Our government claims to value transparency and accountability. But when it comes to putting these principles into practice, its actions often leave much to be desired. Many departments have failed to live up to disclosure standards set by the code on access to information, which predatesthe handover. The Ombudsman has rightly lambasted the government for lacking commitment to promote transparency and easy access to information. Alan Lai Nin has singled outdepartments which displayed a lack of understanding of the code and proper staff training to fulfil their obligations. He has, however, overlooked the root cause of the problem: the code is voluntary and does not have the force of law.
我們的政府聲稱說重視透明度和問責性.但當將這些原則實行起來,它的行為卻大大未逹標. 很多部門都沒有逹至資訊獲得條例中的定下的揭露準則,這些條例在回歸前已存在.申訴專員公署正確地嚴重地批評政府缺乏推廣透明度和方便獲得資訊的決心. ALan Lai Nin已點名批評展示了對條例缺乏理解和缺乏適當令員工能實現履行他們的職責的培訓之部門.但是他忽視了問題的根本原因:條例是自願性的,而且沒有法律影響力.
Perhaps the most egregious example the Ombudsman cited involved the Chief Executive's Office, where we are entitled to expect staff to do better. The case involved public requests for disclosure of the salaries of the then newly appointed undersecretaries and political assistants. They were refused without an adequate explanation. One reason given was that the information was personal data. This was a permissible reason to withhold information under the code, which permits requests to be refused for a wide variety of reasons. Eventually, the appointees' full salaries were disclosed. Only one of the two decisions could be right, not both. The Ombudsman attributed the action of the Chief Executive's Office to ignorance about the code. It looked more like it wanted to avoid controversy by not disclosing the high pay and perks the new appointees would enjoy.
或者申訴專員引述的例子中最差的是行政長官辦公室,那是我們有權去要求職員做好些的地方.那宗案例牽涉公眾對揭露當時新被委任的副袐書長和政治助理的薪金之要求.那些要求被拒絕,缺乏一個充足的解釋.其中一個被提供的原因是那些資料是個人資料.這是一個條例下被容許去拒絕給予資料的理由,條例容許要求因各種不同理由被拒絕.最後,被委任者的所有人工被揭露.只有兩者其中一個決定會是對的,不是兩者.申訴專員歸因特首辦的行為是對條例的無知.特首辦看來更像是它想透過不去揭露高新被委任者可享受的高薪厚褖避免爭議.
Of other cases the Ombudsman cited, the bodies involved - Hongkong Post, and the housing, lands, home affairs and food and environmental hygiene departments - appeared not to have actively blocked access or denied request for information. Rather, the problem stemmed fromstaff ignorance and lack of training.
在其他申訴專員引述的個案中,涉及的部門-香港郵政, 和房屋、土地、民事、和食物環境衞生部門-看來沒有主動阻礙對資料的獲取或拒絕對資料的要求.反而,問題源於職員的無知和培訓的缺乏.
Some legal boundaries in disclosure need to be respected; not everything can be disclosed, especially if law enforcement and public security are concerned. But none of the cases cited by the Ombudsman involved sensitive issues that would justify secrecy. In most cases, department staff appeared to have a poor grasp of how the code works, the result of the government having gone out of its way not to promote the code. According to the Ombudsman, only two circulars and a memo were issued to departments between 1997 and 2007 to promote the code. During most of this time there was no training for officers to handle the code, or the hiring of support staff to speed up information requests from the public.
在揭露中有些法律的界線需要被尊重;不是所有東西都可被揭露,尤其如果那關法律執行和公共安全.但申訴專員引述的個案中沒有一個涉及能合理化保袐的敏感事項.在大部分個案裡,部門職員顯 得對條例如何有效果有很差的了解,而那是政府沒有推廣條例的後果.根據申訴專員,在1997年至2007年之間只有兩張通告和一張備忘錄被分發過給部門.在這期間大部份時間沒有培訓給職員去處理條例,或是聘請支援同事去加快公眾的要求.
A culture of transparency requires both a government that respects the principle and a public that takes it seriously. Yet the Ombudsman finds that there has not been a publicity drive to raise public awareness of the code for 11 years. Whether this is an oversight or the result of a desire not to encourage requests for information, it clearly needs to be rectified. The result is that not only has the public not been well-informed, but government employees do not know much about the code either. The Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, which enforces the code, has accepted the Ombudsman's recommendations and promised to improve.
一種透明度的文化需要尊重其原則的政府和會視之為重要的公眾,但申訴專員發現十一年來沒有一次宣傳運動去提高公眾對條例的認識.無論這是一次疏忽或是一種不去鼓勵對資料的要求的渴望之結果, 那顯然需要被糾正.其結果不但是公眾沒有被充足告知, 而且政府僱員也不太了解條例.執行條例的政制及內地事務局已接受了申訴專口員的建議並且承諾改善．
There is a need for easier access to government information. This would improve governance by promoting both accountability and informed debate on matters of public interest. Steps must be taken to make the code more effective, otherwise a freedom of information law will be required to ensure greater transparency.
存在著一個對政府資訊更容易獲得的需要.這會改善管治,透過推廣在公眾利益有關的事情上的問責性和有充足討論的辯論.措施要去採用令修例更有效,否則資訊自由條例便有需要去確保更大的透明度.
NOTE:
1. 批評一般用criticize,而lambaste是嚴厲地批評.
2. 英語為了婉轉的緣故,會用多些VERB+NOUN的組合,例如如文中...displayed a lack of understanding...,而不會直接說did not understand.
3. 最差當然可以用the worst,egregious係比較深的字.
4. deny一般人知道解否認,但deny也是拒絕, 例如deny requests,拒絕要求.
5. Justify唔係譯做"使合理化"咁生硬,譯做"使..顯得合理"更合適.justify後跟名詞,如justifty secrecy.
6. Appear唔係只係解"看起來",也解"顯然是", 兩個意思竟然係相反,英文真係麻煩.
7. concern解"有關"時通常用主動式,但也可以用被動式:..is/are concerned.
8. publicity係宣傳,而drive係活動(campaign).
9. enforce係執行,配搭的賓語有code, law等等.
10. recommend不是只解推薦,也解suggest, recommendation便是suggestion.
11. 措施在英語中係measures,也可用steps.實施措施的動名詞配搭係introduce the measures, 或take the steps.
12. ensure係確保,英語中ensure後跟名詞/名詞片語,如ensure greater transparency,ensure safety. 留意ensure好似justify,兩者後都跟名詞片語.
沒有留言:
張貼留言