Borrison/hk-legicost huggingface dataset:
對於政府的運作、對於政府的公開透明性，絕對百利而無一害。
It will definitely be beneficial to the functioning openness and transparency of the Government
我希望政府可以藉着新一屆政府所謂新人事、新作風，好好考慮我們的建議。
I hope that the Government can take advantage of the new crew and new style to give due consideration to our proposals
主席，我謹此陳辭，支持朱凱廸議員提出的議案。
With these remarks President I support the motion moved by Mr CHU Hoi - dick
主席，首先我要申報我是香港的執業律師。
President first of all I have to declare interest . I am a practising solicitor in Hong Kong
雖然我本人沒有處理過法律援助案件，但在我的律師事務所中，有律師處理法援案件。
Although I have not handled legal aid cases before a number of solicitors working in my law firm take up legal aid work
主席，政府根據現時《法律援助條例》第7a條，動議擬議決議案。
President the Government has moved a resolution pursuant to section 7a of the Legal Aid Ordinance
眾所周知，擬議決議案按照已完成的最新一輪有關財務資格限額周年檢討的結果，因應由2014年7月至2016年7月期間的丙類消費物價指數所錄得的4%升幅，建議將現時申請法援的財務資格限額相應上調4%。
As we all know in accordance with the result of a new round of annual review on the financial eligibility limits FELs and in response to the increase by 4 % of the Consumer Price Index C for the period from July 2014 to July 2016 the resolution has proposed to raise FELs for legal aid applications by 4 % accordingly
換言之，將普通法律援助計劃的財務資格限額由290,380元調高至302,000元，法律援助輔助計劃則由1,451,900元調高至1,509,980元。
In other words FEL under the Ordinary Legal Aid Scheme OLAS will be increased from 290,380 to 302,000 and FEL under the Supplementary Legal Aid Scheme SLAS will be increased from 1,451,900 to 1,509,980
對此我表示支持。
I support this proposal
這次的財務資格限額檢討，其實只是按照現有機制的一次機械式調整。
In fact the review on the FELs this time around is only a mechanical adjustment of the existing mechanism
因為根據政府當局在1999年9月就《1999年法律援助條例草案》向立法會提交的報告，普通計劃和輔助計劃的財務資格限額會每年檢討，以計及一般物價變動的情況；兩年一度進行的檢討，則會計及訟費變動及其他相關因素。
Pursuant to the Administrations report to the Legislative Council on the Legal Aid Amendment Bill 1999 in September 1999 FELs under OLAS and SLAS are to be reviewed annually to take into account general price movement and biennially to take into account changes in litigation costs and other relevant factors
在百物騰貴的今天，政府將財務資格限額調高固然是好事，但大家若細心看看今次實際金額的調整幅度，便會發覺有關調升其實只是聊勝於無，根本無助改善現行制度的弊端。
Today amidst the spike in prices of all goods the Governments upward adjustment of FEL is certainly a good measure . However if we look carefully at the adjustment rate of the actual amount this time around we will find that the relevant upward adjustment is in fact just better than nothing . Basically it will not facilitate the improvement of the shortcomings of the existing system
主席，事實上，在今次相關的擬議決議案小組委員會的討論中，不少委員也同意，現時法援的財務資格限額的基線水平實在太低，即使按照這個機制每年調整，對於那些真正有需要爭取公義或權益的中產階級、普羅市民或打工階層來說，有關的財務資格限額往往沒有顧及他們的需要。
President as a matter of fact in the course of discussion of the relevant subcommittee on the proposed resolution many members reckoned that as the original FELs adopted as baseline under the existing legal aid system are too low even with the annual adjustments based on this mechanism insofar as the middle class the general public or the labour sector who have the genuine need to pursue justice or rights are concerned the relevant FELs have not taken into account their needs
我們經常聽說："法律是有錢人的玩意"，但自從法援出現之後，我們經常聽到的是："法律是有錢人和窮人的玩意"。
We hear people say that the law is a game for the rich . After the introduction of the legal aid system we often hear that the law is a game for the rich and the poor
因為打一場官司的費用往往數以十萬計，甚至過百萬，足令一個人傾家蕩產。
This is because the cost of legal proceedings for a case often reaches hundreds of thousands of dollars and even over 1 million an amount which may cost a person to lose all his money and properties
過去有俗語謂："生不入官門、死不入地獄"。
As the common saying goes One never steps through a government office door in ones lifetime and never goes to hell after death
在現今香港社會，這句俗語看來另有一番意思。
Nowadays in the society of Hong Kong it seems that this common saying has taken on another meaning
那麼，政府究竟何時才會關顧一下中產階級人士？
As such when actually will the Government take into account the needs of the middle class?
我們聽到政府當局回應時表示，每年對財務資格限額作出檢討，已能有效配合法援申請人不斷改變的經濟需要。
In response the Administration advises that the annual review of FELs is an effective means to meet the changing financial needs of the legal aid applicants
我想向政府說，現在不是法援申請人的經濟需要不斷改變，而是政府這個僵化的財務資格 限額的檢討機制永恆不變。
I would like to inform the Government that it is not that the financial needs of the legal aid applicants are changing it is that this rigid review mechanism of FELs has remained unchanged eternally
政府又說，除了每年的檢討之外，財務資格限額亦應該每兩年檢討一次，以計及訟費的變動及其他相關因素。
The Government also indicates that apart from the annual review a biennial review of FELs should also be conducted to take into account changes in litigation costs and other relevant factors
然而，政府當局指出雖然已邀請香港大律師公會和香港律師會提供有關訟費的資料，但這兩個法律專業團體均未有提供相關資料。於是，即使政府當局在2000年提出每兩年進行一次檢討的機制，多年來其實從未在有關檢討中因應訟費變動，調整財務資格限額。
However the Administration points out that while it has sought the assistance of the Hong Kong Bar Association and The Law Society of Hong Kong to provide information on private litigation costs the information is not available from the two legal professional bodies and hence no adjustment has been made on the FELs on the basis of changes in litigation costs over the years since the biennial review mechanism was introduced in 2000
是否因為兩個律師會不提供資料，政府當局便可以在過去18年撒手不理呢？
Is it because information is not available from the two legal professional bodies then the Administration can wash its hands off the matter over the past 18 years?
在擬議決議案小組委員會的會議中，亦有部分委員清楚指出，基於種種因素，特別是律師的經驗和資歷差異，不同律師所收取的法律費用實際上可以相差甚遠。所以，兩個法律專業團體未能提供有關私人訟費資料予政府當局參考，其實是可以理解、情有可原的。
During the meetings of the subcommittee on the proposed resolution some members clearly pointed out that as the legal fees charged by the legal practitioners vary widely due to various factors in particular the experience and seniority of individual practitioners it is excusable and understandable why the two legal professional bodies cannot provide information on the private litigation costs to the Administration for reference
主席，既然此路不通，政府當局是否又可以靈活變通一下，想想有沒有其他途徑收集私人訟費的資料？
President as this is not workable can the Administration make flexible changes which are more feasible? . Has the Administration considered other channels to collect information on private litigation costs?
例如，委託顧問研究，這是政府推行很多其他政策經常使用的方法。
For instance it can commission a consultancy study on the subject . This is the approach often adopted by the Government when implementing many other policies
例如，可否向司法機構索取由法院評定的訟費資料？
Can the Administration seek information about the costs assessed by the Court from the Judiciary?
法院每天處理很多關於訟費的評定，又有很多相關的律師費資料。
Every day the Court handles many assessments on litigation costs as well as relevant information on solicitor fees
又例如，可否向法律援助署查詢，獲批的法援個案所招致的法律費用有多少？
Is it possible for the Administration to make enquiries to the Legal Aid Department and ask about the legal costs incurred in the approved legal aid cases?
這些都是可以索取資料的途徑。
All these are channels through which the Administration can gain access to information
政府當局現時應重新出發，盡快全面檢討現時在法援下的財務限額制度，確保社會上每一個人，特別是經常被忽視的中產人士，可以享有尋求司法公義的權利。
It is time for the Administration to make a new start on this issue and conduct a comprehensive review of the FEL system under legal aid as soon as possible to ensure that everyone in the society and in particular members of the middle class who have often been neglected have the right to seek judicial justice
其實在2017年4月，政府已接納法援當局的建議，再次擴大輔助計劃的申索範疇，包括持有證券及期貨事務監察委員會受規管活動牌照的金融中介人的專業疏忽，以及就銷售證券衍生工具、貨幣期貨或其他期貨合約，所涉及的詐騙、欺騙或失實陳述等法律程序。
Monetary claims against the vendors in the sale of completed or uncompleted first - hand residential properties were also included . As a matter of fact in April 2017 the Government accepted the recommendations made by the Legal Aid Services Council to further expand the scope of SLAS to cover claims for professional negligence against financial intermediaries licensed for regulated activities by the Securities and Futures Commission; and claims for proceedings in derivatives of securities currency futures or other futures contracts when fraud deception or misrepresentation was involved at the time of purchase
主席，對於政府在過去數年不斷研究擴大輔助計劃，讓更多符合財務資格的中產人士受惠，我們表示歡迎。
President we welcome the Governments continuous efforts over the past few years in studying how to expand the SLAS with a view to enabling more members of the middle class who satisfy the FEL to benefit
但是，對於當局在2017年的檢討中，並沒有採納市民提出的建議，把輔助計劃擴展至金融活動以外的不同範疇，我們表示失望。
However we are disappointed that the Administrations review in 2017 did not accept the proposal of the public to expand SLAS to various areas other than financial activities
政府說已有消費者訴訟基金協助消費者，又有《商品說明條例》禁止商戶以不良營商手法對待消費者，並指相關個案的索償勝算普遍較低等一大堆理由，拒絕把關於銷售商品及提供服務的申索納入輔助計劃。
The Government advises that the Consumer Legal Action Fund is available to help consumers and the prohibition for unfair trade practices deployed by trades against consumers has already been set out under the Trade Descriptions Ordinance . The Administration has based on a number of reasons such as that the claims for the relevant cases have lower success rates to refuse including claims arising out of sale of goods and provision of services under SLAS
我覺得其實這些理據薄弱，亦令人難以接納。
I hold that these justifications are weak and unconvincing
除以上之外，其實現時私樓、大廈管理的糾紛增加，很多時候，小業主和大廈業主立案法團的法律爭議其實越來越普遍。
Moreover disputes concerning private domestic properties and building management are on the rise . Legal disputes between individual owners and the incorporated owners of a multistorey building have also become increasingly common
但政府卻沒有接納很多小業主提出的建議，把輔助計劃涵蓋至向多層大廈業主立案法團所提出的申索。
Nevertheless the Government has not accepted the proposals of many individual owners to expand the scope of SLAS to include claims against the incorporated owners of a multistorey building
我們希望政府當局日後能進一步考慮這項建議。
We hope that the Administration will further consider this proposal in the future
但是，民建聯認為，勝算高低與案件類別其實沒有必然關係，例如在金融衍生工具的申索中，可以因為案情複雜而勝算不高。
However the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong is of the view that there is no definite relationship between high or low chance of success and categories of cases . For instance with regard to derivatives claims due to the complexity of the cases the chance of success can be very low
相反，被政府當局拒諸門外的銷售商品和提供服務的申索，亦可以因為明顯違約及證據充分而有較高勝算。
On the contrary claims related to sale of goods and provision of services―which have been refused by the Administration to include in SLAS―may have a high success rate due to obvious breach of contract and adequate evidence
因此，我們認為，最重要的是當局須在案情審查上作更嚴謹的把關，而不是"一刀切"地拒絕把某些個案類別納入輔助計劃。
Thus we hold that it is most important for the Government to play a more stringent gate - keeping role in conducting merits tests instead of refusing to include certain categories of cases under SLAS in an across - the - board manner
主席，法援制度是市民尋求公義的一個非常、非常重要的堡壘。
President the legal aid system is a very important fortress for the public to pursue justice
我在此衷心希望政府當局能立下決心，改善現時法援制度的弊病，造福香港市民。
I sincerely hope that the Administration has the determination to improve the shortcomings of the existing legal aid system thereby bringing benefit to the people in Hong Kong
代理主席，無論議員稍後是支持政府將6個月改為12個月或支持張超雄議員改為24個月的修正案也好，我相信大家在一點上是沒有矛盾的，便是鼓勵受屈人士越早報案越好、越早舉報越好、越早投訴越好。
Deputy Chairman no matter if Members support the Governments amendment to change the period from 6 months to 12 months or Dr Fernando CHEUNGs amendment to change the period to 24 months I believe all Members will not take issue with one point that is the earlier aggrieved people are encouraged to make reports the better and the earlier complaints are lodged the better
大家沒有考慮這個問題，只是說有人會推遲，但我剛才也說過，延遲也是他們的個人選擇，因為要選擇一個合適時間才作出舉報。
Members have never thought about this question but only said that some people would put things off . However I also said just now that deferral is also their personal choice because they have to choose a suitable time to make a report
這是一個很正常的情況。
This is a completely normal situation
不過，問題在於我們要防止中介公司犯罪，這並非舉報人的責任，而是負責巡查及檢控的勞工處。
However the point is The responsibility of preventing intermediaries from committing offences does not lie with the person making a report but with the Labour Department LD which is in charge of inspection and instituting prosecutions
勞工處能否發揮阻嚇及檢控的功能呢？
Can LD serve its function of acting as a deterrent and instituting prosecutions?
這是否一個合理的做法呢？
Is this a reasonable course of action?
說起也很淒慘，原來政府是用金錢來衡量一個人受屈的程度，這樣是否合理？
If we talk about this this is really pathetic . It turns out that the Government measures the extent to which someone is aggrieved in money terms . Is this reasonable?
是否真正秉持公義？
Is this really upholding justice?
政府白紙黑字回應張超雄議員，說會因為這樣而有額外開支。
The Government responded to Dr Fernando CHEUNG in black and white saying that additional expenses will be incurred on account of this
如果是這樣，警方是十分浪費我們金錢的。
If what it says is correct then the Police represent a great waste of our money
我也明白和理解這種做法，所以不會要求把它由6個月變為12個月或24個月。
I also understand the reason for such a practice so I would not demand that the period of 6 months be changed to 12 months or 24 months
第一個原因，是公司與僱員之間的合約已結束，如果在長時間後才進 行申索是沒有意義的，反而會令人損失更大，因為拿不到金錢。
The first reason is that since the contract between a company and an employee has ended if a claim is made only a long time afterwards it will be meaningless and even greater losses will be incurred because one cannot get the money back
能申索金錢來支持自己的生活才是最重要，所以道理就在這裏。
The most important point is to claim the money to support ones living so herein lies the reason
另外一個更重要的原因是這個我也理解破欠基金須向公司追討，如果遲了便無法追討，因為公司可能已經結業，所以我明白這個道理。
Another even more important reason is―and this I also understand―PWIF has to recover the money from the company concerned and if it is late it will not be able to recover the money because the company concerned may have already wound up so I understand this rationale
張超雄議員剛才提及一個更重要的觀點，便是不單24個月會浪費公帑，其實即使是12個月也可能會浪費公帑的，為甚麼呢？
Another even more important point raised by Dr Fernando CHEUNG is that it is not just setting the period at 24 months that would result in a waste of public funds rather even setting it at 12 months may also result in a waste of public funds . Why?
因為如果不能在12個月內蒐集足夠資料便須停止，這同樣也會浪費資源。
Because if everything must stop when sufficient information cannot be collected within 12 months this would also result in a waste of resources
就浪費資源而言，這是否公道呢？
Insofar as the waste of resources is concerned is this fair?
出現相同的現象，那麼為何不說12個月會浪費資源，而說24個月便一定會呢？
The same situation would arise so why is it not said that a 12 - month period will lead to a waste of resources but that a 24 - month period surely will?
主席，就着朱凱廸議員今次根據《基本法》第七十三條第五項及第七十三條第十項動議的議案，我和民建聯都不會支持。
President regarding this motion moved by Mr CHU Hoi - dick under Articles 735 and 7310 of the Basic Law the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong DAB and I will not support
姑勿論在《香港人權法案條例》的保障裏，究竟有沒有好像朱議員在議案措辭所說的保障，因為他所用的措辭是"受《香港人權法案條例》保障的資訊自由"。
Let us set aside whether the protection described by the wording in Mr CHUs motion really exists as one of protections provided for in the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance―because his wording is the freedom of information protected by the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance
其實，在《香港人權法案條例》裏，並沒有直接提及資訊自由的條文。
In fact the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance does not have an article directly mentioning freedom of information
我今天並不打算在這個問題裏展開相關的質疑或討論。
Today I do not intend to query about or deliberate on this issue
朱議員今次根據剛才我所提及《基本法》第七十三條第五項的條文和權力，希望能夠傳召律政司司長，第五項的條文是立法會"對政府的工作提出質詢"。
This time Mr CHU hopes to summon the Secretary for Justice in accordance with the provision and power found in Article 735 of the Basic Law which I have just mentioned . That provision is for the Legislative Council to raise questions on the work of the government
另外，《基本法》第七十三條第十項訂明，在我們行使對政府工作提出質詢的職權時，如有需要，可傳召有關人 士出席作證和提供證據。
In addition Article 7310 of the Basic Law stipulates that when we exercise the power and function in raising questions on the work of the government we can summon persons concerned to testify or give evidence as required
主席，剛才我所提及的《基本法》第七十三條第五項及第十項，我不知道過去曾否引用過，我沒翻查過紀錄，但印象中是極少極少引用。
President I do not know whether Articles 735 and 7310 of the Basic Law which I mentioned just now have ever been invoked . I have not checked the record but my impression is that they have rarely been invoked
大家可以看到，其實《基本法》第七十三條賦予立法會的權力，可說是十分廣泛和巨大，當中的權力包括我們可以向政府提出質詢，甚至傳召任何人士來到立法會席前作證及提供證據。
Everyone can see that the powers conferred by Article 73 of the Basic Law to the Legislative Council are indeed broad and huge including the power to raise questions to the government or even summon anyone to attend before the Council to testify and give evidence
今次朱議員引用《基本法》第七十三條，他要做的是甚麼？
What does Mr CHU want to do this time by invoking Article 73 of the Basic Law?
他希望問司長，就着資訊自由法，會否立法及何時立法。
He hopes to ask the Secretary for Justice whether and when legislation on freedom of information will be enacted
主席，其實我們是否真的需要引用《基本法》第七十三條來傳召司長來詢問這個問題？
President do we really need to invoke Article 73 of the Basic Law to summon the Secretary for Justice in order to ask this question?
立法會現時的機制是否不能解決？
Is it true that the current mechanism of the Legislative Council cannot solve this problem?
是否不能取得相關的資料？
Is it true that there is no way to obtain the relevant information?
其實，就着資訊自由法，如果大家真有細心跟進的話，大家可以看到，其實在2018年1月4日立法會政制事務委員會的會議當中，相關的政策局，我相信局長應該也在事務委員會的會議中，政府其實已提交過一份文件。
In fact regarding legislation on freedom of information if you have carefully followed up on this matter you can see that at the meeting of the Panel on Constitutional Affairs on 4 January 2018 the relevant bureau―I believe the Under Secretary should have attended the meeting too―had actually submitted a government paper
在這個項目大綱第十九條正正提到政府在報告裏，將會觸及有關"索取政府資料"的問題。
In this outline the paragraph on Article 19 precisely mentions that the Government will get to the issue of Access to Government information in the report
可以這樣說，在政制事務委員會裏，過去原來曾觸及這個問題。
We may say that this issue turns out to be one that has already been touched on by the Panel on Constitutional Affairs
我不知道我們的議員同事在這個相關的政制事務委員會當中有否嘗試跟進這個問題。
I do not know whether my colleagues have tried to follow up on this issue through that panel
細心想想，在立法會機制當中，除了政制事務委員會之外，我們還有沒有其他機制可以跟進？
Let us ponder whether we have mechanisms other than the Panel on Constitutional Affairs to follow up on this issue in the Legislative Council . We have oral question sessions written question sessions and Members motions sessions at Council meetings
然而，朱議員今次反而選擇傳召律政司司長來詢問這個問題，而不在昨天司長的上司，即行政長官來到立法會時發問。
However Mr CHU chose to summon the Secretary for Justice to ask the question instead of putting the question to her supervisor―ie the Chief Executive―when she came to the Council yesterday
她不用傳召，每月一次自動獻身來到立法會大會，出席新增的半小時短問短答環節，但我們的議會同事昨天卻不詢問這個問題。
She need not be summoned as she will automatically come to our Council meeting once a month to attend the newly added 30 - minute session for short questions and answers . But none of my colleagues asked the question yesterday
豈不是更簡單直接？
Would it not be simpler and more direct if you ask the Chief Executive?
但是，我們沒有利用這個機會，不要緊，我們接着還有很多機會，每月也有1次。
However no one seized that opportunity . But it does not matter because we will have many such opportunities and we will have it once a month
擁有這種權力，我們運用時當然也應該非常審慎，有權便應正確運用。
We possess this power on the one hand but on the other hand we should be very prudent in using it and use it properly
我們是否因為桌面有個"核按鈕"，便每次也要按一按呢？
Are we going to press the nuclear button every time we see it just because it is on the table?
我們是擁有這種權力，可以提出動議，但是否代表我們會因為一件小事便按下"核按鈕"呢？
We have this kind of powers indeed and we can move motions but does it mean we must press the nuclear button for a minor matter?
我十分希望香港立法會的議員同事能夠慎重處理、慎重運用我們的權力。
I hope very much that Members of the Legislative Council in Hong Kong can handle and use their powers in a prudent manner
另一方面，正如我剛才提及，其實這項議案措辭的第二點是要求司長就"目前各政府部門長期隱瞞公共資訊事宜，作證及提供證據"。
On the other hand as I have just mentioned the second point in the wording of the motion is to request the Secretary for Justice to testify or give evidence on matters related to the persistent withholding of public information by government departments at present
就着這項議案措辭，當中沒有具體內容可以告訴我們，究竟現在他想就甚麼事件要求政府交出甚麼文件。
Regarding this line of the motion there is nothing concrete that can tell us about what he wants . To be exact what documents on which matters does he want the Government to hand over?
現在的議案措辭是，他認為目前各個政府部門也有長期隱瞞的問題，所以要求政府交出文件。
The current wording of the motion says he thinks all government departments have a problem of withholding information for a prolonged period of time therefore he requests the Government to hand over documents
主席，這份議案措辭正如我們向法庭申請強制令一樣，現在朱議員來到法庭，要求法官頒布強制令，要求律政司司長交出一些文件，因為他認為有人隱瞞公共資訊。
President the wording in this motion looks exactly like the one when we need to apply for an injunction from the Court . At this moment Mr CHU has come to the Court to request the judge to issue an injunction in order to demand the Secretary for Justice to hand over documents because he thinks someone has withheld public information
如果是在法庭，法官是否批出一個強制令，便相當視乎議案措辭的內容是否適當。
If this motion was taken to the Court whether the judge would approve issuance of an injunction would depend very much on whether the content of the wording is appropriate or not
我們現在看到的議案措辭，即法官要考慮是否批出的這個命令，他就是在告訴大家，如果批出這個命令，便請司長交出各個政府部門長期隱瞞公共資訊事宜的文件，即甚麼文件呢？
The wording of the motion that we see―ie what the judge will see in order to consider whether to issue an injunction―is that he is telling everyone that if this order is approved he can request the Secretary for Justice to hand over documents on the issue of government departments withholding public information for a prolonged period of time . What documents are meant by these documents?
即哪個部門呢？
Which departments?
如果我們今天真的通過這項議案，朱議員便拿着法庭命令交給律政司司長，要求司長執行命令，究竟司長應該提交甚麼文件，才能符合法庭的命令呢？
If we were to let this motion pass today Mr CHU would have something like a court order in his hand which he would give to the Secretary for Justice and demand that it be executed . What on earth are the documents the Secretary for Justice must hand over in order to comply with the court order?
她要怎樣做，才能不違反立法會所通過的議案呢？
What does she need to do in order not to violate the motion passed by the Legislative Council?
主席，這一點非常重要，議員通過議案時，也必須非常負責任。
President this point is very important and when Members pass a motion they must do so in a very responsible manner
我現在看到朱議員的議案措辭，就正如很多律師所說的"fishing exercise"，是在釣魚，自己也不知道水底有甚麼，只是拋出魚竿漫無目的嘗試。
As I look at the wording of the motion by Mr CHU I think it looks like the fishing exercise as described by lawyers―he is fishing but he himself does not know what is in the water and all he does is to cast his fishing rod aimlessly to give it a try
他拋出魚竿容易，但他要求別人提供，卻很困難。
It is easy for him to cast his fishing rod but difficult for another person to provide what he wants
所以， 主席，如果議案措辭如此鬆散，我相信各位議員同事在考慮時，的確真的要非常小心。
Therefore President if the wording of the motion is as loose as this I believe that Members must be very careful when considering it
主席，按照《基本法》有關權力傳召司長，不論是作證或提供證據，都真正是非常、非常嚴肅的事情，如果要議員同事支持這項議案，朱議員的措辭必須準確、合理，而且必須是可以執行，但正如我剛才所說，朱議員所指的"各政府部門長期隱瞞公共資訊"，究竟是指哪些情況？
President it is a very very solemn matter indeed to summon the Secretary in accordance with the powers stipulated by the Basic Law whether to testify or give evidence . For Members to support this motion Mr CHUs wording must be precise reasonable and practicable . However as I have just said what exactly are the circumstances referred to by Mr CHU when he talked about the persistent withholding of public information by government departments?
我們從議案措辭看不到，那麼司長又如何作證、如何提供證據、如何出示朱議員所要求的相關文件呢？
We cannot see from the wording of the motion . As such how can the Secretary for Justice testify give evidence or show the documents requested by Mr CHU?
主席，引用《基本法》下的權力提出議案必須嚴肅，議案措辭也需要嚴謹，但正如我剛才提出的論述，我認為朱議員今次所提出的議案，既不是嚴肅地引用《基本法》第七十三條下的權力，也提出了一項極不嚴謹的議案措辭。
President invoking the powers under the Basic Law to propose a motion requires solemnity and the wording of the motion must be rigorous . As I said in my explanation I think the current motion by Mr CHU is neither a solemn use of the powers under Article 73 of the Basic Law nor one with rigorous wording at all
所以，今天我和民建聯將會反對這項議案。
For this reason the DAB and I will oppose this motion today
我可以告訴局長，這絕非好事。
I can tell the Secretary that the answer is absolutely no
問題便在於此，大家知道，目前的公營醫療服務實在是"僧多粥少"。
As we all know there is an excess of demand over supply for public health care services