林慧思調查報告可以有什麽結果?

梁振英下令要教育局就林慧思事件交出調查報告,已經了做出不可逆轉的愚蠢舉動。下來可以做的就是推斷一下調查報告出來後會帶來什麽影響,政府與反政府人士可以有什麽行動。

調查報告可以提出幾個結論:1)對林慧思不作任何處置;2)取消林慧思的教員註冊;3)要求學校自行處分;4)提議一些輕微的處分。四者有不同的政治意義。

先說可能性1),不對林慧思作任何處置就不會挑起新一波的反政府情緒,同時也可以顯示教育局的公務員是獨立處事,不會與政治拉上關係。但這樣的決定就會與行政長官的意願相衝突,等於是向公衆説明梁振英是演了一場鬧劇,是在落他的面。除非是負責撰寫報告的人員,包括吳克儉,不打算幹下去,否則教育局不可能提出這個結論。就算是内部提出了,通過的機會也不大。

如果他們提出取消林慧思的教員註冊的話,他們等於是要趕絕一個小學教師。現在社會輿論大多一面倒支持林慧思,又或者認爲警察執法不當,就算立場中立如我(林慧思是一件無關痛癢的小事;警察在這件事上沒有執法的依據),也會極力反對政府用行政手段,爲了一件小事去趕絕一個小學教師。因此,這樣的報告一出必然會引來極大的反彈。反對派政黨當然不會放過這個機會了。除此之外,教協也必然爲此發動大規模行動。我們假設報告需要3-6個月,加上答辯、上訴等過程,有可能需要總共8-10個月時間完成整個程序。那個時候就是戴耀廷要發動「佔領中環」的時間,又加上學校差不多放暑假,如果教協發動教師大罷工,與「佔領中環」合流,政府應付「佔領中環」的難度將會大大增加。也就是說,取消林慧思的教員註冊等於是政府為反政府人士提供大炮去攻擊自己。如果政府真的這樣做,這就有可能觸發反23條以來最大規模的示威行動,也可能是壓倒這個政府的最後一根稻草。

政府會否提出這樣的結論,又取決於幾個内部因素,主要是教育局人員的政治智慧、良心、對梁振英的忠誠度、多看重視自己的飯碗。如果教育局對梁振英非常忠誠度並非常重視自己的飯碗,他們就可以提出這樣的結論,為主子保住顔面。其實只要他們不考慮職責以外的政治問題,他們都可以提出這樣的結論,反正政治後果是由梁振英與吳克儉自己承擔,他們聼令行事幾乎不需要負任何責任。梁振英已經沒有辦法收回命令,因此事情取決於吳克儉有多大的政治智慧,在政府内有多大的影響力,對屬下有多大的影響力,會否嘗試將損害減到最少。

因此,假如教育局中人不滿意上頭發下這項政治任務,吳克儉將會成爲中間的磨心,兩面不是人。如果教育局中人稍有良心,他們可以以拖延的方式抵制這項命令,讓吳克儉受責難。如果他們有這樣的内部矛盾,只要能對教育局有效的施加壓力,從而讓吳克儉辭職並不是不可能的事。梁振英政府到底要怎樣執政,可以找誰來收拾這個爛攤子,將會是一個極大的難題。就算他們沒有内部矛盾,吳克儉也要為報告結果負責,到時矛頭也會集中在他身上。假如教師工潮爆發,或示威規模有23條時的大,他不下臺就解決不了事件。

因此,如果吳克儉想保住飯碗,不想夾在中間,他可以提出折衷方案。梁振英一覺睡醒,冷靜過來,也可能發現他已犯了重大錯誤,會嘗試找下臺堦,這時折衷方案就會成爲他們的最佳選擇。如果他們真能冷靜下來,第3和第4個結論就會是最有吸引力的方案。第3個結論是將問題踢給下一家,讓學校自行作出處分。如果處分嚴重引起反彈,壓力就會集中於學校而不在教育局身上。吳克儉可以出來卸責說教育局指提出一些建議,學校怎樣做是它自己的事。但這中間有個變數,就是校長的取態。假如教育局的建議處分較爲嚴厲,校長不同意,他可以對外說教育局決定不公正,並對學校施壓影響學校正常運作。他可以在學校營造支持林慧思的行動,與反政府人士結合,反將教育局一軍。教育局會就偷雞不成蝕把米。

就算校長接受教育局的處分建議,學校也有可能成爲支持與反對林慧思者雙方的戰場,反政府人士也可以利用這機會聚集力量。要將損害減到最少,教育局必須提出一些的無關痛癢的「處分」,讓學校與林慧思覺得接受了也不會有任何關係。他們可以提議讓林慧思上一些情緒管理課程,讓學校提供支持與監察。沒有實際的處分,反政府人士就沒有口實利用報告發動示威;就算有示威,他們的力量也會大幅減弱。

因此,綜合以上,選擇第4個結論會對政府與林慧思本人都最為有利。如果吳克儉與梁振英能冷靜下來想問題,他們也應作出這樣的選擇。剩下來的問題是,他們到底有沒有這樣的智慧?如果有,梁振英就根本不會下令要調查。或許時間和教育局其他人員的介入會讓他們想清問題。所以,我認爲教育局提出第4個結論-提出輕微處分的建議,讓學校執行-的機會最大,其次是讓學自行做出處分。取消林慧思教員註冊的機會很微,而不作任何處置根本就不可能。

This entry was posted in 策略, 政治與經濟 and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 則回應給 林慧思調查報告可以有什麽結果?

  1. Bill 說:

    Haha, I have to disagree with your conclusion this time though your analysis is very thorough. Obviously, Leung ordered the report with the sole intention of pacifying the irate sentiment of the police. It was only a tactic overplayed. Leung has no intention of embroiling himself in this murky water. He has better things to do. He just came out to say something instead of flexing his muscle.

    I predict nothing would happen to Ms Lam if the school has already decided how to handle her. The decision of the school if already made, will not be affected by this further order of report by Leung.

    Here comes my reasons. First, the Chief Secretary and other staff in the inner circle will dissuade Leung from taking any action at all. The Permanent Secretary for Education will simple compile a report stating what Ms Lam said in the incident and then ask the school what action the school has taken and the past appraisals of Ms Lam in the school. Second, the Government can only consider refusing to register or revoking Ms Lam’s teacher registration. The law does not provide any power for the Government to take out any disciplinary suggestion or actually initiate disciplinary action against Ms Lam. No attempt should be made by the Government to pressurize the school to take action against Ms Lam. It is not only a matter politically unwise to do so. It will be ultra vires for the Government to make any such suggestion. If the school has already dealt with Ms Lam before Leung ordered the report, any new punishment will attract public outcry. If the Government makes any disciplinary suggestions to the school, the suggestions will be subject to judicial review.

    In short, the Government can only de-register Ms Lam or take no action at all. Taking no action should be the most sensible way out. Leung will not lose face. The Permanent Secretary will eventually write an open letters to all teacher reminding them to set good examples for students. The Permanent Secretary will thank teachers for their hardwork and for speaking out for a righteous cause then condemn the use of vulgar language and inappropriate behaviour in public which will tarnish the image of teachers. If the Government does not know how to write the report and the letter, I am available any time with a substantiate remuneration.

    • 山中 說:

      The problem is with the report and what it is going to say. If no action is taken, then it defeats the purpose of Leung issuing such order. If the school was going to discipline Lam anyway, Leung issuing an order would just mess things up.

      The report can making recommendations and/or setting some conditions to allow Lam to atone for her breach of conducts, for without such, the report is entirely meaningless. If it was taken to court, it could set a precedent since the ordinance does not say much about the procedure. It could go either way since the court can say Department of Education’s power to propose certain disciplinary actions/remedies, i.e. executive power, is implied by the law, because the Permanent Secretary can consider the issue of professional ethics.

      The point being, without Leung opening his big mouth, things could have gone rather smoothly: they could just let Permanent Secretary cancel the registration swiftly or let the school does its own thing. Now the report is standing in their way by filling in the details.

      If the Permanent Secretary did what you suggested, then it’s a slap on Leung’s face. While it is possible, I don’t think it is probable.

      • annwei Zhao 說:

        我較同意山中的意見,以梁振英好認叻的個性,他很難接受在大庭廣眾係威係勢話要跟進之後無野講,多數都係好似告信報單野咁攪個羅生門式下台階之後不了了之。

      • Bill 說:

        I believe the Permanent Secretary did not want to slap Leung but Leung himself has slapped his own face already. What should be done is to let the matter quiet down and then when no one asks, the matter will just close without anyone noticing. If asked, Leung can say he has seen the report and feels that Ms Lam has been appropriately dealt with by the school.

        If Leung is advised legally, he should know there are only 2 options, either de-register Lam or take no action. Then he would fathom the better of the 2 “evils". I am sure he would give it a pass.

        If the law clearly stipulates the reasons for refusal/cancellation of registration without anything else, I don’t think the court can interpret the law to include the other disciplinary measures. If I have the power to interpret, I would interpret in the way I have above. The Permanent Secretary can of course consider professional ethics etc in deciding whether to refuse/cancel Lam’s registration and nothing else. Let’s wait and see. How about another cappuccino?

        • 山中 說:

          I would agree if there was no investigative report; the report changes everything. I’m putting myself in Ng’s shoe and see how I can please three demanding mistresses at the same time, and if I were him, I would definitely get creative. The “recommendation" would be the result of such creative effort, and it allows you have the cake and eat it too. Since the “discipline action" is minor and reasonable enough, Lam would not create a fuzz about it, so she would not take it to court. Furthermore, I don’t think Leung is going to take it lying down this time.

          Now, I don’t know if people from the government read this blog. If they do, I can guess what they are going to say to Leung. I might have already influenced the outcome. We are dealing with a some kind of a Schrodinger’s Cat problem here.

          Sure another cup of cappuccino, why not?

  2. Bill 說:

    annwei,

    It is always wise to side with montwithin. You stand a better chance of winning.

  3. L 說:

    Thank you for both Mountwithin ‘s and Billˊs analysis. A sane government should make no further comment on Ms Lam’s incident. But as we can see from the news these days, I have doubt on his state of mind. The report should mention nothing about the chastisement, which may be subject to judicial review, as said by Bill. However, whether EDB will impose any pressure on the school is another matter. It may be that long before the release of the report some EDB officials express their concern to the school frequently 你地點樣處理林老師單嘢呀?Can the school reply by“We are not going to do anything”? The school relies on EDB for studentsˊplacement and fund! If Ms Lam is a senior teacher, she may get demoted. If the school decides to sack her, though it is in breach of due procedure as required in the employment contract (Several times of warning should be issued beforehand), it is hard for Ms Lam to bring it to the court if Mr Ngˊs report also suggests that she has disgraced the profession seriously.

    When Mr Ng has to release the report, he can have his hands clean while claiming that appropriate measures have been taken by the school already. In this case, it will not only avoid offending schools(supposedly should be able to make personnel decisions school-based), it will also set an example to teachers: don’t get involved into politics before OC.

    Well… just hope that I have thought too much.

    L

    • Bill 說:

      It is normal for the district education officer’s to casually enquire from the school its way of handling Lam. I suppose it is within their duty to do so with or without Leung’s open request. The request itself has already brought about wide criticisms. If Leung does not feel regret about making the request and still wants to press on, he is digging his own grave for his own impending demise.

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / 變更 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / 變更 )

Facebook照片

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / 變更 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / 變更 )

連結到 %s