東區裁判法院高級二等檢控主任黃華芬，早前被勒令停職接受調查， 目前在律政司網頁內其姓名及職位已被刪去。有傳聞指黃華芬已離任. 黃華芬作為政府法院檢控主任，公然攻擊執法警方，支援暴力示威者，並煽暴，例子如下：
1、在 2019 年反修例暴力示威爆發後，以當時法庭檢控主任會主席的名義，發出「警方公然說謊，損害司法制度」的電郵，向律政司司長鄭若驊及時任的刑事檢控專員梁卓然作出投訴。律政司司長鄭若驊收到黃華芬的書面電郵後，即回覆對方表明，「律政司所有人員將繼續按照「檢控守則」的原則維護司法公正，以確保每一被告人獲得公平審訊」。律政司認為事態嚴重， 決定對事件作出徹查， 並調查黃是否也有在其他情況下， 違反公務員政治中立或其他守則。
2、她在 2020年6月公然通過律政司內部電郵系統，呼籲全體檢控主任參與當晚未經批准的集會。內容為「今日有甚麼會比這更有意義的事情呢，希望我們都做同樣嘅事」，電郵結尾更寫「今日將是港區國安法生效前最後一次的六四」，此番說話令人質疑黃企圖慫恿同袍參與同日未經批准的六四晚會。
筆者認為，黃的言論疑似是支持暴力示威者，也被我們業內人士質疑她能否公平公正處理相關案件。根據檢控守則，檢控人員不得受任何涉及調查、政治、傳媒、社群或個人的利益或陳述的因素影響。作為檢控人員，必須確保以個人身分所發表的意見，無礙他們以專業、不偏不倚的態度執行職務，並應該保持獨立及公正，尤其日後有機會處理相關的案件。黃的言論明顯地違反了上面守則。因此，她被撤職正確。
另外, 我們認為，律政司也應對黃女士所有有份參與過檢控案件的檔案作出覆核， 看看會否有任何涉及反修例事件的案件在處理上出現偏差， 並就這些案件作出補救。總之，政府終於敢於對違規的政府部門人士進行處理，這對恢復正常的施政秩序大有幫助，值得鼓勵！
楊倩文 律師
香港建設專業聯會理事
香港建設專業聯會
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
Can we prevent the global fire next time?
APR 6, 2021 05:50 AM
Washington, DC
By SIMON JOHNSON
The writer, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, is a professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management and a co-chair of the Covid-19 Policy Alliance. He is the co-author, with Jonathan Gruber, of Jump-Starting America: How Breakthrough Science Can Revive Economic Growth and the American Dream, and the co-author, with James Kwak, of 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and The Next Financial Meltdown. I find this article helpful in clearing the foggy horizon, you may see it as follows.
IN the immediate aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis, measures were taken to prevent another potential systemic meltdown. The process of reform was contentious at the time, but the legislation and associated regulations that were adopted have held up remarkably well.
Twelve years later, in the face of the far-reaching damage wrought by the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, large private financial firms proved more resilient, and policymakers had sufficient political backing to take steps that helped stabilise the global economy, relative to what could have happened. And they are likely to put it on the road to recovery in 2021. So, what comes next?
With some countries beginning to get a handle on Covid-19, mostly through vaccination programmes, we can hope for another post-crisis reform phase, this time aimed at substantially reducing the probability of another global pandemic or similar public-health shock. But hope is not belief. Unfortunately, there are four reasons to think progress may be slower and more difficult than after the 2008 financial crisis.
First, we are not out of the woods yet. By mid-2009, the United States and the world economy had turned the corner on the global financial crisis, and the G-7 (and most of the G-20) could agree on the need for tighter financial sector regulation. By contrast, many countries around the world, including in Europe, are still struggling with the coronavirus.
It is hard to focus on a deep reform agenda with the crisis still raging and neighbours arguing about who has access to how much vaccine.
Second, not all countries shared the same experience this time around. In 2008-09, all countries in the world, almost without exception, were caught up in - or deeply worried about - some aspect of the financial panic that began on Wall Street. Global finance really does reach almost every corner of the globe. But when it came to the Covid-19 pandemic, some countries - most notably in East Asia - were better prepared and acted faster, thereby avoiding some of the most dire effects. China, for example, is unlikely to view post-pandemic policy requirements through the same lens as the US and most of Europe.
And yet, to prevent or mitigate pandemics requires truly global action. The 2008 financial crisis was primarily a trans-Atlantic phenomenon, with other countries dragged along. To fix the underlying problems - or at least to make them less likely to recur - called for real reform in the US, along with sufficient cooperation in Europe (particularly on rules such as equity capital requirements and how to treat cross-border derivative trading).
We have surely learned in the past year that new pathogens can develop anywhere and spread in unpredictable ways, and that we need a disease surveillance system that covers everyone on Earth. But this will be hard to build unless and until all governments make it a top share priority.
COST OF HEALTHCARE
Third, better public health costs real money. This is particularly true in the US, which has woefully under-invested in providing basic health care to residents. There are some glimmers of hope - including America's growing ability to scale up diagnostic testing, and the likelihood that some Covid-related technology will also help us grapple with other diseases. But who will pay for deploying these technology around the world, including in lower-income countries?
Lastly, there is a lot of high-frequency data about finance, whereas the global burden of disease is perceived only in much rougher terms. To be sure, not all relevant financial-sector data is easy for policymakers to access and understand.
Still, the situation in finance is much better than in public health, where one country's authorities (for example, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) have only very limited access to what is happening elsewhere with enough detail and timeliness to be useful.
For the US, the good news is that President Joe Biden's administration is addressing the country's own public health, providing a helpful initial fiscal boost to the economy, and laying the groundwork for a much-needed renewal of infrastructure investment, including (one hopes) everything needed to support stronger public health.
The administration also appears to understand that health policy is an important dimension of foreign policy. For example, helping countries to access a reliable vaccine can both help them to recover now and build the trust necessary for future cooperation in the never-ending fight against contagious disease.
Can we go even further and apply the lessons from the pandemic to climate change and the extreme weather that the world faces? Can we develop helpful technology to reduce risk, and build enough cooperation to deploy it - and pay for its use - around the world?
With the pandemic and the 2008 financial crisis, we waited until disaster struck before finally acting. When it comes to climate change, we do not have that luxury.
It is noteworthy that it says, "... 但對于冠病疫情，一些國家準備得更加充分，主要是東亞國家，準備充足丶行動迅速，從而避免了最糟糕的後果。比如，中國看待疫情后的政策要求的角度，就不可能和美國及大部分歐洲國家一樣.. ", true and founded, a pure scholar.
S. L. LI Engineer
HKFDP
