你和他說法律，他和你講道德；你和他講道德，他會和你說政治；你和他說政治，他就跟你講民意；你跟他講民意，他跟你耍流氓；你跟他耍流氓，他就跟你講法律！
Yes, you do not read it wrong. The title of this Editorial is in Chinese
characters. But I am going to write in
English. In case you cannot read Chinese
characters, do not expect me to explain them in English. To talk with you without engaging in any
meaningful discussion, or even not talking in a common language, is my purpose.
It is also the gist of the meaning of
the quote of the title. And, sadly, it
is now the norm of meetings and dialogs, and the root of conflicts.
When I studied law, I learnt this
adage: “When the facts are not on your side, argue about the law. When the law is not on your side, argue about
the facts. If both are not with you,
talk about the weather.” There were
different versions; they differed by how to handle when both the law and the
facts were not on your side. Those included
yelling like hell, or calling your opponents names, or pounding the table.
There is much wisdom in this
adage. It reminds students and lawyers
that there are two major components in defending a case: the facts and the law.
You do not need to attack on both. You just need to poke a hole on either. It is about defense tactics. Pound on favorable points and avoid harms. Talking irrelevance might also distract
jurors.
However, I am smart enough to
realize the true beauty of the adage. After
all, I am not a lawyer and court room strategies are not really vital to me. The most important point is to know that there
exists such a tactic and to recognize it when someone else is practicing it. See? If
you are the prosecution, you need to keep on tract and counteract with what is
on your side. But it is the judge who
matters most. He needs to keep his mind
clear and not to be distracted by dramatic presentations. The whole picture should always be in his
mind.
It is perfectly acceptable and in
fact good practice for a defense lawyer to pound on whatever he finds fit and
of benefit to the defendant. There is
always the judge or the jury to decide. However,
it is not so desirable when you encounter such tactics in meetings. The purpose of holding a meeting is to check
on progress and more importantly, to make decisions. Therefore it is essential to have “meaningful”
discussions on related issues. It is irritating
and disgusting to encounter people holding on such tactics. Those of the lesser evil would try to lure you
for a blanket mandate to work on something. The usual strategy is to talk endlessly on the
objective of the project, such as how important it is to treat diabetes, or how
primary care can be the solution for our health care system. Details on how to achieve such objective is
never proposed or discussed. Direct
inquiry on any substance on implementation will be met with circumferential referral
to the objective again, and again, and again. These people are referred to as of lesser evil
because they are not in power. They can
continue their oral diarrhea as long as they wish. You just have to keep alert, and to keep
healthy so as not to be out-lived by them. Of course in the mean time, a significant
portion of your precious life is ruined by them.
Of greater evil are those in
power using such non-engaging strategy. When
they are caught acting ultra vires, they talk about the weather. I have met such greater evil more and more
commonly in recent years. Some of them
reiterate how holly the objectives are. Some
of them play judges and declare that they are legitimate to do so. Most of them fall into a pattern as described
by the title of this editorial. Literally
it starts with the law. When you
challenge them with the law, they preach ethics. When you reason in ethics, they go into
politics. When you talk about politics,
they refer you to public opinions. When
there are public opinions, they play dirty. When you go extreme, they have the law against
you. I wonder if there are training
courses on such tactics.
You have no way out. You cannot ignore them, as there are wrongs to
rectify. There exist formal and official
ways for redress. But most of them are
expensive and time consuming. Being in
power means that they are resourceful. They
can easily drag on and worn you out, using your money in most of the time. They have the manpower, from secretariat to
civil servants, to write and to fight.
In the past, we did see people in
power resigned when there were uproars. They
felt shameful. Nowadays, most of those
in power (any power) have attended the non-engaging-tactic-training-course. When challenged with ethics, they have no room
to feel shameful. They need to
non-engage you with politics. Thus, they
are either correct politically, or they will tell you that it is more difficult
to stay than to resign.
I have identified the root cause
for dysfunction meetings, corrupted boards and councils, and the increasing
violence in the society. I have no
solution to it. Readers can either alert
yourselves with the above-mentioned tactics, or you can go and find out where
to enroll in a training course on it.
(Source: HKMA News July 2015)
