thank you President
代理主席，我發言支持周浩鼎議員提出的"打擊'假難民'"議案。
Deputy President I speak in support of the motion on Combating bogus refugees moved by Mr Holden CHOW
郭榮鏗議員剛才約略回應了蔣麗芸議員，說大部分法律界人士都是真心協助真正的難民，但我也想藉此機會，告訴郭榮鏗議員一些事實。
Mr Dennis KWOK has briefly responded to the views expressed by Dr CHIANG Lai - wan and said that most of the practitioners in the legal profession are sincere in rendering assistance to genuine refugees . But I would also like to take this opportunity to reveal some facts to Mr Dennis KWOK
第一，有報道指出一些"假難民"甫下機，便已有法律界人士在場等候，替他們提出酷刑聲請。
First of all according to some news reports once bogus refugees got off the plane at the airport they were approached by some members of the legal sector waiting there who offered to lodge a torture claim for them
第二，根據《東方日報》的報道，南亞裔酷刑聲請者湧港，法官質疑律師行包攬訴訟，包攬訴訟的情況是在730宗向政府索償的個案中，有430宗由同一律師行處理。
Secondly as revealed by news reports published in the Oriental Daily News there was an influx of South Asian torture claimants and law firms were suspected by a judge of engaging in acts of champerty since among 730 claims for compensation from the Government 430 cases were represented by the same firm of solicitors
此外，《明報》亦曾有一篇報道，標題是"承辦六成難民索償被疑涉包攬訴訟 律師行申棄代表45個案獲批"。
Moreover there was also a news report in Ming Pao Daily News entitled Law firm suspected of champerty for undertaking 60 % refugee compensation claims granted approval to cease acting for client in 45 cases
由此可以說明，現時法律界確實有些害群之馬，若說建制派議員純粹從片面角度批評"假難民"問題，我認為並不成立。
It can thus be seen that there are in fact some black sheep in the legal sector and I think it would not be a valid argument to suggest that pro - establishment Members are making one - sided comments about the problem of bogus refugees
如果有人真的因為家鄉的戰亂問題或受到政治迫害而逃難來港，我相信香港市民一定不會反對為這些真正的難民提供棲身之處。
I am sure Hong Kong people will not object to providing shelters for genuine refugees who are living under the chaos of war or subjected to political persecution in their hometowns and are thus forced to flee to Hong Kong
但是，我們接收難民須取決於兩個條件，第一，他們必須是真正的難民；第二，他們只能短暫在香港逗留，不能年復一年長期在港居住。
However the decision to receive refugees should be based on two determining factors . Firstly those admitted should be genuine refugees; secondly they are here in Hong Kong only for a short stay and should not be allowed to reside in Hong Kong for a long time year after year
所以，我們只能夠接收真正的難民，而且只能容許他們在香港短時間逗留。
Hence only genuine refugees can be admitted and they can only be allowed to stay in Hong Kong for a short period of time
剛才有議員提出，建制派似乎總在抹黑難民，指他們引起很多社會罪案，但這並非事實，只屬少數。
Some Members have opined just now that the pro - establishment camp likes to smear refugees accusing them of causing crimes in Hong Kong . But these Members say that this is actually not the case and such refugees are few
代理主席，這裏有多篇報道，標題分別是"當'黑工'倒垃圾 '假難民'囚15個月"、"任搬運'黑工' '假難民'囚15個月"、"勒索渣打 印聲請漢囚9個月"、"6巴籍'假難民''黑工'判囚"、"姦妻舊同事 聲請漢囚10年"、"巴漢聲請者當'黑工' 判囚逾22月"。
Deputy President there are a number of news reports here with these headlines Bogus refugee working illegally as garbage collector imprisoned for 15 months; Bogus refugee working illegally as porter imprisoned for 15 months; Indian claimant imprisoned for nine months for blackmailing Standard Chartered; Six Pakistani bogus refugees sent to jail for illegal employment; Claimant imprisoned for 10 years for raping wifes former colleague; Illegal Pakistani male worker and claimant sentenced to imprisonment for over 22 moths
代理主席，若要繼續說下去，個案真是多不勝數，基本上每個星期均有這些"假難民"因為涉及"黑工"、刑毀、刑事罪行等各種問題而被羈留和扣押的新聞。
Deputy President I can go on since cases like these are just too many to enumerate and basically there are news every week about bogus refugees being detained and held in custody for various reasons like taking up illegal employment involving in criminal damage and criminal offences and so on
所以，若要打擊"假難民"，解決問題的最簡單方法就是一如議案所提出，設立一個禁閉營。
Hence in order to combat bogus refugees the simplest way is to set up a closed camp as proposed in the motion
事實上，"假難民"在香港觸犯的罪行確實相當嚴重，除了當"黑工"之外，還涉及很多暴力和性罪行，這兩種罪行對香港治安和民生的影響特別重大。
As a matter of fact the offences committed by bogus refugees in Hong Kong are quite serious and apart from illegal employment they have also involved themselves in a lot of violent and sexual offences which have a particularly serious impact on the law and order and peoples livelihood of Hong Kong
去年，有1,100名酷刑聲請者因為觸犯刑事罪行而被拘捕。
There were 1 100 torture claimants arrested for criminal offences last year
香港是世界上其中一個最安全的城市，這個金漆招牌不應因"假難民"而被打破。
Hong Kong is one of the safest cities in the world and this sterling reputation should not be tarnished by bogus refugees
我剛才已經指出，"假難民"來港當"黑工"，所做的是甚麼工作呢？
As I pointed out just now what kinds of jobs do bogus refugees normally take up when they are illegally employed in Hong Kong?
這位同事真是太傻、太天 真，他們當然不會為了這些食物券和生活津貼來港，他們來港的目的是當"黑工"賺錢。
This colleague of ours is really too simple and naive . They of course would not come to Hong Kong for these food coupons and the living allowance since their aim is to make money here by taking up illegal employment
他還指出我們對"假難民"的支援不足，所以代理主席，我建議這位工黨議員不如捐出其半數薪酬幫助這些"假難民"好了，請不要慷香港人和納稅人之慨。
He even criticized us for not rendering adequate support to bogus refugees and Deputy President I therefore suggest that instead of being generous at the expense of taxpayers of Hong Kong this Member of the Labour Party should donate half of his income to help out bogus refugees
因為我們已在酷刑聲請者身上花了11億元，代理主席，是11億元，這實在是一個天文數字。
We have already spent 1.1 billion on these torture claimants Deputy President an astronomical figure of 1.1 billion
所以，我們要切實解決"假難民"問題，不應該再縱容他們，不應該讓他們在香港當"黑工"，和香港市民爭"飯碗"，也不應該為他們提供......一條龍的法律服務......
Therefore we must seek a concrete solution to the problem of bogus refugees . We should no longer connive at them they should no longer be allowed to take up illegal employment in Hong Kong and compete for jobs with Hong Kong people and a full package of legal services should also not be provided to them