戴启思发个人声明阐述出选原因：忧港未来一年风暴再临

大律师公会本月中改选，10年以来首度出现竞争。再次角逐主席一职的公会前主席戴启思今日(5日)发表个人声明，称对香港未来发展感到忧虑，又以天气比喻现时的社会，形容“未来一年风暴将会来临”(stormy weather probably lies ahead in the next 12 months)，故决定出选。

戴启思在文中开首指出，从过去18个月发生的事所见，香港未来的发展在《基本法》下难以预测。他表示，当公众因释法或《基本法》执行时的法律基础改变而感困惑时，会期望大律师公会表态。若事情符合《基本法》，大律师公会如实说，但当做法偏离《基本法》或存在问题，公会亦会发声，并与持不同意见的人士作沟通。戴启思续指，表达自由不应只在议事堂或私人会议内，而是应该公开地谈论法治和宪法问题。

作为大律师公会主席候选人，戴启思亦关心年轻大律师面对的情况。他说，会在现行机制中为年轻大律师寻找更多机会，让所有缴交执业证书年费的会员感到金钱是用得其所。

声明全文如下：

【Philip Dykes, SC - Personal Statement】

There is nothing predictable about Hong Kong’s development under the Basic Law except that it is unpredictable. This is clear from events happening in the last eighteen months.

I have been used to guiding the Bar through mild buffeting when I was Vice Chairman and Chairman ten or twelve years ago. I like to think that I handled myself creditably in that time. Certainly, other people thought that I did a reasonable job They believed that it is time that I should lead the Bar again because, using a nautical metaphor, stormy weather probably lies ahead in the next 12 months. So it is I offer myself as a candidate for election.

When the public is confused about the legal basis of changes made by the application or interpretation of the Basic Law they can expect the Bar to have a view that it will express that view in a way that is intelligible to the general public. If a measure appears to conform to the Basic Law the Bar will say so. If it appears to deviate or is problematic, it will also speak out and try and engage with bodies that hold different views. Just as freedom of expression is not a cloistered virtue that thrives only in the debating chamber or in private meetings, speaking out very clearly about rule of law and constitutional issues is something that simply must be done. With the aid of other members of the Bar Council, I will see that this is done.

It is almost a given that a candidate for the Chair expresses concern about livelihood issues affecting the Young Bar. There is only so much that can be done regarding levels of remuneration because most young barristers, apart from some very fortunate ones who can look to reaping the rewards of a first-rate legal education, have to begin by undertaking publicly funded work.

Rather than rely solely on persuading a parsimonious government increasing funds, I would like to explore what barristers can do for each other. I have asked around some young barristers and I have been told that very junior barristers feel that the training given to them to take up prosecution work and defence work in the magistrates’ courts is not adequate. If that is so, the Bar has to change it because poorly prepared barristers are no advertisement for the Bar. I would be also interested in relaxing the rules concerning barristers taking up other occupations.

As for the Bar as a whole, my duty is to it as a whole. Members who have not developed a specialised commercial or arbitration practice may feel that they are missing out on opportunities in the Mainland. I would hope to see whether opportunities for offering “cinderella” legal services can be pursued under existing arrangements. I would also hope to make sure that all members who pay the annual fee for a practising certificate get value for money and do not regard the fee as a kind of licensing fee.

These are my present concerns. If you think that I have overlooked some important matter which a new Bar Chairman simply must address, please get in touch with me.

Finally, whatever may be the result in the election, I thank you for providing the opportunity to persuade you that I would be a good leader for you all.