明報專訊】EXECUTIVE COUNCIL member Franklin Lam recently sold two flats. There were suspicions that the transactions involved a conflict of interests and an irregular commission arrangement. He offered such explanations and others provided such information in the past few days that the conflict-of-interest suspicions have largely been dispelled. However, as there are discrepancies between things he has said about the commission arrangement, one may suspect some of them to be false.
行政會議成員林奮強賣樓被質疑利益衝突和涉及佣金處理問題，經他連日解釋和各方披露的情，利益衝突疑團基本上澄清；但是佣金部分，林奮強前言不對後語，使人質疑箇中是否有失實成分。
In response to our and other media organisations’ enquiries, Mr Lam said on October 30, “I set a minimum price and it was agreed that, if the flat was sold at a higher price, the price difference would be the agent’s additional commission.” The next day some members of the Democratic Party filed a complaint against him with the Independent Commission Against Corruption. They allege Mr Lam may have committed an offence under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. He then said in response to our enquiry, “It is stipulated in the purchase and sale contract that the agent should receive a commission equal to 1% of the transaction price. I agreed with the agent when the commission was arranged last June that any price difference should be donated to Centaline Charity Fund. We would work together for charity.” Yesterday, Mr Lam said in a radio programme that it was his wife that was in charge of the whole transaction; that, when the commission was arranged last June, he wanted any price difference to go to the agent to encourage him to work hard on his behalf but the agent suggested it should go to a charity; and that, having discussed the matter with his wife, he decided it should be donated to Centaline Charity Fund and the agent should receive the conventional commission of 1% of the transaction price, and he was a bit confused in replying to media questions because both had to do with Centaline.
林奮強10月30日接受本報及傳媒查詢時，他說「設定『底線價』後，如賣出比『底線價』更高，差額是經紀額外佣金」。翌日，民主黨到廉署舉報，指他涉嫌觸犯防止賄賂條例後，他接受本報查詢時，說「買賣契約有列明按成交價給代理1%佣金，早於6月推售時，已同代理有口頭協議，賣樓賺取的差額，將會捐給中原慈善基金，一齊做善事」。昨日，林奮強在一個電台節目表示，由他的太太負責賣樓，6月委託代理，定了底價後，原本想把差額歸經紀，以鼓勵經紀落力賣樓，經紀則建議把差額捐出去。他與太太商量後，決定捐給中原慈善基金，中原經紀佣金按慣例1%，因為兩者都是中原，所以日前他回應傳媒時有點混淆。
However, the statement Centaline issued yesterday differs from what Mr Lam has said in two aspects.
但是中原地產昨日回應有關情時，有兩點與林奮強的說法不同。
(1) It expressly says that Centaline declines any client’s donation as a rule, and “this time, following this rule, we would decline Mr Franklin Lam’s offer to donate any part of any price difference in respect of the sale of any of his Casa Bella flats”.
（1）中原的回應明確表示中原慈善基金一貫不接受客戶直接捐款，「是次亦以一貫慣例，不接受林奮強先生將寶華軒物業買賣所得之部分差價之捐款」。
(2) It says, “Centaline has not accepted the suggestion that part of the price difference should be additional commission payable to the agent.” However, it does not say whether Mr Lam and the agent have come to any verbal agreement about donating money to Centaline Charity Fund. Therefore, Mr Lam and Centaline ought to clarify whether any donation arrangement was made when he commissioned the estate agent to sell his flats.
（2）中原的回應表示「中原地產沒有接受將物業成交部分差價當作經紀佣金的建議」，但是並無交代經紀與林奮強就捐款給慈善基金達成口頭協議，然則，在委託售樓過程中，是否曾經有「捐款」這一幕，林奮強和中原地產有必要澄清。
Mr Lam has admitted he offered to pay the agent the price difference as an incentive for him to sell his flats as soon as possible. Clearly, such an offer may amount to an “inducement”. The agent might have committed an offence if, not being alert or blinded by the prospect of gain, he had colluded with Mr Lam without Centaline’s knowledge. Mr Lam has done nothing illegal, but it is a blot on his character that he has made an offer that may go beyond the confines of the law.
林奮強曾經坦承以差價給經紀為誘因，鼓勵經紀盡快賣出他的物業，這個提議，明顯有「引誘」經紀之嫌，若經紀稍有不察或為利益蒙蔽，在中原地產不知道的情下「同流合污」，就涉嫌犯法了。現在於法雖無不當，但是林奮強一度提出有可能踰越法律規定的企圖，對他的個人品格也是一個污點。
As there are discrepancies between his explanations and available information and he may not be able to give a full picture of the affair in answering questions put to him, Mr Lam should, if he is convinced that he has done nothing wrong, gather information on the property sales in question and ask his agent to appear with him at a press conference, at which he should give a definitive account of the affair, answer reporters’ questions and clear up all doubts. Only if he does so will the affair be behind him. Unless he does so, another member of the Leung team will remain plagued by messy “scandal”. That would only detract from the administration’s credibility.
鑑於佣金的解釋和事實資料仍有扞格，而「隨問隨答」往往答得不夠完整，如果林奮強堅信自己並無做錯，他應該蒐集相關買賣資料，邀請那名地產經紀一同召開記者會，一次過講清楚整件事，答覆記者提問，澄清所有疑點，則事情才會過去，否則，梁班子成員之中，被不清不楚「醜聞」所困的又會多一人，對於政府整體誠信，只會增加負面影響。
明報社評 2012.11.02
phoebehlc 