「我離港前到過一間精神科醫院。當時有位病人禮貌地問,一個以作為世上最悠久民主政體而自傲的國家,如何能夠將此地交給一個政治制度非常不同的國家,且既沒諮詢當地公民,又沒給予他們民主的前景,好讓他們捍衞自己的將來。一個隨行同事說,奇怪,香港提出最理智問題的人,竟在精神科醫院。」彭定康 金融時報

“During a visit to a mental hospital before I left Hong Kong, a patient politely asked me how a country that prided itself on being the oldest democracy in the world had come to be handing over his city to another country with a very different system of government, without either consulting the citizens or giving them the prospect of democracy to safeguard their future. Strange, said one of my aides, that the man with the sanest question in Hong Kong is in a mental hospital.”Chris Patten Financial Times

Non Chinese literate friends, please simply switch to English Version provided by LOUSY Google Translation

Please participate in the unregistered demography survey of visitors at the right hand side bar. You are: ?

敬請參與在右下方的不記名訪客分佈調查問卷,你是: ?

Sunday, July 18, 2010

斌斌之爭

斌斌之爭



【明報專訊】私隱專員吳斌表示,如控告審計署長鄧國斌,他會用自己的金錢,但因對方用公帑打官司,他才打消念頭。

吳斌今早在電台節目中表示,鄧國斌言論是歧視長者的工作權。他自己接受任何批評,但鄧國斌的言論,令他感到不平。他強調,可用自己的錢打官司,但鄧國斌就用公帑。如他獲得勝利,公帑更要賠錢,所以打消了念頭。

《南華早報》周一報道,鄧國斌接受訪問時,指審計署令吳斌「捲起衫袖」(roll his sleeves up)做事,「公平點說,吳斌的確較以往努力,在過往3、4年,人們很少聽到他的名字,直至我們開始審計私隱公署……我雖然不大清楚,但他之前或將這份工作視為半退休工作(semi-retirement job),自審計報告發表後,他便開始就保護私隱高調發聲」。

吳斌昨日批評,鄧國斌的「半退休論」令人反感,是不尊重長者,「如果鄧國斌今年63歲,滿腔熱誠想服務社會,卻遭人說是半退休心態打工,他的心情會怎麼樣?……我今日做這份工作,拼勁遠勝過我當年為自己賺錢的年代!」愈說愈激動的他,更要求鄧國斌要向全香港長者公開道歉。

吳斌又指鄧國斌在沒有事實根據下,便人身攻擊他人,是違反「審計原則」,令審計署蒙羞,是「公務員之恥」,促請他向公務員道歉,「他是反面教材,其他官員不要學,他應閉門思過,以後說話應小心一些!」



【明報專訊】審計署去年發表報告炮轟私隱專員公署是「大花筒」後,近日引發兩大巨頭互罵。審計署長鄧國斌日前接受訪問時,再揶揄私隱專員吳斌處於「半退休工作」,只因審計署介入才積極工作。吳斌昨日召開記者會,反擊鄧國斌言論構成誹謗,本來上周已發出律師信,但因不想花費巨額公帑才打消念頭,但昨日就以嚴辭炮轟鄧國斌是「公務員之恥」、歧視老人。


鄧國斌透過秘書回應稱,已將律師信交由律政司處理,不作任何評論。


鄧國斌﹕信交律政司處理
「兩斌互罵」事件始於上周一的《南華早報》報道,鄧國斌接受訪問時,指審計署令吳斌「捲起衫袖」(roll his sleeves up)做事,「公平點說,吳斌的確較以往努力,在過往3、4年,人們很少聽到他的名字,直至我們開始審計私隱公署……我雖然不大清楚,但他之前或將這份工作視為半退休工作(semi-retirement job),自審計報告發表後,他便開始就保護私隱高調發聲」。


收回律師信 因不想浪費公帑
月底約滿離任的吳斌,昨趁公署發表年報,花上40分鐘高調反擊事件。他表示上周四本已向鄧國斌發出律師信,控告其言論構成誹謗,一旦勝訴會把賠償用作慈善用途,「我身邊的資深大律師朋友向我說,鄧國斌一定輸」。

但他稱由於鄧國斌將動用巨額公帑和他打官司,他卻不想浪費納稅人金錢,故決定撤回控訴。「如果他用自己錢和我打,我便會奉陪。」

指不尊重長者 促道歉
吳斌批評,鄧國斌的「半退休論」令人反感,是不尊重長者,「如果鄧國斌今年63歲,滿腔熱誠想服務社會,卻遭人說是半退休心態打工,他的心情會怎麼樣?……我今日做這份工作,拼勁遠勝過我當年為自己賺錢的年代!」愈說愈激動的他,更要求鄧國斌要向全香港長者公開道歉。

吳斌又指鄧國斌在沒有事實根據下,便人身攻擊他人,是違反「審計原則」,令審計署蒙羞,是「公務員之恥」,促請他向公務員道歉,「他是反面教材,其他官員不要學,他應閉門思過,以後說話應小心一些!」



【SCMP】Privacy Commissioner Roderick Woo Bun hit back strongly and publicly yesterday over what he said was a personal attack on him by Audit Commission director Benjamin Tang Kwok-bun.


審計多劃分為內部審計 internal audit 和 法定審計(依法審計) statutory audit, 後者是依據公司法的章程, 要求公司的帳目, 經有第三者審查核實。 至於近年來, 很熱門的"法證審計" forensic audit, 則偏重刑事欺詐, 揭發隱瞞實況等等方面的搜證舉證工作。


網上有位 Bittermelon 苦瓜兄的專欄 "苦中作樂", 因苦瓜兄是位 internal auditor, 不時發表專業文章, 再加上 Ebenezer 以便以撒兄"人算天算", 兄台也是位"痾秩佬"。各位多去溜覽, 更加容易明白, "審計"和"核數"的有關資料。


今次兩位阿斌SIR 嘈交, 真是失禮死人, "斌斌之爭" 開始於去年的審計報告, 但兩位斌斌以前有沒有結下私怨, 則不得而知。 吳斌去年啞忍沒有發難, 到今月即將約滿之時, 其中一位阿斌在南華早報再開口, 遂趁機起義, 吳斌說: "鄧國斌言論構成誹謗,本來上周已發出律師信,但因不想花費巨額公帑才打消念頭,但昨日就以嚴辭炮轟鄧國斌是「公務員之恥」、歧視老人。" 而鄧國斌透過秘書回應稱,已將律師信交由律政司處理,不作任何評論。


閒時在蛇竇討論, 好事之輩, 覺得"細斌"必須奉陪到底(鄧國斌"細斌"年齡應小於"大斌"也, 吳斌已屆退休之年故稱"大斌"。), 他把律師信交由律政司處理, 是企圖卸膊, 想釋事寧人。 這有損"審計署"威信, 之後 "審計署" 再何來"公信力"呢?


蛇竇一致認為, 今次曾政府的律政司要撐"細斌", 但"大斌"是曾特首委任的, 這方面要有技巧些!!!


伸延閱覽:
吳斌:不告鄧國斌免耗公帑雅虎新聞網
吳斌鄧國斌之爭谷歌新聞網
Privacy chief considered suit for libel over remarks by audit boss SCMP.COM
Bittermelon 苦瓜 苦中作樂 BLOGSPOT.COM
Ebenezer 以便以撒 人算天算 BLOGSPOT.COM



10 comments:

新鮮人 said...

雞毛蒜皮嘅嘢都話要告人,
仲要拖埋全港老人同公務員落水添,
學人哋話齋,
吳斌你係你,
你講嘅嘢唔代表全港老人噃,
無聊!

the inner space said...

要告就告, 臨時縮沙, 又推說:"可用自己的錢打官司,但鄧國斌就用公帑。如他獲得勝利,公帑更要賠錢,所以打消了念頭。"

今次, 律政司要捍衛審計署同鄧國斌, 大斌罵完又想甩身, 這是原則性問題, 應使即使!

兼要大斌陪賠償, 負堂費及律師費。

Haricot 微豆 said...

A Bun Fight, Hong Kong style:

Based solely on the info supplied in your article, I would like to make the following comments as an outsider:

1. The purpose of an external performance audit (not an internal audit, or an investigative forensic audit) is just that - to determine whether public resources have been used in an effective and efficient manner. Therefore, it is within Small Bun's mandate to pass judgement on the good/poor performance of Big Bun's organization, including the latter's leadership in the delivery of results, or lack thereof.

2. While, it is fair game for Small Bun to pass judgment and make recommendations and corrective measures/options in his audit report, he is NOT Big Bun's immediate boss and has no authority to evaluate the performance of the Privacy Commissioner as an employee. This might be confusing to some readers. But the CRITERIA for evaluating an employee's performance and the TERMS OF REFERENCE of an auditing exercise are very different.

3. Auditing report should be evidence-based. It's one thing to report poor performance based on analyzed data/info, but it's another to speculate Big Bun is "semi-retiring" while on the full-time job. It is therefore understandable why Big Bun feels he is being personally "attacked".

4. On the other hand, there is no info in the article to show Small Bun is discriminating against "old" people as a group. Big Bun does not represent seniors in Hong Kong and his demand for an apology in this regard appears groundless.

5. If Small Bun is not doing a good auditing job, he is accountable to his boss. Again, it is not up to Big Bun to demand Small Bun to make an apology to all public servants.

6. As a government employee, Small Bun has the right to request legal counsel assistance in dealing with litigations arising while carrying out his officially assigned duties (which I assume would include the interview during which he made the "unfortunate" statement). To avoid any perceived conflict of interest, Small Bun is wise NOT to engage his own departmental legal counsels to deal with the letter from Big Bun's lawyer.

7. The big boss of them both should intervene and stop this "Battle of the two Buns" being played out in the pubic domain.

Haricot 微豆 said...

Space:

I have deleted the last two submissions which are just duplications of my original comments.

Ciao !!

the inner space said...

Hari big brother, I have deleted the oboleted, I hope you wouldn't mind. Thank you for your reply, I have always learnt a lot from you.

the inner space said...

Hari big brother,
Let me furnish you with more information.

The audit commission of HK under the leadership of Mr. Benjamin Tang Kwok-bun stated that their audit extended to the evaluation of The "3 Es" i.e. Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness of auditees or value for money audit.

By the "3Es" my understanding the director has the liberty to express his view about Big Bun's performance.

The audit commission of HK is more like an Internal Audit Department within an organization of which they are helping the top management to oversee the 3Es within the organization. In the case of the HK GOVT that includes the OFFICE of Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data and the commissioner himself i.e. Mr. Big Bun and report the result to the Head of the GOVT plus the people of HK.



LINK: HK AUDIT COMMISSION includes Value for money Audit and,
OFFICE of Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data

Haricot 微豆 said...

Space: Thanks for the additional info :)

The Canadian Auditor General reports to Parliament to which she is accountable.

Final audit reports are made available to the public when they are released by the AG's Office. The AG might choose to interact with the public (media statements, news releases, website info, etc), but she is not "reporting" to the public by doing so.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/admin_e_41.html

the inner space said...

hari big brother, shall keep you posted!

Bittermelon said...

多謝您介紹我的blog.
講番呢單野,講真,如果唔係比人講中咗,點會咁勞氣要告人呀.
而且又關年紀大既公務員乜事?難明...

the inner space said...

苦瓜兄:兄台的審計報告,字字千金,兼且祇供少數閱讀。但貴處苦中作樂文章,卻是免費可讀而且公開的,當然值得推薦給各位網友分享!

近日被大斌高調,切查八達通新聞蓋過,再加上立法局的議員們,見機不可失,跟進抽水之餘,斌斌之爭已經被淡忘,加上大斌臨尾做返出好戲,最後應是不了了之!