各位，生成器也許已沒有用了。選管會一天就收到4500封電郵。看來，大家炸他電郵還是有點用的。

以下乃沈大師言為「內部AO提供範本」。的確是官話文章，請先仔細閱讀，才選擇是否發出電郵吧。

你還有5小時。

请广传，好人一生平安。

[#官方資訊] 早前分享了一位高級政務官朋友就《逃犯條例》爭議的感受，得到數千轉載，迴響十分熱烈，也有不少公務員私訊回應。本頁對象一直以黃藍以外的專業人士為主，雖然平日只分享國際視野資訊，但在關鍵時刻，也希望為一些平日對社會抽離的朋友，提供更多資訊參考。以下是我的另一位AO朋友擔心局勢惡化，希望以自己的方式真正為特區政府服務，因此以私人身份草擬的意見書，回應特區政府選舉管理委員會關於區議會選舉的官方諮詢，並使用了完美官僚理據、格式和文法，就DQ候選人提供了詳細意見。根據官方資訊，《逃犯條例》收到4500份意見書，其中3000份「贊成」，因此發出意見書並非毫無價值。這位AO表示，大家可以直接使用這格式，根據個人觀點加減內容直接電郵遞交，因為香港人大家都忙，這過程只需一分鐘，應該最符合成本效益。截止日期是7月10日或之前，請廣傳，好人一生平安。

10 July 2019

Chairman
Electoral Affairs Commission (EAC)
By Email: eacenq@eac.hk

Dear Chairman,

Public consultation on District Council Election proposed guidelines

I write to object to Chapter 3 of the Proposed Guidelines, as it gives Government an unjust, unfair, and unchecked power to disqualify any candidate during the nomination period by reason of Government’s own political motives.

Chapter 3.1 of the Proposed Guidelines says that : “Under the law, the validity of a candidate’s nomination is to be determined by the Returning Officer (RO). The EAC is neither empowered nor involved in the making of such decision and would not provide any advice on the decision made by the RO”.

Chapter 3.9(b) of the Proposed Guidelines describes the requirement by which a candidate must declare (through signing a “Confirmation Form” by the EAC) that he would uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR.

It is totally unclear whether a Confirmation Form duly signed by a candidate is itself sufficient to discharge the candidate’s duty to declare his willingness to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR when he is elected to the office.

Previous elections showed that an RO, who was a civil servant (pitched at Administrative Officer Staff Grade C / District Officer) appointed to the role of RO prior to the election, could make subjective and arbitrary judgment about a candidate’s state of mind and political orientation, with selective reference to some or a few past writings, speeches, statements, expression of opinions, posts in social media platforms in relation to the candidate, instead of merely looking at a Confirmation Form duly signed.

I find it outrageous to see that Ms. Anne Teng, then District Officer (Eastern) appointed to the role of RO in a legislative council by-election last year, could refuse to acknowledge a confirmation form signed by Miss Agnes Chow Ting and disqualify her, citing absurd and arbitrary reasons with reference to some of Miss Chow’s previous remarks or those of her political party, and without giving Miss Chow a fair opportunity to respond to those reasons uttered unreasonably by the RO.

The Proposed Guidelines shows that the EAC has failed its duty to introduce any additional safeguard or measures to plug this unreasonable, unlawful and unconstitutional loophole, which may still be freely exploited by any RO in the next election driven by bad faith and political motive.

It is unacceptable that the EAC could confess that it is “neither empowered nor involved in the making of such decision and would not provide any advice on the decision made by the RO” (Chapter 3.1). I question how the EAC can still “ensure that an election is conducted openly, fairly and honestly at all times” – its statutory duty enshrined in the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance - when it is not involved in scrutinising or monitoring the exercise of an RO’s power in disqualifying any candidate at the RO’s own political preference.

The Guidelines did not describe in detail how an RO could, on his or her own, research during the short nomination period the political belief and past sayings of any candidate. The Guidelines are also silent as to whether the RO would have received biased or secret advice from any agency such as Department of Justice, Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, Home Affairs Department, Information Services Department, etc., which may have compiled a detailed recollection of a candidate’s previous remarks in advance. It was suggested by some that such a compilation of speech or opinion records prepared by any agency other than the RO could have assisted the RO unlawfully in reaching a dangerous disqualification decision to deprive a candidate of the right to stand for the election.

I must remind the EAC that the right to stand for election is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. The United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 25 also states that “political opinion may not be used as a ground to deprive any person of the right to stand for election.”

I am disappointed to see that the proposed Guidelines have not offered anything substantive to protect a candidate from the RO’s unlawful interference in the election by disqualifying candidates he or she dislikes. The EAC must look at this carefully to see what it can do.

The current remedy about determining the lawfulness of an RO’s disqualification decision through an election petition to be adjudicated later by the court one or two years after the actual election is totally unsatisfactory, with the lapse of time which delays the timely delivery of a just outcome.

I stress that I object to Chapter 3 of the Proposed Guidelines in its entirety. I urge you to review all the processes described in Chapter 3 again and independently. In so doing, you must resist all political considerations wrongly dictated by the Chief Executive, Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, Department of Justice, or other government agency seeking to disturb the fairness and integrity of the forthcoming district council election.

Yours sincerely,

XXXX

更新：有熱心網友翻譯為中文版，並對原文作出修訂，請隨便share／修改：

10 July 2019

選舉管理委員會主席 鈞啓

選舉管理委員會主席鈞鑒： 關於區議會選舉活動建議指引公眾諮詢事宜

本人謹致函對建議指引第三章表達反對意見。建議指引第三章將賦予政府不公平、不公正以及不被箝制的權力，容許政府於提名階段取消香港市民的參選資格，以迎合政府自身的政治目的。

建議指引第三章第一部分（3.1）指：「根據法例，候選人的提名是否有效 ，完全是由選舉主任作出決定，選管會無權並一向沒有參與， 亦不會給予任何意見。」
建議指引第三章3.9(b) 要求候選人透過簽署選管會擬備的確認書表明他／她擁護《基本法》並保證對香港特別行政區效忠。

至於候選人是否能夠簽署確認書就能滿足擁護《基本法》並保證對香港特別行政區效忠的要求，建議指引對此完全沒有清晰交代。

過往選舉顯示，首長級丙級政務官／民政事務專員級別的公務員於選舉前獲委任為選舉主任，便能夠就候選人的思緒及政治取向作出主觀且隨意獨斷的決定，並只需揀選候選人往日曾經發表的文章、言論、宣言、意見表達、社交媒體帖文以及社交媒體專頁發佈關於對候選人的帖文穿鑿附會，當作輔證，而非僅以候選人是否有簽署確認書為單獨基礎作判斷。

去年立法會補選，時任東區民政事務專員鄧如欣獲委任為選舉主任，居然拒絕周庭小姐簽署的確認書，以周庭小姐及其所屬政黨昔日的言論去佐證選舉主任荒唐的理由，去褫奪周庭小姐的參選資格，並且沒有給予周庭小姐公平機會回應選舉主任的無理指控，實在令人憤慨。

由建議指引可見，選舉管理委員會並無引入任何措施或保障，去堵塞上述不合理、不合法、不合憲的漏洞。今後選舉主任依然可以使用此漏洞，依據其個人的政治目的或理念，惡意褫奪任何香港市民的參選資格。

選舉管理委員會於第三章第一部分（3.1）指：「根據法例，候選人的提名是否有效 ，完全是由選舉主任作出決定，選管會無權並一向沒有參與， 亦不會給予任何意見。」此點完全不可接受。當選舉管理委員會對選舉主任按其個人政治取向褫奪候選人參選資格的權力不作任何箝制、監察或審查， 又能如何履行其法定職責，「確保在香港舉行的選舉是以公開、公平和誠實的方式進行」呢？

建議指引並無對選舉主任如何可於短促的提名期內研究並審查任何候選人的政治理念及昔日言論有任何著墨。 建議指引亦未有論及選舉主任會否收到其他機構的秘密意見或者偏頗意見。上述的其他機構，例如律政司、內地及政制事務局、民政事務總署或政府新聞處等，可能預先詳細記錄相關候選人的昔日言論。據悉，上述由第三方準備的詳細記錄可能不合法地導致選舉主任作出褫奪候選人選舉資格的危險決定。

本人必須提醒選舉管理委員會，被選舉權是獲香港基本法及香港人權法案保障的基本權利。聯合國人權事務委員會第25號一般性意見亦指出：「不得以政治見解為由剝奪任何人參加競選的權利。」

本人對建議指引並未就保障候選人不被選舉主任按其個人喜惡褫奪資格，防止選舉主任非法干預選舉採取任何措施深感失望。選舉管理委員會必須詳細檢視自己對上述問題有何解決方法。

就選舉主任褫奪參選資格的合法性，目前透過選舉呈請，並於選舉完結一兩年後由法庭裁決的安排實在強差人意。當中所耗的時間令公義遲來。
本人對建議指引第三章完全反對。本人懇求主席重新並獨立審視第三章所包含的所有程序。在重新審視的時候，懇請閣下撇除並抗拒所有政治考量，尤其是來自行政長官、政制及事務內地局、律政司及其他政府機構企圖干預未來區議會選舉的誠信和公平性的政治考量。

敬祝 鈞安 XXXXXXXX 敬上

2019年7月9日

學習官僚語言其實好緊要

[#官方資訊] 早前分享了一位高級政務官朋友就《逃犯條例》爭議的感受，得到數千轉載，迴響十分熱烈，也有不少公務員私訊回應。本頁對象一直以黃藍以外的專業人士為主，雖然平日只分享國際視野資訊，但在關鍵時刻，也希望為一些平日對社會抽離的朋友，提供更多資訊參考。以下是我的另一位AO朋友擔心局勢惡化，希望以自己的方式真正為特區政府服務，因此以私人身份草擬的意見書，回應特區政府選舉管理委員會關於區議會選舉的官方諮詢，並使用了完美官僚理據、格式和文法，就DQ候選人提供了詳細意見。根據官方資訊，《逃犯條例》收到4500份意見書，其中3000份「贊成」，因此發出意見書並非毫無價值。這位AO表示，大家可以直接使用這格式，根據個人觀點加減內容直接電郵遞交，因為香港人大家都忙，這過程只需一分鐘，應該最符合成本效益。截止日期是7月10日或之前，請廣傳，好人一生平安。

10 July 2019

Chairman
Electoral Affairs Commission (EAC)
By Email: eacenq@eac.hk

Dear Chairman,

Public consultation on District Council Election proposed guidelines

I write to object to Chapter 3 of the Proposed Guidelines, as it gives Government an unjust, unfair, and unchecked power to disqualify any candidate during the nomination period by reason of Government’s own political motives.

Chapter 3.1 of the Proposed Guidelines says that : “Under the law, the validity of a candidate’s nomination is to be determined by the Returning Officer (RO). The EAC is neither empowered nor involved in the making of such decision and would not provide any advice on the decision made by the RO”.

Chapter 3.9(b) of the Proposed Guidelines describes the requirement by which a candidate must declare (through signing a “Confirmation Form” by the EAC) that he would uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR.

It is totally unclear whether a Confirmation Form duly signed by a candidate is itself sufficient to discharge the candidate’s duty to declare his willingness to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR when he is elected to the office.

Previous elections showed that an RO, who was a civil servant (pitched at Administrative Officer Staff Grade C / District Officer) appointed to the role of RO prior to the election, could make subjective and arbitrary judgment about a candidate’s state of mind and political orientation, with selective reference to some or a few past writings, speeches, statements, expression of opinions, posts in social media platforms in relation to the candidate, instead of merely looking at a Confirmation Form duly signed.

I find it outrageous to see that Ms. Anne Teng, then District Officer (Eastern) appointed to the role of RO in a legislative council by-election last year, could refuse to acknowledge a confirmation form signed by Miss Agnes Chow Ting and disqualify her, citing absurd and arbitrary reasons with reference to some of Miss Chow’s previous remarks or those of her political party, and without giving Miss Chow a fair opportunity to respond to those reasons uttered unreasonably by the RO.

The Proposed Guidelines shows that the EAC has failed its duty to introduce any additional safeguard or measures to plug this unreasonable, unlawful and unconstitutional loophole, which may still be freely exploited by any RO in the next election driven by bad faith and political motive.

It is unacceptable that the EAC could confess that it is “neither empowered nor involved in the making of such decision and would not provide any advice on the decision made by the RO” (Chapter 3.1). I question how the EAC can still “ensure that an election is conducted openly, fairly and honestly at all times” – its statutory duty enshrined in the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance - when it is not involved in scrutinising or monitoring the exercise of an RO’s power in disqualifying any candidate at the RO’s own political preference.

The Guidelines did not describe in detail how an RO could, on his or her own, research during the short nomination period the political belief and past sayings of any candidate. The Guidelines are also silent as to whether the RO would have received biased or secret advice from any agency such as Department of Justice, Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, Home Affairs Department, Information Services Department, etc., which may have compiled a detailed recollection of a candidate’s previous remarks in advance. It was suggested by some that such a compilation of speech or opinion records prepared by any agency other than the RO could have assisted the RO unlawfully in reaching a dangerous disqualification decision to deprive a candidate of the right to stand for the election.

I must remind the EAC that the right to stand for election is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. The United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 25 also states that “political opinion may not be used as a ground to deprive any person of the right to stand for election.”

I am disappointed to see that the proposed Guidelines have not offered anything substantive to protect a candidate from the RO’s unlawful interference in the election by disqualifying candidates he or she dislikes. The EAC must look at this carefully to see what it can do.

The current remedy about determining the lawfulness of an RO’s disqualification decision through an election petition to be adjudicated later by the court one or two years after the actual election is totally unsatisfactory, with the lapse of time which delays the timely delivery of a just outcome.

I stress that I object to Chapter 3 of the Proposed Guidelines in its entirety. I urge you to review all the processes described in Chapter 3 again and independently. In so doing, you must resist all political considerations wrongly dictated by the Chief Executive, Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, Department of Justice, or other government agency seeking to disturb the fairness and integrity of the forthcoming district council election.

Yours sincerely,

XXXX

更新：有熱心網友翻譯為中文版，並對原文作出修訂，請隨便share／修改：

10 July 2019

選舉管理委員會主席 鈞啓

選舉管理委員會主席鈞鑒： 關於區議會選舉活動建議指引公眾諮詢事宜

本人謹致函對建議指引第三章表達反對意見。建議指引第三章將賦予政府不公平、不公正以及不被箝制的權力，容許政府於提名階段取消香港市民的參選資格，以迎合政府自身的政治目的。

建議指引第三章第一部分（3.1）指：「根據法例，候選人的提名是否有效 ，完全是由選舉主任作出決定，選管會無權並一向沒有參與， 亦不會給予任何意見。」
建議指引第三章3.9(b) 要求候選人透過簽署選管會擬備的確認書表明他／她擁護《基本法》並保證對香港特別行政區效忠。

至於候選人是否能夠簽署確認書就能滿足擁護《基本法》並保證對香港特別行政區效忠的要求，建議指引對此完全沒有清晰交代。

過往選舉顯示，首長級丙級政務官／民政事務專員級別的公務員於選舉前獲委任為選舉主任，便能夠就候選人的思緒及政治取向作出主觀且隨意獨斷的決定，並只需揀選候選人往日曾經發表的文章、言論、宣言、意見表達、社交媒體帖文以及社交媒體專頁發佈關於對候選人的帖文穿鑿附會，當作輔證，而非僅以候選人是否有簽署確認書為單獨基礎作判斷。

去年立法會補選，時任東區民政事務專員鄧如欣獲委任為選舉主任，居然拒絕周庭小姐簽署的確認書，以周庭小姐及其所屬政黨昔日的言論去佐證選舉主任荒唐的理由，去褫奪周庭小姐的參選資格，並且沒有給予周庭小姐公平機會回應選舉主任的無理指控，實在令人憤慨。

由建議指引可見，選舉管理委員會並無引入任何措施或保障，去堵塞上述不合理、不合法、不合憲的漏洞。今後選舉主任依然可以使用此漏洞，依據其個人的政治目的或理念，惡意褫奪任何香港市民的參選資格。

選舉管理委員會於第三章第一部分（3.1）指：「根據法例，候選人的提名是否有效 ，完全是由選舉主任作出決定，選管會無權並一向沒有參與， 亦不會給予任何意見。」此點完全不可接受。當選舉管理委員會對選舉主任按其個人政治取向褫奪候選人參選資格的權力不作任何箝制、監察或審查， 又能如何履行其法定職責，「確保在香港舉行的選舉是以公開、公平和誠實的方式進行」呢？

建議指引並無對選舉主任如何可於短促的提名期內研究並審查任何候選人的政治理念及昔日言論有任何著墨。 建議指引亦未有論及選舉主任會否收到其他機構的秘密意見或者偏頗意見。上述的其他機構，例如律政司、內地及政制事務局、民政事務總署或政府新聞處等，可能預先詳細記錄相關候選人的昔日言論。據悉，上述由第三方準備的詳細記錄可能不合法地導致選舉主任作出褫奪候選人選舉資格的危險決定。

本人必須提醒選舉管理委員會，被選舉權是獲香港基本法及香港人權法案保障的基本權利。聯合國人權事務委員會第25號一般性意見亦指出：「不得以政治見解為由剝奪任何人參加競選的權利。」

本人對建議指引並未就保障候選人不被選舉主任按其個人喜惡褫奪資格，防止選舉主任非法干預選舉採取任何措施深感失望。選舉管理委員會必須詳細檢視自己對上述問題有何解決方法。

就選舉主任褫奪參選資格的合法性，目前透過選舉呈請，並於選舉完結一兩年後由法庭裁決的安排實在強差人意。當中所耗的時間令公義遲來。
本人對建議指引第三章完全反對。本人懇求主席重新並獨立審視第三章所包含的所有程序。在重新審視的時候，懇請閣下撇除並抗拒所有政治考量，尤其是來自行政長官、政制及事務內地局、律政司及其他政府機構企圖干預未來區議會選舉的誠信和公平性的政治考量。

敬祝 鈞安 XXXXXXXX 敬上

2019年7月9日

我真係覺得佢講得好好！
宜家醫院都重係好似澳牛咁
雖然伙記態度未必係最好，
但野食係好食既🤟🏻

你俾d 海外既人免考試免實習咁黎
就者係將澳牛伙記變哂譚仔呀姐
唔係話譚仔呀姐就一定唔好🙈🙈
但你叫平時可以傾下計既譚仔呀姐而且要隨時隨地不停趕客走，重要用光速落單
譚仔呀姐做唔慣都係走🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️

就算真係請左外地醫生
咁姑娘呢？supporting staff 呢？床呢？空間呢？
你係澳牛放十個譚仔呀姐就會清到條龍咩？
會請夠人架喇！
咁請咩人先，點樣為之夠先？
你請多十個譚仔呀姐
起碼要30個人跟住
重要係識得幫手睇呀姐有無做錯野
新仔又夠經驗去睇？(我無歧視新人架！我都有新過。。好難捱架！）

十個茶壺得2個蓋要人地沖100杯水
你加茶壺無用架喎
我無咁叻識俾咩suggestion
但第一件事

請唔好再好似擠牙膏咁擠醫療開支
但好似開水喉咁俾大白象
因為一切係由錢起
澳牛開唔到分店，又請唔到人！😖😖
哂氣

呢期都仲係見好多關於醫委會啊, 咩方案啊, 既報導
其實心入面真係諗

喂啊, 做咩要係咁搞我地啫!!!!!!!
(希望呢句都係其他同行既心聲)
(明明呢行就唔係淨係得醫生! 我有時真係對其他colleagues/allied health/姑娘覺得唔好意思, 明明就一齊捱緊)

你可能會話喂莫非你唔想香港D人有更好既medical care, D人睇醫生唔駛咁慘, 唔通你淨係諗住保護主義blablabla…
得啦, 唔駛諗住用一句看似道德既野就諗住可以矇混過關

三點, 第一不實際性, 第二係咁樣做解決唔到問題, 第三係會令問題嚴重化

- 不實際性
要一個外地醫科畢業既人黎香港醫院解決而家水深火熱既狀態究竟有幾不切實際, 唉, 我諗同蔡一智出黎認左佢一樣
首先係動機, 點解連本土D人流失率都咁嚴重既情況下一個外地畢業既人會想黎受苦
兩個可能性, 佢無諗住黎受苦, 或者佢響個邊撈唔掂
咁大佬啊, 而家就係想請人黎陪我地受苦啊嘛, 佢唔諗住黎受苦請黎有咩用啊

佢響個邊撈唔掂呢個我就唔講

跟著見愈黎愈多人/一d黨派話免實習免考試降低門檻提高吸引力
喂真係好Q燥, 而家賣藝啊? 做旅遊啊? 提高吸引力!? 降低自己既底線同專業性黎吸引人!? 醫生尚保存住既尊嚴就係基於咁多年既苦讀, 過左咁多既試, 仲要過埋痛苦既實習期, 先打做到個金身; 你而家話要考簡單D甚至有人話免試, 仲免埋個實習, 咁對本地醫生公平咩? 唔考過你又知佢地水平去到邊啊? 你又知唔知佢地響外地實習有無響香港地獄醫院既經歷啊? 就我所知各地實習既practice可以有好大分別; 有D地方可以輕鬆到好似個病房clerk咁, 有D地方houseman都可以開肚 (I do mean it); 要統一化最簡單就係響香港做返一年先啦~ 做intern都嫌辛苦仲點期望你幫手做前線醫生捱苦啊

其實對班外地醫生都好唔公平, 比人知佢地原來同本地薑有呢方面既差別, 咁人地覺得佢地既專業性會唔會有少少分別呢? 可能其實佢地滿腔熱誠諗住黎幫手捱苦嫁嘛, 就係想靠呢D香港入門試, 香港既實習表現黎話比人聽自己係掂既, 黎話比人聽自己係有專業性有尊嚴既, 黎啦你請我啦
咁你話而家呢班咁有心既人如何自處呢?

好啦梆得個幾年, 之後見公院辛苦, 你估之後點呢? 你公院係咪人工好D, 係咪無咁辛苦? 唔係, 連自己友都走啦
咁解唔解決到問題? 不切實際

Oh by the way
其實世界各地就算收外地醫生, 都要pass相關語文試
例如去英國要考ielts 7.5以上; 去韓國考韓文; 去日本考日文
廣東話黎講, according to Wiki, list of language proficiency tests
- Certificate in Chinese Language, HKU
- Diploma programme in Chinese as a foreign/second language, CUHK
不過我就覺得不如脆脆地考返個DSE中文睇下魯迅先啦

- 解決唔到問題
醫療制度可以有好多問題, 但唔係每樣都岩香港, 例如你唔會話香港要封紅包先可以醫病, 唔會話你個醫保唔夠錢包你斬腸開肚, 唔會話你最近間醫院響20公里外, 呢D就係例子點解外國既一套唔可以照搬落香港, 因為面對既問題可以完全唔同

香港最指標性既問題包括 1) 病房爆到訓廁所 2) 睇門診等兩年 3) 醫患關係既問題

其實講咁多咩放寬考試, 放寬實習, 簡單黎講咪即係輸入外勞
我地先唔好講咁樣既做法係咪妥當既做法,又當你不擇手段, 理得你質素點, 但係係咪真係解決到問題先

我想問香港如果聽日起多一倍專科醫生, 究竟病人係咪從此唔駛訓走廊?
呢個係一個簡單既茶記問題, 一間澳洲牛奶公司, 無論佢請多十個爆粗樓面, 條人龍都會響度, 因為鋪位唔夠大, 硬件唔夠多, 炒蛋整唔切, 除左樓面, 仲要請多D廚, 多D洗碗, 多D收銀, 所以請多D人最多係令到做既人輕鬆左, 唔會改變病人慘況; 無床既仍然係無床, 無得做手術既仍然係無手術室做

唯一可以解決呢個問題就係買埋隔離間文苑同麥文記 (呢個需要時間), 再請多D唔同既人手 (其他人手既問題因為傳媒make唔到noise所以唔講sosad), 同埋了解同控制人員留失既問題

(As a medical example, 就好似有條友trauma call係咁流血, 你唔止血, 淨係識去比血, 仲要淨比packed cell, 無上platelet FFP, 咁死緊啦)

門診等兩年呢樣同上面病房既例子一樣, 無硬件配合都係廢; 等兩年先有得睇既病究竟要多幾多人手先可以變成等年半呢? 而一個可以等兩年先睇既頸痛佢會唔會由兩年變等年半而開心左? 班醫生以為多左人手無咁辛苦但其實又係中晒伏, 多一個醫生立即按而家有既配額分多D比你, 而無人會研究究竟而家呢個配額份量合唔合理, 於是衝症仍然係要衝症, 睇5分鐘出返去有可能變成睇6分鐘, 有咩意思?
另外門診除左用黎睇新症, 亦要睇舊症, 人手多左, 病人會expect自己密D覆診; “喂又話多左人返工既? 點解我個膝頭退化都仲要隔兩年睇一次嫁” 好多情況穩定既病, 係需要更高層制訂一個統一而實際既guideline去跟住複診甚至discharge (不再覆診), 令前線容易解釋比病人聽, 亦到令呢D病唔會有D地方半年睇一次, 有D地方兩年睇一次, 更重要係令醫生夠膽響呢個醫患不互信既情況下出症, 如果唔係病人數量只會不斷增加

簡單黎講, 如果澳牛班伙記唔係咁落力趕你走, 你估而家條龍排到邊? 你可以話而家醫院唔係做餐廳喎, 但係不得不面對現實既係醫院同澳牛一樣, 資源係局限既, 分別係伙記可以小你, 你可以小醫生; 一出一入就係咁簡單, 若果無辦法安心令出症速度同入症相若, 條龍就會愈排愈長, 呢個係簡單既計算而已

呢D都唔係請多一倍專科醫生可以解決既事, 上述既例子不過是冰山一角,班友只不過係嘗試用請外勞呢個焦點拎走你既目光, 而唔去解決內部既問題, 而其實咁做都係合乎人性, 因為前者事實上比後者還要簡單好多

另外而家醫患關係已經咁差, 你諗下下次入到診症室個醫生淨係識英文, 識少少中文, 你用粗口小佢佢問你係咩意思, 又或者你以為自己識普通話, 佢同你講北京話, 咁你點? 咁你同佢醫患關係會好左定差左

要記住, 要解決澳牛入面既人流問題, 除左各方面既資源要配合, 你請個半島既waiter係幫唔到佢地, 因為第一佢唔夠快/效率, 第二佢唔係睇慣佐敦油尖旺, 佢唔爆粗, 本土文化同市民都會降低佢工作表現; 咁樣請個唔適合既人, 不如留返D錢出多D糧比其他人對士氣仲有用

- 問題嚴重化
將而家佢地嘗試用既性感標準套落本地醫生身上

真係鄧D本地黎緊既畢業生唔抵, 又唔見有人話香港醫學院D試咁難, 不如降低難度啦, 做houseman咁辛苦, 不如做半年算啦
真係鄧我地D前線MO唔抵, 又唔見佢話要增加下響公院做同train 專科既吸引力, 不如做少D時間啦, 不如加人工啦, 不如只要響香港醫院做MO就可以考個簡單D試啦
喂你知唔知你個頭同D外人講話降低門檻, 呢頭本地D專科專業試嚴到passing rate得兩三成人pass咋, 真係好心D人話我地對外人行保護主義既睇吓啦

真係鄧D中層specialist唔抵, 無啦啦多左一班明知好大機會唔會同你捱苦又或者幾年後會走既人同你一齊做野; 你留公院既又多左D無響香港捱過既人同你爭promotion, 你出私家又多左班人同你爭食
咁你係佢地你會點, 梗係趁佢地未出去之前走先啦, 快佢地一步搶餅啊嘛

咁你係本地中學生見行頭難左, 你會點, 仲做唔做

咁你係醫學生, 咁你係前線醫生, 你會點, 你士氣會點
我地考D試難到咁, 隔離個個話佢上年返黎, 個試都ok啊~ 又唔駛做intern咁~
出面醫學美容話你出黎啦又唔駛考專科試又唔駛oncall又人工高
咁你仲train唔train

我把聲咁細, make唔到d咩noise, 傳媒仍然係會係咁講輸入外地醫生有人話要降準有人話要保護啊, 政府繼續要應付佢地既壓力, 醫委會繼續比人內外夾攻

而其實根本個大標題已經錯重點, 只不過唔同界別既人都不約而同想就呢個話題繼續發揮, 於是無論醫委會結果係點, 一年之後真正問題仍然無被解決(甚至無人提起過), 病人繼續訓走廊, 唯一係想留響度做既人會愈黎愈少

就係咁

【 Aura Secret 】人體能量場奧秘 人們的精神和情感狀態都可以被拍攝?

? 五哥上左Youtuber GO好後悔?! https://youtu.be/YgVinPvvnTY

?陰謀系列 - http://bit.ly/2RW8oVd

⭐️如果鍾意哩條片，就記得比個Like同埋訂閲我嘅頻道啦！
https://bit.ly/2F6Y2M8

?如果你希望可以鼓勵五哥，支持我每日努力出片分享實用資訊，可以點以下連結：
https://paypal.me/5minutesmaster


?推薦影片?
✅ 【香港首度公開】詳細分析做YouTuber其實揾到幾多錢？
https://youtu.be/xaqd4VGfkwI

✅ 【AI人工智能整網站】又一個工種可能被人工智能取替?
https://youtu.be/l6ZT8z3hM3c

✅ 【2019美國預言】希望只係科幻故事
https://youtu.be/3eRyUtshmC0

✅ 【香港樓市2019】樓市大跌前先兆？
https://youtu.be/Sl9j5YxRFeY

✅ 【2019香港經濟預測】香港朋友要小心
https://youtu.be/Czg2UaIGeaI

✅ 【樓市點睇】香港仲有四年就....
https://youtu.be/08CoILul5wk

✅ 樓市真相2018：大師預測2019樓市大跌7成，仲大鑊過沙士97！
https://youtu.be/cjKnEn-WCPI

✅ 【中美貿易戰】影響深遠-最新消息
https://youtu.be/cqqsnL-4qAU

✅ 【2019香港樓市】樓市泡沫爆破？磚家預測/一條片睇曬
https://youtu.be/vOJik86_H6U

✅ 【一條片解構5G原理】
https://youtu.be/-sy64F2fx4o

✅ 【機場貴賓室】揀邊張信用卡一定冇得輸
https://youtu.be/ozztsCtXCYg

✅ 【信貸報告】信貸評級｜追加重要補充資料
https://youtu.be/wTW-X69BVXc

✅ 【香港樓市2019】樓市大跌前先兆？
https://youtu.be/Sl9j5YxRFeY

✅ 《吸引力法則》粵語
https://youtu.be/cJ-6CokkuGg

網址：https://www.5MinutesMaster.com
Medium：https://medium.com/@5minutesmaster
facebook：https://bit.ly/2QYmNyE