外傭案的一點愚見

菲傭爭居港權申請資格先贏一仗，普羅大眾嘅反應係又嬲又憂心又唔甘心。

以一個普通市民嘅角度諗，嘩大佬，你又唔係咩優才，只係勝在人工平先請你嚟啫。依家仲要比埋居港權你(有D市民誤以為案件講嘅係菲傭有冇居港權，實情係菲傭有冇居港權嘅申請資格)，咁咪又要比最低工資？！分分鐘你來香港蹺埋雙手乜都唔做，攞綜援，申請公屋，仲申請埋菲律賓一家大細(連埋出左名唔做野既菲律賓老公)嚟香港，要香港人養埋你，點掂呀？！咩話，政府打定輸數？！拿拿聲人大釋法 K.O.左佢啦。

老實講，第一次聽到菲傭JR呢件事，我第一個感覺都係負面，唔係呀嘛，香港已經夠多人，仲要再多D？仲要唔係咩優才。

我有咁嘅睇法，係因為我根本未了解成件事，就只憑自己嘅感覺去判斷。後來，睇多左有關嘅報導，同朋友討論，甚至有次食飯嘅時候聽我爸爸同未來奶奶辯論，都引發左我更多思考，最終令我對件事有完全唔同嘅睇法。

冇錯，從社會大眾嘅角度出發，菲傭絕對唔係我地想輸入嘅人口。無論用咩方法都好，總之令到佢地嚟唔到，就係最perfect。

但係，大家有冇諗過，香港之所以仲有文明，仲有一個相對穩定、令人有安全感嘅社會，仲未100%(不過都可能有60-70%)變成大陸，其中一個最主要嘅因素，就係我哋相對地仲有法治。

法治，就係依法管治。法例係點寫，就係點判，唔可以忽然有唔係法官嘅人走出來否定法律，或者隨時根據自己/部分人嘅意願去adjust。所以，法治唔係民意，冇得話因為民意想點判就點判。

我明白香港人情感上嘅preference，但係要小心嘅係，我哋唔可以因為對一件事嘅情感，就違背理智，只著重眼前，而漠視長遠嘅影響。

一直以來，香港人對釋法二字都好敏感，印象中香港人係唔想見到釋法呢件事。但係今次菲傭案，我竟然聽到有人話希望人大快d釋法，政府最好連官司都唔好打，公帑都慳返。

呢一種輸打贏要嘅心態其實好危險。如果我哋唔想見到一D野發生，就繞過法庭，揾人大釋法，今日可能好快咁解決左件事，迎合左民意，大家都好HAPPY，就只有菲傭唔HAPPY (反正我地唔CARE)。但係，試下唔好只集中一件事去睇，而係諗得長遠D，咁樣去解決一件事，對香港整體嘅法治精神，有咩長遠嘅影響？假如他日又有另一件事，關乎所有香港人嘅利益，需要法庭去判決，但人大喺法庭處理之前，又自己走出來釋法，而個結果係我地唔想要既又點呢？凡事一開先例，第二次第三次就變得好理所當然。咁樣你仲會唔會信香港仲有法律？你會唔會怕有一日你根據法律去行使你嘅權利時，會忽然有人走出來同你講，條LAW嘅意思唔係咁，你唔駛問法庭喇，法庭都唔夠我大。到時，你會唔會返轉頭要求依法公平審訊？

所以，對呢件事，我嘅睇法係，交俾法庭決定，如果法庭認為菲傭有權申請居留權，咁咪尊重法庭判決，要怪嘅話，只能怪我地基本法寫得唔夠清晰。但至少我可以肯定嘅係，香港社會係依法辦事，法律面前，菲傭和港人是平等的。今日李少光走出來，話唔會考慮尋求釋法，但會向CFA上訴，我覺得係最好嘅處理方法。到時無論CFA點樣判，我地都應該坦然接受。

林官嘅判詞，頭幾段就講出左呢單案帶出來最重要嘅一點，值得大家深思。

"3.  The court respects the freedom of expression of our citizens. At the same time, public discussions on the case often go beyond the legal issues which the court can properly resolve in the litigation. Again this is not surprising since the socio-economic and political implications of a particular outcome necessarily transcend the legal analysis of the issues before the court.

4.  But it is important that such public discussions should not be allowed to confuse the proper remit of the adjudicative function of the court in the case itself. In the performance of his judicial duty, a judge should always focus on, and only focus on, the legal merits of the issues which he or she has to determine."


5.  In the light of the public attention drawn to this case and the intensity with which the question of right of abode for foreign domestic helpers have been addressed at various quarters in the public arena, it is right that I should state clearly the nature of the judicial process at the outset. As mentioned, I can quite understand why this case generates so much public interest. I have no intention of stopping people from having discussion on the topic based on their own perspectives. However, what I should not allow to happen is to let such discussion influence this court in the process of judicial adjudication. Unlike the political process, the judicial process is not subject to any lobbying. It is important that judges are able to perform their judicial function independently, impartially and fearlessly. Our judicial oath requires judges to serve the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region conscientiously, dutifully, in full accordance with the law, honestly and with integrity, safeguard the law and administer justice without fear or favour, self-interest or deceit.

6.  I say these not because I feel any pressure in the present case. As far as I am aware, the public discussions so far represent different views on the topic held by different persons and none of them seek to influence this court in the judicial process. But I believe it is opportune that this court should reiterate what I said in the preceding paragraphs as the independence of the Judiciary is fundamental to the confidence in our administration of justice. Therefore, it is important for the general public to understand that this judgment is concerned exclusively with the legal merits of the Applicant’s arguments. It is NOT a judgment on whether as a matter of social policy FDHs should be given the right of abode. Nor does this court have any power to rewrite Article 24(2)(4). This court’s duty is to construe the Article and apply it in accordance with its true meaning."