Borrison/hk-legicost huggingface dataset:
正如我剛才約略提及，原因是有些申請根本不涉及議員的言論，只涉及議員的行為，另有一些申請我們根本沒有機會在議事廳內辯論，因為當局是在休會期間提出申請，主席便作出決定。
As I explained briefly just now one reason is that some applications were purely targeted at the conduct rather than any utterances of the Members involved . Speaking of the other applications we utterly did not have any opportunity to hold a debate in this Chamber . The reason is that the President already made the decision as the authorities put forth the applications during summer recess
所以，我認為以往多次的特別許可申請先例不能作為這次申請的參考。
So I think the many precedents of special leave applications cannot serve as reference for our consideration of this application
最後，我想說句，既然我決定發言，我早已預料建制派議員會批評我維護、包庇"長毛"，這是我意料之內的。
Finally I wish to say that as I have decided to speak I have already anticipated that pro - establishment Members will criticize me for defending and harbouring Long Hair . This is within my expectation
基於這原則，如果這次訴訟的被告是建制派議員，我和其他同事也應該根據這標準作出保護。
Based on this principle if the defendant in this lawsuit were a pro - establishment Member we and other Members should likewise accord protection to him under the same principle
大家不要將這件事過分政治化，建制派還是民主派議員皆有責任捍衞我們日後的議事空間，讓我們在議事時不受政權干預，不受任何潛在官司影響，保持議會正常的行事方式和良好的傳統。
Members should not over - politicize this matter . Both the pro - establishment camp and democratic Members are duty - bound to safeguard our room for debate in the future so as to ensure that our discussions are free of any interference from the political regime and influence of any potential lawsuits and to preserve the normal practices and fine tradition of the legislature
我們應守護法律賦予我們的權利，繼續議事。
We should safeguard our rights under the law and continue to debate various matters
總括而言，我呼籲建制派議員捍衞大家的議事空間，並發言支持姚松炎議員的議案。
All in all I call upon pro - establishment Members to safeguard our room for debate and speak in support of Dr YIU Chung - yims motion
從政府提供的數字看來，統一審核機制被濫用是一個客觀的事實。
As seen from the figures provided by the Government it is an objective fact that the unified screening mechanism has been abused
需要爭議的地方是我們應以甚麼方法處理聲稱是難民的人士，怎樣才能有效地令機制不再被濫用，而香港又能在國際間的人權道德標準上維護他們的權利，在兩者之間取得平衡。
It is disputable however how we should handle cases involving refugee claimants so that a balance may be struck between preventing effectively any further abuse of the mechanism and fulfilling our moral obligations to safeguard the claimants rights in accordance with the international human rights standards
除禁閉營之外，議員還提出了數種不同方案，例如就提供法律援助設限，就這一點，我相信大家必須認真地深思。
Apart from the setting up of closed camps Members have also put forward a number of proposals such as imposing a cap on the legal assistance provided but I think we should give the suggestion some very serious consideration
眾所周知，香港的法律援助制度是以專業的法律水平就案情作出審查，究竟聲請者是否真的是難民？
As we all know under the legal aid system of Hong Kong professional legal advice will be sought to conduct a merits test to assess if there is a reasonable chance for a claimant to establish his or her status as a refugee
如他返回自己的國家，是否真的會受到迫害，他的人權及權利是否真的會受到威脅及侵犯？
Will a claimant be really subject to persecution and will his or her human rights and rights be really threatened and violated if heshe is sent back to the country of his or her nationality?
是否因為他們對香港的經濟有影響，會影響本地勞工，所以他們的權利便要受到侵害？
Should their rights be violated merely because they have exerted certain impacts on local economy and local workers?
是否因為他們的難民身份，令大家認為在法律專業及客觀標準之下，其應有權利可被剝奪？
Has their refugee status made us think that under the objective and professional legal standards in place they should be deprived of the rights they entitled?
在各項修正案中，其實不乏一些可行措施，例如在難民未來港之前，是否可和來源國建立通報機制，以便香港政府可及早先做一些工夫，在那些國家進行宣傳，告訴他們來港後不會獲得很好的生活，亦不容易找到工作？
Some feasible measures have in fact been proposed in the various amendments such as the setting up of a notification mechanism with the countries of origin of refugees before their arrival so that early actions may be taken by the Hong Kong Government to launch publicity campaigns in such countries to advise their nationals that they would not be able to lead a very decent life or seek a job very easily in Hong Kong
因此，當很多建制派議員質疑我們談論難民權利是為了維護他們的時候，我便要反過來問：是否因為他們具有難民的身份，對香港經濟沒有好處，會打擊本地勞工，對香港福利制度帶來沉重負擔，我們便要限制他們的權利？
Hence when many pro - establishment Members query that our aim for talking about the rights of refugees is to cover up for non - refoulement claimants I have to ask conversely whether it is due to their status as refugees and the fact that this will do no good to the economy of Hong Kong will deal a blow to local workers and create a heavy burden on the welfare system of Hong Kong that a limitation should be imposed on the rights they entitled?
所以，我們真正應該做的是求取平衡，探討怎樣加快審核的速度，令提出難民聲請和統一審核機制的使用人次降低，減少因此而滯留香港的人士。
Therefore what we should really do is to strike a balance examine what measures we should adopt to expedite the screening process and reduce the number of refugee claimants as well as users of the unified screening mechanism thereby reducing the number of people stranded accordingly in Hong Kong
我相信透過行政措施，絕對可以在尊重提出難民聲請者的人權及尊嚴之下解決這問題。
I firmly believe that the problem can definitely be resolved through administrative measures without compromising our respect for the human rights and dignity of refugee claimants
主席，對於今天要討論的事宜，我們首先要弄清楚背景資料。
President first we need to be clear about the background information of todays discussion
我今天聽了很多同事的發言，主要關乎兩件事，一件事是議會特權，另一件事是司法公義。
Most of the Members spoken today focus on two issues . The first is parliamentary privilege and the other is judicial justice
讓我先與大家回顧一下議會特權從何而來。
I would like to review with fellow Members the origin of parliamentary privilege first
眾所周知，香港立法會是來自英國國會威斯敏斯特模式。
We all know that the legislature in Hong Kong adopts the Westminster model of the Parliament in the United Kingdom
主席，以前出任議會議長是很危險的事，曾有議會議長代表議會與國王溝通，結果被國王處決。
President it was perilous to be the Speaker in the past as historical records showed that certain Speakers were executed after they tried to establishment communication with the King as representatives of the Parliament
在以前，公眾不能一字一句記錄國會的紀錄，記錄議會開會的文字是犯法的。
In those times the public were not allowed to prepare any verbatim of parliamentary proceedings
在以前，議會的工作可說相當危險和艱巨，甚至會有性命危險。
It was illegal to do so . In the old days business relating to the Parliamentary could be dangerous and difficult and it could even be lethal sometimes
隨着議會的發展，到了後期，我們看見關於議會權力及特權的法例，香港亦有相關法例。
As time went by and with the development of the parliamentary system we have witnessed the introduction of legislation on parliamentary powers and privileges in recent history . Hong Kong adopts similar legislation too
換言之，作為議員，不能因我們在議會內發表的言論而對我們提起民事或刑事法律程序。
In order words no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted against us the legislators for words spoken in the legislature
我剛才提到《條例》第3及4條，正正是保護各位議員能毫無顧忌履行憲制責任，即就香港各種政策、公共事務作出討論。
Sections 3 and 4 of the Ordinance above aim exactly to offer protection to Members so that they can carry out their constitutional duties free from worry that is to discuss policies and public issues in Hong Kong
這正是議會很需要的一種保護，讓我們能暢所欲言，為香港出謀獻策。
This is the kind of protection the Council really needs as this provides the room for us to freely offer advice and counsel for Hong Kong
說完議會特權，另一方面，香港人也非常清楚司法公義。
Apart from parliamentary privilege Hong Kong people know well about judicial justice too
正如大家經常聽見的一句話，"法律面前，人人平等"，古代的包拯備受尊重，便是因為他在判案時不論貧富、貴族或平民，都一一平等待而處之。
We always hear the saying Everyone is equal before the law . In ancient China Bao Zheng was highly respected because he treated everybody fairly and equally during trials regardless of classes and wealth
在現今的香港社會，不論是反對派經常提到的行政長官，抑或是立法會的議員同事，我們在法律面前也必定要人人平等。
In modern Hong Kong society we are all absolutely equal before the law regardless of the person concerned being the Chief Executive frequently mentioned by the opposition or a Member of the Council
如今，這宗案件關乎有議員同事懷疑秘密收款，公職人員行為失當；法庭將會處理這宗案件，作出公平的裁決。
The present case of misconduct in public office relates to an alleged receipt of secret payment by a Member . The Court will handle this case and give a fair judgment
究竟這件事的來龍去脈如何？相關被告是否罪有應得？
It is a wish of Hong Kong people to learn about the details of the issue and to know whether the defendant is guilty
看來，議會特權與司法公義在這場辯論中有所衝突。
It looks like there is a contradiction between parliamentary privilege and judicial justice in this debate
剛才聽見不少反對派同事表示，不能讓立法會人員作證，因為在《條例》的保障下，我們享有這項特權。
Many opposition Members have stated just now that no officer of the Legislative Council can be allowed to give evidence as we are privileged under the protection of the Ordinance
儘管法庭現時有一宗官司需要相關證據，但我們享有特權，所以我們不應該讓立法會人員作證，不應該將立法會紀錄交給法庭作為證據。
Despite the need to produce relevant evidence in a court case because of all these privileges we enjoy we should not grant leave for officers of the Council to give evidence nor should we produce records of Legislative Council proceedings in evidence
其實，就這方面衝突的考慮，最近英國上議院也有所討論。
In fact the contraction in this respect has recently been under consideration of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom
有一位上議院議員提到，他與香港人的憂慮非常相似，他認為在議會內，議會的特權不應該為議員向第三者收取賄款提供保護傘，司法機構作出公義的審訊非常重要。
A Member of the Lords expressed a concern similar to that of Hong Kong peoples . The Member considered that parliamentary privilege should not become the shield for Members acceptance of bribes and it is extremely important that the judiciary can conduct trials for the sake of justice
所以，其實在現行的法律制度下，在司法公義和法律特權兩者間是有一條出路，讓我們作出平衡。
In fact there is a way out between judicial justice and legal privilege under the existing legal system a way out for us to achieve a balance
過去一些案例 衍生出的法律原則，以及《條例》第7條，正正提供了一個平衡渠道，讓我們作出適當的平衡，既可以保護議會特權，亦可以維持司法公義的彰顯。
Certain legal principles arising from some previous cases as well as section 7 of the Ordinance exactly offer such a way to balance the two . This enables us to strike the right balance between protecting parliamentary privilege and manifesting judicial justice
至於律政司這次向立法會申請的特別許可，究竟須取得的文件用途何在？
Regarding the application for special leave lodged by DoJ to the Legislative Council what is the use for producing the specified documents?
這是最關鍵的地方。
This is the critical point
如果相關文件是在法庭內或其他法律程序中，就我們議員同事在議會內的言論作出起訴，這便侵犯了我們議會的特權。
If the documents are used in the Court or other legal proceedings for initiating prosecution against a Member in respect of the words he said in the Council this will constitute an infringement of the privilege of our legislature
在律政司信件的第6頁第二段，我們看到律政司交代文件是用作證明曾進行過相關的議會程序，即當天我們曾召開該次會議；以及被告人曾參與這些程序，即被告人曾在當天出席該次會議。
However as stated in the second paragraph on page 6 of DoJs letter DoJ explained that the documents are to be used to prove that relevant parliamentary proceedings took place that is we did hold that meeting on that day; and to prove that the defendant participated in the proceedings that is the defendant did attend that meeting on that day
我剛才聽到有同事問，是否這些東西也要證明？
I heard a Member asked earlier if it is really necessary for us to prove this sort of facts
我想，稍為對香港法律有常識的人都知道，在法律程序中，我們需要向法庭、法官證明所提控事實的每一點，包括如果被告人不同意自己名字叫陳大文，我們都要證明他名叫陳大文；如果被告人不同意自己的出生年份，我們都要證明他是在哪一年出生。
I believe anyone with common sense about the law in Hong Kong would know that during legal proceedings we have to prove every point of the facts related to the case in Court . If the defendant disagrees that his name is CHAN Tai - man we will need to prove that his name is CHAN Tai - man; and if the defendant disagrees on his year of birth we will then have to prove that he was born in a particular year
剛才有反對派同事說，我們可以使用較簡單的方法，與訟雙方在法庭內可以使用agreed fact，即雙方同意的案情。
Opposition Members said just now that we can take an easier route and simply deal with this on agreed facts in the Court which are facts related to the case agreed by both sides
正確，如果被告人能夠與控方互相達成協議，當然這沒有問題。
This is true . It is of course fine if the defendant can reach a consensus with the prosecution
但如果雙方不能達成協議，一如我剛才所說，連一些最基本的事實也要提供證明，包括我們議會當天有沒有召開會議、被告人有沒有參與過會議等，這些看來好像太陽從東方升起的事實，我們也必須在法庭內交代。
But if an agreement is not possible as in the case pointed out by me just now we will have to prove some very basic facts including whether a meeting was convened that day and whether the defendant participated in the meeting and so on . We must give an account for these fundamental facts in the Court even if the facts are seemingly universal truth
在我剛才提及律政司信件的段落中，說明控方並非試圖利用這些紀錄證明被告人發出的任何言論的真實性或適當性，即是說，文件與被告人在議會內所發表的言論完全無關。
The paragraph in DoJs letter quoted by me indicates that the prosecution is not seeking to use these records as proof of the veracity or propriety of anything said by the defendant . This means that the documents are totally unrelated to the words said by the defendant in the Council
因此，我認為就今次的特別許可，其實我們應要批准。
So I consider that we should grant special leave in this respect
當然，我覺得有一點，我們議會的同事無須擔心。
Of course there is another point which will address the worries of fellow Members
原因是，儘管有議員可能不同意我剛才所說的論點，但根據現行法律制度，即使我們向法庭提供這些文件，或容許我們立法會人員到法院作證，其實最終的決定權仍然在法庭上。
Some Members may not agree with my remarks earlier yet under the existing legal system the Court has the authority to make final decision even if we produce these documents in evidence or if officers of the Legislative Council are given leave to give evidence
所以，希望我們議會的同事能清楚，法院最終將會是公正的把關人，為我們議會的特權及彰顯司法公義作最後把關。
Therefore I hope Members can note that the Court will play the role as a fair gatekeeper to guard the last line of defence for parliamentary privilege and the manifestation of judicial justice
我想，對我們議會運作稍有認識的人都知道，我們今天討論的這項特別許可，其實並非議事規則委員會或行管會所牽涉的範疇。
I believe anyone with basic knowledge of the operation of our legislature can realize that the application for special leave under discussion today does not fall within the ambit of both CRoP and LCC
這應在我們的大會上，由我們各位議員作詳細辯論，並作表決。
Instead Members should thoroughly debate and vote on the issue at a Council meeting
剛才亦有同事問到，究竟是否有迫切性，要現在就提交立法會？
Certain Members have also asked if there is really an urgent need to table this to the Legislative Council right now?
是否應給予我們多一點時間慢慢討論？
Is it not possible to give us more time for some careful deliberation?
就此，我希望大家都看清楚，相關法庭的案件，其實過去亦已作出審前覆核，將在不久將來確定審訊日期，即法庭現在有需要看清禁，究竟雙方有多少證據確定呈交、雙方證據是否齊全、雙方有沒有反對，然後定出審訊日期。
In this regard I hope Members can be clear that the court case concerned has already conducted pre - trial review and the Court will fix the hearing day of the trial soon . This means that at this moment the Court needs to check the evidence confirmed to be submitted and see if any piece of evidence is left behind and whether there is any objection as regards the evidence from both sides . Then it will fix the trial date
如果我們容許這件事在我們的議會內蹉跎歲月，讓人"拉布"，將令法院不能定出審訊日期。
On the contrary if we allow this issue to linger on in this Council and connive at the filibuster the Court will not be able to fix a date
我不知道這是否有人別有用心要這樣做，但我不希望因為我們議會拖延而造成不能彰顯法律公義的結果。
I do not know if anyone intentionally does this but it is not my wish to see a failure in manifesting judicial justice due to the procrastination of our legislature
代理主席，就我剛才的發言，我贊成給予這項特別許可，容許法院能考慮我們立法會的這些紀錄和文件是否應在法院內作為證據，以顯示法律公義，還我們香港人一個結果。
Deputy President with respect to the speech I have just made I agree to grant special leave so that the Court can consider whether to admit these records and documents of the Council as evidence in order to manifest justice before the law and give Hong Kong people an answer
容海恩議員，由於何啟明議員的修正案獲得通過，我已批准你修改你的修正案措辭，內容已發送各位議員。
Ms YUNG Hoi - yan as Mr HO Kai - mings amendment has been passed I have given leave for you to revise the terms of your amendment as set out in the paper which has been issued to Members
我現在向各位提出的待議議題是：容海恩議員就經何啟明議員修正的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 Ms YUNG Hoi - yans amendment to Mr Holden CHOWs motion as amended by Mr HO Kai - ming be passed
文件指出，該等議會特權與第382章第3及4條所訂的特權相若，a段指出："在議會程序中所作的言論或向國會提交的文件，不可構成追究法律責任的基礎，不論是刑事或民事責任。
It is pointed out in the paper that such parliamentary privilege is similar to the privileges provided in sections 3 and 4 of Cap . 382 in which subparagraph a points out that speeches made in parliamentary proceedings or documents presented to Parliament cannot be the foundation of legal liability either criminal or civil
"這一段與香港的相若，但此段說明不能構成追究法律責任的基礎，即被告人不是因為這個原因而令自己承受刑事、民事責任，前後次序不能倒轉。
The contents in this paragraph are similar to relevant provisions in Hong Kong but this paragraph illustrates that such speeches or documents cannot be the foundation of legal liability that is the Defendant cannot be exposed to any criminal or civil liability due to this reason . The sequence cannot be changed here
至於b段，文件第3段以下的4小段是要連續一起去讀，不是用"或"，而是"及"的角度去理解，當中指出"該等言 論或文件不可用於支持一項訴訟因由，即使該訴訟因由本身是源於國會以外的事宜亦然"。
As regards subparagraph b we have to read the four subparagraphs under paragraph 3 altogether interpreting them with a sense of and not or . It is pointed out that such speeches or documents cannot be used for the purpose of supporting a cause of action even though that cause of action itself arose outside Parliament
第c段指出"不得由法院審查在國會所作的陳述是否真確或恰當，不論是基於直接證據、盤問、推論或陳詞"；及第d段"法院可接納若干議會程序紀錄作證據，但前提是使用證據的方式與議會特權相符，且不涉及訊問議會程序的恰當性，或訊問參與議會程序的人士的動機或用意"。
I do not think it is right to do so . Subparagraph c points out that the courts are precluded from examining the truth or propriety of statements made in Parliament whether by direct evidence cross - examination inferences or submissions; and subparagraph d points out that certain evidence of parliamentary proceedings may be admitted before a court provided that the evidence is used in a way that is consistent with parliamentary privilege and does not involve an examination of the propriety of the proceedings or of the motives or intentions of those taking part in the proceedings
我相信這裏已清楚說出重點，就是究竟他在議會外所做的事情，是否受到本會所限制，因而不能提供立法會資訊或會議紀要給法庭使用呢？
As far as I can see the subparagraphs have clearly pointed out the main point that is whether his behaviours outside the Council are subject to the Councils restriction so that we cannot grant leave for producing information or minutes of meetings of the Legislative Council for use in the Court
其實，被告人在法庭也需要一個公平審訊，我相信律政司或控方有責任提交適用的文件供法庭參考。
In fact the Defendant also needs a fair trial in the Court . I believe DoJ or the prosecution has the duty to provide appropriate documents for the Courts reference
任何文件，如果法庭認為沒有需要或不恰當，法庭亦不會使用，而被告人的辯護大律師或被告人自己也會提出抗議。
If the Court considers a document unnecessary or inappropriate the document will not be used in evidence and the lawyer representing the Defendant or the Defendant himself will lodge an objection as well
我相信律政司今次提出的申請有必要性，而且理據充分，亦具法律基礎。
I believe it is necessary justifiable and legally sound for DoJ to make such an application today
所以，我反對姚松炎議員提出的議案，而且我認為其理由並無法律基礎。
Therefore I reject the motion proposed by Dr YIU Chung - yim while considering that his arguments have no legal basis
這些免遣返聲請人士從一些不合法或合法渠道進入香港後，一方面向政府提出免遣返聲請，另一方面故意利用司法程序拖延審核，藉 以延長他們的居港時間。
After entering Hong Kong through illegal or legal means these people lodge non - refoulement claims to the Government and at the same time deliberately make use of the statutory procedure to stall the screening process so as to protract their stay in Hong Kong
由於人道理由，政府需要給予難民基本福利支援，構成社會財政壓力。
Due to humanitarian reasons the Government needs to provide basic welfare support to these refugees which has become a financial burden to society
此外，部分人士會在香港當"黑工"賺取報酬。
Moreover some of them will work illegally in Hong Kong to earn money
因為他們索取的薪金較本地勞工低，有些僱主會冒險聘請他們工作。
Given that they ask for a lower wage than the wage local workers ask for some employers may take the risk and employ them
近日有報道指出，警方拘捕了持假身份證工作的免遣返聲請人士，他們意圖欺騙僱主。
It was reported recently that some non - refoulement claimants who tried to cheat employers with fake identity cards were arrested by the police
總而言之，他們這種行為可能會影響本地基層人士的就業機會。
In short their actions may affect the employment opportunities of local grass - root people
更大的問題是，部分免遣返聲請人士甚至參與黑社會的犯罪活動，對香港社會的治安和秩序構成負面影響，亦嚴重影響真正有需要申請免遣返聲請的人士。
Worse still some non - refoulement claimants have even taken part in triad activities which have negatively impacted on our rule of law and the law and order in Hong Kong and have also seriously affected those with a genuine need of lodging non - refoulement claims
對於這些免遣返聲請人士及其衍生的問題，政府當局其實採取了不少應對措施，例如警方、入境處及勞工處會展開突擊調查、掃蕩行動，拘捕這些待審核身份的非法勞工，又跟內地執法部門聯手加強打擊偷運"人蛇"集團。
Regarding the non - refoulement claimants and the problems they created the Administration has actually launched quite a few corresponding measures . For instance the Police Force Immigration Department and Labour Department have launched surprise inspections and enforcement operations to arrest illegal workers whose refugee status are pending confirmation . They have also joined force with Mainland enforcement departments to crack down on human - smuggling syndicates
但是，"賠本生意無人做，斬首生意有人做"，只要仍然有利可圖，一些"蛇頭"或外籍人士仍會以這個渠道聲稱受到酷刑對待，千方百計來香港，令問題很難杜絕。
However as a Chinese saying goes beheading business is more popular than profitless business . As long as the human - trafficking business is lucrative there will be snakeheads or people of other nationalities making every effort to come to Hong Kong by this means and then lodge torture claims thus making this problem hard to be eradicated
因為問題越來越嚴重，社會出現不同的聲音，例如要求設立禁閉營，甚至提出退出聯合國《禁止酷刑公約》等。
Given that the problem has become increasingly rampant people start to form different views on this issue . For instance some people ask for the establishment of closed holding centres and even withdrawal from the United Nation Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
對於設立禁閉營的建議，我不太認同。
I beg to differ with the proposal of establishing closed holding centres
一來牽涉的問題非常複雜，爭議很大，容易遇到反對，而設立禁閉營之後，更要耗費大量人力物力去管理。
First of all this proposal involves complicated and controversial issues and is likely to meet with opposition . Besides a substantial amount of manpower and resources is required to manage the closed holding centres after their establishment
此外，免遣返聲請申請人本身不是罪犯，香港政府沒有合理理由把他們關起來，限制他們的活動。
Moreover non - refoulement claimants are not criminals and the Government have no justifiable reason to lock them up and restrict their activities
況且，我們的社會高舉人權和人身自由，更加難以實行。
In this city where human rights and personal freedom are held high it will be difficult to implement this proposal
至於退出聯合國《禁止酷刑公約》，更可能涉及中央政府的立場，難以作出決定。
Regarding the proposal of withdrawing from the United Nation Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment it is even more difficult to be implemented because it involves the stance of the Central Government
我必須強調的是，在處理免遣返聲請人士的問題時，我們不應該"一竹篙打一船人"，我們要打擊的，只是那些來自局勢穩定、未受戰亂影響，但只是因為經濟等其他原因而濫用機制和程序來香港的人。
I must stress that when we handle the problem of non - refoulement claimants we should not sweepingly conclude that they are all bogus refugees . We should only target at those coming from politically stable countries unaffected by war who take advantage of our system to come to Hong Kong for financial or other reasons
我們亦要避免事情演變成種族歧視，標籤了某些種族，破壞我們的多元社會；更要避免將真正有需要申請免遣返聲請、有需要援助又符合難民準則的人遭一併拒諸門外。
We should also avoid turning the matter into acts of racial discrimination or creating a labelling effect on certain ethnicities so as not to disrupt our pluralistic society . What is more in rejecting those bogus non - refoulement claimants we should be cautious not to reject also the non - refoulement claimants who are in genuine need of assistance and meet the criteria of a refugee
事實上，當局已經就受酷刑對待的聲請人士的問題作出一些針對性措施，而這些措施已初見成效。
In fact the authorities have launched a series of specific measures on the problem of non - refoulement claimants who were subject to torture treatment and the measures are beginning to achieve results
根據數字顯示，今年首10個月，針對非華裔非法勞工的執法行動，較前年同期增加七成一；而被捕的非華裔"黑工"及"黑工"僱主，亦分別增加兩成六及四成四；期內入境 處接獲新免遣返聲請的數字，也較去年同期減少約一成半。
According to statistics enforcement actions against non - Chinese illegal workers in the first 10 months of this year were 71 % more than those conducted in the same period two years ago while the numbers of arrested non - Chinese illegal workers and employers of non - Chinese illegal workers increased by 26 % and 44 % respectively . New non - refoulement claims received by the Immigration Department in the same period this year dropped by about 15 % as compared with the same period last year
我希望當局持續進行上述打擊行動，減少這些免遣反聲請人士對香港社會的影響。
I hope that the authorities will continue with their aforesaid enforcement actions to reduce the impact of non - refoulement claimants on the society of Hong Kong