既定程序文化 淪為官場醬缸

<轉載自2018年4月17日 明報 社評>

今年2月，警員在粉嶺公路被質疑利用市民車輛，截停涉嫌違例七人私家車，未幾，受影響車主接獲警方發出的「擬檢控通知書」，由於事態發展不合情理，使這宗事件重新引起關注。「警方的葫蘆賣什麼藥」？不單涉事車主，也是許多市民的疑問。事件發生已經兩個多月，警方須盡快交代事態性質和善後措置，讓市民判斷涉事警員和警方是否處理恰當。

車主遵令做人肉路障 卻接「擬檢控通知書」

此事發生經過，根據運輸及房屋局書面回覆立法會的說法，是當日有交通警員追截一輛違例車輛，「當私家車駛至近粉嶺港鐵站時，失控撞向前方車輛，釀成連環相撞，導致私家車及其前方三部車嚴重損毀，一輛警察電單車亦損毀，三名市民及一名交通警員受傷，私家車的司機及乘客均傷重死亡」。受影響車主指稱事發時因為前方有交警亮起警示燈，其他車輛相繼收慢並停下，惟高速駛至私家車收掣不及而發生連環車禍，運房局文件對此沒有直接觸及，只是引述警方表示，警員會視乎實際情况，採取適當行動，拘捕嚴重違例駕駛者，云云。

這宗事故，受影響車輛和車主在什麼情况下捲入，十分重要。車主所說現場警員的處理，實際是要他們做「人肉路障」，以阻截交警追捕的私家車，設若車主所說屬實，則受影響車主純屬無辜涉禍，則事態涉及警員以其他車輛阻截高速違例車輛，是否恰當，成為事件關鍵。2009年，警員在觀塘繞道以市民車輛排陣，阻截懷疑參與非法賽車車輛，警方飽受批評之後，當時的警務處長就此道歉，並修訂《警察通例》，列明警員追截車輛時，無論任何情况下均不可截停其他私人車輛阻路，除非警員相信目標車輛帶來的風險，遠超徵用私人車輛阻礙道路所造成的風險，才有理據採取有關「極端措施」。

今次粉嶺公路事件，警方對利用私人車輛阻截違例私家車，是否符合《警察通例》，並未交代，惟當日遵從交警警示燈慢駛或停下來、乃至車輛被撞毀並受傷的車主，卻接獲警方的「擬檢控通知書」，按一般解讀，警方此舉是按一般交通意外事故處理，並未考慮「人肉路障」因素。涉事車主被動協助警員阻截違例私家車，自己的車輛損毁並受傷了，卻被檢控而官司纏身，從任何角度審視都絕對不合理，雖然警務處長表示此乃按「既定程序」處理，不一定檢控相關人士云云。不過，警方發言人則說發通知書其中一個目的是「保障事主」，讓他們及早考慮抗辯及記錄事件過程。

警方發言人所說「目的」，顯然並非「既定程序」那麼簡單；另外，按已知情况而言，當日受影響車主被執勤警員利用「過橋」，以阻截高速違例車輛；現在警方發出「擬檢控通知書」，是否再利用受影響車主「過橋」，掩飾當日涉事警員處理不當，值得關注。究竟是什麼狀况，警方應該盡早澄清和交代。

既定程序變相包庇 成庸官劣吏護身符

按「既定程序」處理，歷來是政府施政失誤的擋箭牌，官員犯錯誤之後，都以此脫身，諉過程序規定，結論都是「有改善空間，而官員無錯」。市民不會相信官員永遠正確，事實上，在既定程序以外，官員遇事，經常也拿出「酌情權」為護身符。警方對受影響車主發出擬檢控通知書，只要稍有常識的人都知道不合情理，問題是既定程序之外，警方竟然未想到還有酌情權，容許他們酌情處理，避免被指不合情理、甚至揶揄為「神經病」；大概警方迷信於「既定程序」一抓就靈，只是此事近乎荒誕，以至陷於被動景况。

警方就擬檢控「人肉路障」車主的錯誤，祭出「既定程序」護身符，這是官員處事失當、甚或失職的最新事例，南丫島海難、鉛水事件涉事官員，都躲在既定程序之後而免遭處分，甚至政府高層也藉此「包庇」犯錯官員。政府事務紛繁，處事須有規有矩，設若沒有既定程序供官員依循，各自發揮之下，結果必然是亂套。不過，踐行「既定程序」，卻使庸官劣吏無往而不利，施政素質低劣，已經從諸多失政弊端顯露無遺，若施政不能擺脫既定程序覊絆，良好管治只是空談。這是警方處理粉嶺公路事件折射出來的官場一面。

The culture of blaming standard procedure is corroding good governance

LAST February the police were accused of using vehicles of citizens to block a suspect seven-seater car on Fanling Highway. Shortly afterwards, affected vehicle owners were served with notices of intended prosecution by the police. Given the ridiculousness of the development, the incident has again aroused public concern. "What are the police thinking?" This is a question asked by not only the affected car owners but also many citizens. It is more than two months since the Fanling Highway incident. The police should provide an explanation as soon as possible about the nature of the incident and what was done to remedy the situation to allow the public to judge whether the police officer in question (as well as the Police Force) handled the incident appropriately.

Regarding the Fanling Highway incident, the police have not provided an explanation as to whether the use of private vehicles to block a suspect car was in accordance with the Police General Orders. In the incident, the vehicle owners had, in compliance with the instructions of the traffic police as signalled by the warning light, slowed down or stopped their vehicles. The vehicles were then smashed, their owners injured. The owners of the vehicles have recently been served with notices of intended prosecution by the police. Such a development is absolutely unreasonable regardless of the angle from which one looks at it. Even though the Commissioner of Police said that it was standard procedure and did not necessarily lead to prosecution of the concerned parties, the spokesperson of the Police Force said one of the purposes of the notice was to "protect the concerned parties" — so that they might consider how to defend themselves — and to record what had happened promptly.

The so called "purpose" stated by the spokesperson of the Police Force was obviously not something as simple as "standard procedure". Based on what is known, police officers on duty "took advantage of" the concerned vehicle owners when trying to block a speeding suspect car. Now, they have been served with notices of intended prosecution. Are the police exploiting these owners again to cover up their inappropriate actions? This is something that merits concern.

"Standard procedure" has often been used by the government as an excuse for whatever blunder it has committed. When government officials commit mistakes, they are able to get away by blaming "standard procedure". However, apart from standard procedure, government officials have also often turned to their power to "exercise discretion" for protection whenever they are in trouble. Anyone with some common sense knows that it is unreasonable for the police to serve the vehicle owners with notices of intended prosecution. Why have the police not thought of exercising discretion in this case?

The police's intention to prosecute the vehicle owners, who were used as "human shields", was a mistake. Trying to defend themselves against the criticism, the police cited "standard procedure". This is only the most recent case of misconduct — or even breach of duty — by government officials. In cases such as the Lamma ferry disaster and lead contamination incident, all government officials involved avoided disciplinary action by hiding behind "standard procedure". Even senior officials use standard procedure to pardon officials who have committed mistakes. The government has a lot of complicated work to handle. Therefore, there must be rules and procedures for dealing with any matter. If there were no standard procedure for government officials to follow and each person acted as they pleased, things would definitely end up in confusion. However, the many maladministration and malpractices of the government also show clearly that the practice of "standard procedure" has allowed mediocre and inferior officials to walk away and has resulted in poor governance. If the government cannot free itself from the fetters of standard procedure, good governance will merely be empty talk.

既定程序文化 淪為官場醬缸

今年2月，警員在粉嶺公路被質疑利用市民車輛，截停涉嫌違例七人私家車，未幾，受影響車主接獲警方發出的「擬檢控通知書」，由於事態發展不合情理，使這宗事件重新引起關注。「警方的葫蘆賣什麼藥」？不單涉事車主，也是許多市民的疑問。事件發生已經兩個多月，警方須盡快交代事態性質和善後措置，讓市民判斷涉事警員和警方是否處理恰當。

今次粉嶺公路事件，警方對利用私人車輛阻截違例私家車，是否符合《警察通例》，並未交代，惟當日遵從交警警示燈慢駛或停下來、乃至車輛被撞毀並受傷的車主，卻接獲警方的「擬檢控通知書」，從任何角度審視都絕對不合理，雖然警務處長表示此乃按「既定程序」處理，不一定檢控相關人士云云。不過，警方發言人則說發通知書其中一個目的是「保障事主」，讓他們及早考慮抗辯及記錄事件過程。

警方發言人所說「目的」，顯然並非「既定程序」那麼簡單；另外，按已知情况而言，當日受影響車主被執勤警員利用「過橋」，以阻截高速違例車輛；現在警方發出「擬檢控通知書」，是否再利用受影響車主「過橋」，掩飾當日涉事警員處理不當，值得關注。

按「既定程序」處理，歷來是政府施政失誤的擋箭牌，官員犯錯誤之後，都以此脫身，諉過程序規定。在既定程序以外，官員遇事，經常也拿出「酌情權」為護身符。警方對受影響車主發出擬檢控通知書，只要稍有常識的人都知道不合情理，問題是警方竟然未想到還有酌情權，容許他們酌情處理。

警方就擬檢控「人肉路障」車主的錯誤，祭出「既定程序」護身符，這是官員處事失當、甚或失職的最新事例，南丫島海難、鉛水事件涉事官員，都躲在既定程序之後而免遭處分，甚至政府高層也藉此「包庇」犯錯官員。政府事務紛繁，處事須有規有矩，設若沒有既定程序供官員依循，各自發揮之下，結果必然是亂套。不過，踐行「既定程序」，卻使庸官劣吏無往而不利，施政素質低劣，已經從諸多失政弊端顯露無遺，若施政不能擺脫既定程序覊絆，良好管治只是空談。