戴啟思發個人聲明闡述出選原因：憂港未來一年風暴再臨
大律師公會本月中改選，10年以來首度出現競爭。再次角逐主席一職的公會前主席戴啟思今日(5日)發表個人聲明，稱對香港未來發展感到憂慮，又以天氣比喻現時的社會，形容「未來一年風暴將會來臨」(stormy weather probably lies ahead in the next 12 months)，故決定出選。
戴啟思在文中開首指出，從過去18個月發生的事所見，香港未來的發展在《基本法》下難以預測。他表示，當公眾因釋法或《基本法》執行時的法律基礎改變而感困惑時，會期望大律師公會表態。若事情符合《基本法》，大律師公會如實說，但當做法偏離《基本法》或存在問題，公會亦會發聲，並與持不同意見的人士作溝通。戴啟思續指，表達自由不應只在議事堂或私人會議內，而是應該公開地談論法治和憲法問題。
作為大律師公會主席候選人，戴啟思亦關心年輕大律師面對的情況。他說，會在現行機制中為年輕大律師尋找更多機會，讓所有繳交執業證書年費的會員感到金錢是用得其所。
聲明全文如下：
【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.
