|
作者
|
內容
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2004/9/27 下午 02:09:57
|
|
|
These days, the front line controversy centres around the taking of the statutory vow by the LegCo Members elected, in particular Mr. K H Leung, who claims that he would take a vow in the format acceptable to him, viz. different from the statutory form.
Some members of Leung's forum urged him to succumb to the statutory format just to comply with the formalities. Some in the legal sector even advocate this approach.
We should however query - what constitutes a vow?
If the statutory format is unacceptable, why should one succumb to its format? It would outright be a false declaration if by so doing the vow taken does not express what is being intended.
Let's hope that no more such nonsensical argument would surface again to distract the solemnity and genuiness of our legislators' vows.
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2004/9/27 下午 02:46:53
|
|
|
是否「接受」宣誓的「指定形式」，很視乎該形式的具體情況。
我覺得政府所提供的形式，其實都算politically correct，基本上能夠顧及到不同價值觀人士的需要。誓辭的內容，不過是說明了立法會議員職位的法理依據。
任由個別議員加上一些「個人化」的誓辭字句，恐防破壞宣誓本身的莊重。情況就和我們教會的「信德宣誓」和「婚姻盟誓」差不多。
小弟覺得在這事件上，政府的立場並無不妥。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2004/9/29 下午 09:39:06
|
|
|
大家亦可嘗試參考Fr. Nugent vs 信理部有關同性戀問題的信德宣誓。
至於在接受教會職務時所作的信德宣誓則可按此找到。
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2004/9/30 下午 06:47:11
|
|
|
哲古華拉生平：
Che Guevara（Encarta Encyclopaedia）
|
