Skip to main content

罗生门遇到司马昭 疯律师激傻律师公会 司法精英何在?


我国法律和司法界最近很热闹,不过从他们的表现看来,这群被社会人士认为的精英份子,恐怕我们要对他们大打折扣了。难怪律师这个专业,现在已经无法名列新加坡10大收入最高的工作了。当然,除了律师外,医生也被排挤在10大之外#

难怪,在这起罗生门对上司马昭的事件中,医生也要凑上一脚。

早报718日的报道:
《前天诉辩双方的律师针对后港区补选案件总结陈词后,受律师公会委托以联系拉维和其精神医生冯顺龙的王少鸿律师,在内堂把拉维的医生检验报告交给法官皮莱。该报告指出,拉维被诊断出躁郁症复发,病情极有可能影响他的专业能力,目前不适宜执行律师工作。》
躁郁症是一种精神病,严重的话也会发疯发癫,当然,一旦病情发作,就不适合从事律师的工作。

律师,医生都是专业人士,他们的建议,论述,行为,可以影响法律,司法的公正,影响法官的判决。因此,这些社会精英的行事作为,除了要有精英的素质外,更要有正义感,良心和良知了。

这后一点,很难下判断。读圣贤书的人不少,但是,行圣贤之道的人,却不多。人各有志,我们实在不能强人所难。

因此,我们只能谈谈法律精英的素质。看到以下的标题,的确令人吓一跳:

律师公会澄清:拉维医药报告提呈法院 理事会成员之前不知情 (早报, 718日)

理事会成员之前不知情,会长当然也不知情。手下做事,上头不知道。如果,这是一个合同,这个合同算不算数。如果,这是一个外汇或者股票交易,赢了我认账,输了我不认人,可以吗?如果如此,好多大国际银行,都不需要为手下员工的错误决定而负责,他们在外汇交易上,损失几亿,都可以不认账了,那该多好。我们的雷曼迷你债券也可以不用认账了,可以拿回本钱了,真好呀!

看看律师公会的声明怎么说:

《不过,律师公会会长王明明高级律师昨晚发出文告澄清,王少鸿律师星期天接到冯顺龙医生的通知,知道拉维的病情。结果他自己决定把从冯顺龙医生处获得的信息呈交给法官。  王明明认为,虽然这是王少鸿个人的决定,但他的出发点是好的。(早报 718日)》
到底王少鸿律师要负责,还是,律师公会要负责。是的,“他的出发点是好的”,但是,谁要负责?如果,欧巴马手下的将军发了一枚核弹头,谁要负责,将军还是欧巴马?难怪,新加坡的部长不用为逃马事件负责,当然,律师公会也不必为手下的‘好的出发点’而负责。地铁公司被罚2百万,陆路交通管理局和政府收钱,当然也是好的出发点。

如果,王少鸿是个人决定,他上的了法庭吗?他要有一个身份,没有律师公会的代表身份,他如何在法庭上说上话。

我们的律师精英,竟然是这么想问题。或许,这不是素质问题,而是品格问题。看看邻国马来西亚的律师公会,或许,他们在素质和收入上都没有我们的精英来得高,但是,在据理力争方面,却是可以抬头做人。

不只律师如此,我们的法官也是如此,或者,最少我们的总检察署也是如此想问题。

同一天,早报的另一则新闻:
《总检察署强调,藐视法庭的法律之所以存在,是为了维护公众对司法公正的信心。
  它昨天发表文告指出,对司法不公的指责会打击民众对制度的信心,而法官很多时候无法对诸多的指责做出回应,因此必须通过法律使民众对司法公正的信心不至于被种种指控动摇。》
总检察署认为,法官无力,“无法对诸多的指责做出回应”,因此,‘藐视法庭的法律’有其必要性。不知道,包青天是否同意这个说法,包公审理案件,会害怕“无法对诸多的指责做出回应”吗?清者自清,我们的总检查署实在是太为法官着想,害怕他们被人指责,有口难辨,因此,要有一个法律来保护他们,同时,也警告他人,不要藐视法庭。

从律师公会,总检察署,再到法官,这些精英的素质和自信都到哪里去了?搞法律的人,当然要对法制有信心,是否有理,有论据,当然要看个人的本事有多少,个人素质不同,立论也就不同,结局当然也不同。如果是真理,为何要设这么多保护网,保护律师,检察官,法官呢!

因此,我们只好继续罗生门,也只有罗生门,我们才看不到司马昭。把司马昭藏在罗生门里面,加多一层保护网,不是什么都看不清楚了吗?

但是,保护网越多,律师司法界的素质也就很难提上来。难怪,精英们都改走金融之路,赚钱容易又高薪,据理力争不关己。这样的恶性循环,律师,医生的素质恐怕又要再下降了,同时,保护网又要增加了。

素质差,再加上品性不好,的确是需要多一些保护网的。但是,老子又说:天网恢恢,疏而不漏。保护网即使再多,最后也保护不了败坏司法,破坏公理,扭曲法律的人。因为,天理难容。

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

EBRC objectives: Stop “Out of Aljunied”, Stop SDP Breakthrough and “Negative-Asset” Ministers.

First of all, we have to congratulate the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee for creating more competitions, especially, multi-cornered competitions in the East. When making changes, EBRC aims to achieve 3 goals: To prevent “Out of Aljunied” for Workers’ Party.  This is the most important objective. To prevent Singapore Democratic Party making any breakthrough in the North and Central.   To look for a solution to retire “negative-asset” ministers or reduce PAP damages. From the reported claims from different political parties, we will expect multi-cornered contests not only in single constituencies but also in group representative constituencies. The PAP hopes to have a repeat of 2011 Presidential Election. Then Tony Tan won the Presidency when he got only 35% of the votes, a narrow win.However, a win is still a win. He did in even in the very last minute, after recounts of votes.    How to achieve multi-cornered contests? By i...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...