(I shall have fun with your guys after completing the thesis on my invention. It would be interesting to see those so-called educator twist logic to push CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM into Biology class.)

Dear Ms. Ho and members of the Education Panel:
Re: Biology Curriculum Guidelines
Regarding the new biology curriculum for secondary schools with respect to the teaching of Darwinian evolution and the origin of biodiversity, we understand from SCMP articles that four scientists and a lobby group have been trying to change the present clause “In addition to Darwin’s theory, students are encouraged to explore other explanations for evolution and the origins of life, to help illustrate the dynamic nature of scientific knowledge”. We, as educators, scientists and professionals, are concerned about this issue and wish your panel to consider the following:
1) The present wording is stimulating, balanced, non-biased and has worked well for Hong Kong as well as being consistent with the 3-3-4 reform in stimulating students to exercise more critical thinking
The present wording of the guideline is excellent, and should be kept as it is, because it has served Hong Kong well. It has not in any way degraded the high standard of science teaching that we have had in Hong Kong. So the question we would pose here is – why change something that is already good, and has worked well? We also understand that good education is not just a matter of learning facts, but also includes the process of learning to critically think through issues. To encourage students “to explore other explanations” is to open up a forum within the science class to do just this. Indeed it is part of the essence of science, which students are taught, to allow different hypotheses to be placed for critical examination against available data.
2) There is no universally accepted definition of science Philosophers of science have tried for many decades to come up with statements as to what constitutes science and what does not – but without success. The question is how to differentiate between what constitutes science and pseudo-science. This proves to be a religiously-sensitive issue, not with respect to science in general, but with respect to origins science – since it is in the question of origins that worldview is necessarily entailed.
Generally accepted definitions of science, however, include the concepts that it deals with knowledge of natural phenomenon, that it builds knowledge in the form of theories, and that these theories should make testable predictions.
One working definition of science has been put forward last year by the US National Academy of Sciences:
“Definition of Science: The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.”
[“Science, Evolution and Creationism” NAS 2008 report page 10]
This seems a reasonable definition in that it does not preclude discussions of theories that might have religious entailments. It is notable that it has been made less religiously-sensitive than the 1999 NAS statement “the job of science is to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomenon” [“Science and Creationism: a
view from the NAS” (2nd ed. 1999, p7)], a statement that promoted a naturalistic worldview. The fact that the NAS has turned to a more inclusive definition of science demonstrates that Hong Kong has been ahead in this area in terms of school curriculum. This is something we should be proud of and not seek to change.
3) There is a real legitimate scientific controversy over Darwinian Theory.
Darwin’s theory, as applied to micro-evolution (that deals with genetic variations within a species), is well established and accepted by the scientific community.
Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory, however, has become increasingly
controversial over the last few decades. In its modern neo-Darwinian form, this theory says that all organisms are descended from a single original form of life, the mechanism being random genetic mutations acted on by natural selection. The following are just a few facts that are inconsistent with such a notion. Mutation rates are far too slow and geological time spans too short to account for more than just a
few base pair mutations. Novel innovations, each requiring the formation of new coherently operating clusters of genes, are placed well out of bounds. To make matters worse, bio-complexity is known to undergo sudden jumps (i.e. prokaryote -eukaryote transition, the Cambrian explosion, gaps in the fossil record). A growing listing of over 750 highly qualified scientists, many from some of the world’s most respected academic institutions, have signed a statement which says: “We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged”. [http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php]
Alternative explanations to Darwinian macro-evolution should thus be explored so long as they are based on rational and empirical grounds.

4) The origin of life remains a major scientific problem After more than 60 years of investigating how life could have arisen from pre-biotic
chemical conditions on the early earth, origin of life research has reached no conclusion on how life originated on Earth. Indeed the more that is discovered about the complexity of the living cell, the more unlikely it seems that life originated from non-life by natural processes (abiogenesis). The seriousness of this problem is witnessed by the fact that the subject of astrobiology is now taken seriously within the universities (a subject that would have been seen as pseudoscience 15-20 years ago). As with the origin of more complex life – the primary issue is that of the origin of genetic information.
We thank you for considering these points. Should you require further discussion or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours sincerely,
Prof. Stephen K.W. TSUI, Professor, Department of Biochemistry (Medicine), CUHK
(contact person)
Email: kwtsui@cuhk.edu.hk
Tel: (852) 2609 6381
Fax: (852) 2603 7732
Dr. Norman AU, Assistant Professor, School of Hotel and Tourism Management, HKPU
Prof. Oscar AU, Associate Professor, Department of Electronic and Computer Engineering,
HKUST
Dr. Shannon W.N. AU, Associate Professor, Department of Biochemistry (Science), CUHK
Yat-Yin AU, High School Teacher
Prof. Chris BELING, Professor, Department of Physics, HKU
Alex O.C. CHAN, Ph.D., High School Teacher
Dr. Alvin CHAN, Associate Professor, Department of Computing, Hong Kong Polytechnic
University
Dr. Anissa CHAN, Principal, St Paul's Co-educational College
3
Prof. Keith CHAN, Professor, Department of Computing, HKPU
Dr. Raymond T.T. CHAN, Specialist in Clinical Oncology, MBBS, FRCR, FHKCR,
FHKAM
Dr. Stephen C. CHAN, Associate Professor, Department of Computing, HKPU
Dr. Anthony CHENG, M.D. (Canada) FRCC, FRCSC
Prof. Roger CHENG, Associate Professor, Department of Electronic and Computer
Engineering, HKUST
Sandy C.K. CHIM, CA, MBA
Dr. Stephen S.C. CHIM, Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology,
CUHK
Suk-Yee CHIU, High School Teacher
Edmond CHO, MBA, Company director
Prof. Daniel H.K. CHOW, Professor, Department of Health Technology & Informatics,
HKPU
Dr. Louis CHOW, MBBS, FRCS, FHKAM (Surgery)
Prof. Yuen-Min CHOY, Adjunct Professor, Department of Biochemistry (Science), CUHK
Dr. Samuel Kai-Wah CHU, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education, HKU
Dr. Korris CHUNG, Associate professor, Department of Computing, HKPU
Prof. Jimmy C.H. FUNG, Professor, Department of Mathematics, HKUST
Dr. Teik-Khiang GOH, Associate Professor, Department of Biology, HKUST
Dr. Tiberio HARKO, Research Professor, Department of Physics, HKU
Dr. Kenneth HO, MBBS, FHKCFP, FRACGP, Medical practitioner
4
Prof. Kin-Chung HO, Dean, School of Science & Technology & Professor in Environmental
Studies, The Open University of Hong Kong
Dr. Joe KWAN, MPH, MCLS, D.Env, CIH, REHS, Director of Health, Safety and
Environment, HKUST
Dr. Grace LAU, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, HKIEd
Dr. Kwok-Fai LAU, Assistant Professor, Department of Biochemistry (Science), CUHK
Dr. Vivian W.Y. LUI, Assistant Professor, Department of Clinical Oncology, CUHK
Kwok-Lun LEE, M.Phil. (Physics)
Dr. Levi LEE, M.D. (U.S.A) Diplomate American Board of Pediatrics
Dr. Richard C.K. LEE, Assistant Professor, Department of Religion and Philosophy, HKBU
Dr. Mason C.P. LEUNG, Associate Professor, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, HKPU
Prof. Kwok-Nam LEUNG, Professor, Department of Biochemistry (Science), CUHK
Prof. Donald J. LEWIS, Associate Professor, Department of Law, HKU
Evelyn LIU, B.Sc., Environmental Engineer
Prof. Samuel C.L. LO, Professor, Department of Applied Biology and Chemical Technology,
HKPU
Catherine K. LUK, Ph.D. Biophysics
Dr. Tony K.F. MA, Senior Pathologist, MBBS(HK), FHKCPath, FHKAM(Path), FRCPath,
FRCPC, FRCPA, FIAC, DipAmB(Path)
Prof. Arthur FT MAK, Chair Professor and Head, Department of Health Technology and
Informatics, HKPU
Dr. Henry M.K. MOK, retired professor, Department of Decision Sciences & Managerial
Economics, CUHK
5
Dr. Vincent NG, Department of Computing, HKPU
Dr. Grace NGAI, Department of Computing, HKPU
Prof. Kanya M. NGAI, Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, HKU
Prof. Calvin C.P. PANG, Professor of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, CUHK.
Prof. Helen SHEN, Associate Professor, Department Computer Science and Engineering,
HKUST
Dr. Yee-Ming SIU, Stanley
Ferrous SO, High School Teacher
Porf. Richard H.Y. SO, MErgS MIIE MIEEE, Associate Professor, Department of Industrial
Engineering and Logistics Management, HKUST
Dr. Bilian N. SULLIVAN, Assistant Professor of Management, HKUST
Stephen TAM, High School Teacher
Andrew TONG, High School Teacher
Tse Kwong SHING, High School Teacher
Prof. Wen-Xiong WANG, Professor, Department of Biology, HKUST
Dr. Henry C.W. WONG, Family Physician, MBBS, FRACGP, FHKCFP, FHKAM (family
Medicine)
Prof. Joshua Sook-Leung WONG, Professor Emeritus, Department of Electronic and
Information Engineering, Former Vice President, HKPU
Dr. Man-Sau WONG, Associate Professor, Department of Applied Biology and Chemical
Technology, HKPU
Dr. Kwok-Ming YAO, Assistant Professor, Department of Biochemistry, LKS Faculty of
Medicine, HKU
6
Prof. Benjamin YUNG, Chair Professor in Biomedical Science, Department of Health
Technology and Informatics, HKPU
Cc: Mr. Michael Suen
Secretary for Education
Education Bureau

(中文版)

Petition:

To Education Bureau, HKSAR Government,

We, the undersigned, are concerned about the future of science education in Hong Kong, strongly object to the confusion of religion and science education, and petition that immediate action is taken by the Bureau to:

1. Issue open statement to emphasize the teaching of sciences and evolution's underpinning importance in biology, to allow students learn the best of scientific knowledge, to distinguish what is scientific theories from what is not (E.g. Creationism and Intelligent Design), and review the curriculum along this direction. Education Bureau should clarify what kind of discussions is encouraged in science class, and emphasize the purpose of such discussions is to be in accordance with the aim of science education.

2. Clarify the position of Education Bureau on the matter. On the RTHK Program "The Pulse" on April 24, 2009, the Bureau made a statement saying "Creationism is not considered as an alternative to Darwin’s theory". To be consistent, a similar open statement that declares "Intelligent Design is not considered as an alternative to Darwin’s theory" should be issued.

3. Rectify the damaging remarks by school principals, teachers and the group of 62, which distort science and advocate the teaching of pseudo-sciences. These people are being dishonest in using Intelligent Design/Creationism proponents' materials without disclosing the source (thus their Intelligent Design/Creationism position) to the public and legislative council.

We thank you for taking time to read this letter and will very much appreciate your prompt response. We wish to work together for the best of education in Hong Kong.

(Instructions for signers:
1. Sign with your real name in English, all caps for surname / family name (e.g. CHAN Po-Ming, TSE Johnny etc)
2. Show the district you live in, such as "Kwun Tong", "Tai Po" or "Lantau Island" etc.
3. Provide method of contact (it will not be shown on the petition publicly, and is only for the group committee's use to contact you if needed).
4. Sign once only -- if you are not sure or a failure occurred midway, check the signatories when you revisit the site to see if you have successfully signed.
5. Invite your friends to sign this petition, to help protecting science education in Hong Kong. Thank you very much for your support.)

English version

請願書：

致香港特區政府教育局：

我們簽署人擔心香港科學教育的未來，強烈反對將宗教和科學教育混淆，現向教育局請願，要求當局立即：

1. 發表公開聲明，強調科學教育中科學方法和演化論的重要性，使學生學習最佳的科學知識，區分什麼是科學的理論，什麼不是（如創造論和智慧設計），並沿著這的方向審查課程。教育局應明確指出在科學課鼓勵什麼樣的討論，並強調這種討論須根據科學教育的目的。

2. 澄清教育局在事件上的立場。2009年4月24日教育局在香港電台節目「The Pulse」發表聲明說：「創造論不被認為是達爾文理論外的其他解釋」。為貫徹始終，當局須發表類似的公開聲明，說明：「智慧設計論不被認為是達爾文理論外的其他解釋」。

3. 糾正一些校長，教師和62人團體的破壞性言論，因為它們歪曲科學，倡導教授偽科學。這些人不誠實地使用智慧設計/創造論支持者的材料，但從不向公眾和立法會透露其來源（從而隱瞞他們的智慧設計/創造論立場）。

我們多謝您抽出寶貴時間來閱讀這封信，也將非常感謝您的迅速反應。希望我們能共同努力，建設最優質的香港教育。

（給簽署人的指示：
1. 請用你的真實英文姓名，姓氏須全部大寫（如CHAN Po-Ming, TSE Johnny等）。
2. 顯示您所住區域，如「觀塘」， 「大埔」或「大嶼山」等。
3. 提供聯絡方法（它不會出現在公開的請願書，只用於幹事聯絡閣下（如有需要））。
4. 請只簽署一次 -- 如有不肯定或中途發生故障，請重新訪問網站和檢查簽署頁，看看是否已經成功簽署。
5. 邀請您的朋友簽署這項請願書，以協助維護香港的科學教育。感謝你的支持。）

又是時近中國近代慘史的另一次天安門事件,我想起2008年是我唯一沒有去的一次,感情一困擾就是兩年,要是專心一點工作,大慨中共也可以被我推翻,我的另類能源發明也可以面世了,人類不再糾纏已經落伍的廢物,還要自身難保的廢物來平反這一次屠殺,實屬荒謬,是殺人者要求他人原諒,還是殺人者以為可以把「自己原諒自己」當成已被他人原諒?猶如是香港人接不接受中共和基督右派合謀開民主、自由及人權的倒車來統治香港,而不是由中共去決定香港何時可以有普選!要是沒有中共從中作梗,香港在1988年已是一半普選.怎麼到現在才發覺香港到2017都未必有條件普選?

每年臨近六四,總有一大堆忠心的愛國人仕大發謬論,試圖做哲學家尼采都不可能達到的事,用言論/論述去推翻客觀的史實,一如中華基督教會在支持中學教授偽科學智慧設計論的理由中把演化論由事實變成了理論,再由理論暗中變成了假說;然後把智慧設計論由假說昇華到理論,最後把兩者當成了一模一樣。道理是一樣的,六四事件因為香港(基右要求更嚴格)的淫審機制而沒有在電視畫面中播出,後來更因為政治正確提也不提,於是新一代沒有親眼見到便出現了大量一㗁,在不可能的情況下要求有客觀事實來證明六月四日天安門廣場有學生被中共畜意謀殺,否則你就是不客觀、不理性、不科學,用民主程序選出的用民主程序去罷免他竟是反民主,用言論去反駁一㗁就是如梁美芬所言的言語霸權、語言暴力,卻對天天在發生的國家暴力迫害農民、下崗工人、地下教會、維權人仕、法輪功視而不見,真有關啟文(以想像來比較事實的)雙重標準風範!

同理,因為演化論是一門歷史科學,所以不可能要求每一過程都有化石支持,有某些環節不可能要實地重現(如寒武紀「大爆發」),更不可能要學生親身經歷,最多只能用數學模型在電腦模擬,然後和現實可以收集到的數據比較,於是演化論數以千計的證據,香港六十四位所謂學者都視而不見,都不及幾位神創論者的偉大理論,更不及一本內容錯漏百出的宗教經典的某一種解釋。更有趣的是,六四懷疑論要求審視所有證據,包括被中共刻意清洗的,只要一環有缺失(如不知殺人士兵用什麼槍殺人,子彈的軌跡,輾人的坦克是由什麼人駕駛,皮覆帶有什麼被害者的蛋白質,坦克車壓人的方法等),便推論六四其他有片段為證的事未曾發生過(如太黑看不清有什麼事發生,用意是其他人也不可能看清楚,即其他不同意者是說謊!);相反智慧設計論有極多環缺失,卻(因聖經)而一定是真:如智慧設計者是誰?他/她是不是地球人?他/她如何設計人及各生物,以什麼為藍圖?設計完又如何生產?每一項設計的原意是什麼?生產出來的東西又乎不反合設計的原意?設計者的計劃是什麼?如何乎合?如何不乎合?為什麼人的設計一定要像現在這樣子而不可以更好?為什麼被設計出來的人性又一定是像現在這樣子?什麼證據可以完全否定智慧設計論呢?

又一如六四事件一樣,我的私人網誌最近多了不少最近才開的網誌的宣傳,有些還苦心做了所有學生勝利撤出天安門廣場的短片,說「位高權重」的支聯會及泛民主派掩蓋六四沒有屠殺的事實真相;再看看香港特區政府用部份公帑起的馬灣創世公園,不就是如中共般創造證據去證明挪亞方舟確有其事嗎?要不然為什麼要把列出一雙雙動物,包括依據化石證據及演化論不可能於同一時間存在的三葉蟲,及隨便一塊木頭都可以當成的方舟遺骸呢?如果不是為了宣傳力撐網絡廿三條者的年輕地球論(聖經指地球只有六千年),嚴守主題公園形如中共不準記者在中共國各暴動現場拍照,留下證據,為什麼已經在聖經中公開了的東西卻不可以拍照,是不是為了不被其他有識之士(特別是外國人)恥笑,猶如中共國的報紙,中英文版的內容是不同的?另外,更有趣的是,如果主題公園不是為了宣揚基督教原教旨的意識形態,又為什麼像進中共國一樣不可帶反動印刷品(如不準蘋果日報,聖經有數量限制),猶如香港在北京奧運馬術比賽時要規定觀衆不可以穿有文字/廣告的衣衫進場?如此的規則不是擺明針對無神論及不贊同基督教原教旨主義教義的基督教徒,令他們不可以在場內進行反基督教原教旨的活動嗎?為什麼同樣是主題公園,為什麼迪士尼、海洋公園又不見不準使用者穿性感的衣服, 不準穿「曾蔭權是poor guy」,甚至不準用粗言穢語?如此不似是在美國基右管理的聖經帶嗎?你有見過大家樂、大快活、麥當勞可以拒絕為不滿大家樂、大快活、麥當勞剝削基層勞工的示威者提供食物嗎?人家還是正正宗宗的私人地方,但是公民活動的自由竟然比所謂的半公衆地方馬灣公園還大?是不是基督教的特色就是剝削公民自由,所以一但主題公園和基督教有關,公民自由不及宣揚基督教福音派的基督教原教旨教義重要?

六四不可能和解,因為它除了明刀明搶的殺人,還代表一場由中共上而下的反思想自由運動,用權力、武器為確立真理的標準,向由基督教前身天主教的黑暗時代解放歐洲的啟蒙精神宣戰,不單是一次的肉體殺害,還縱容中共的附庸以任何方式來向民運份子展示(物理)力量就是真理,政治就是赤裸裸的暴力,一如基右派多次用示威人數去證明視聖經的權威;而懦弱無能的香港特區政府,不夠膽真正的向反共、反政府、反基人仕、左派/右派人仕動刀動搶,只好協同如基督右派的明光社,偷偷竄改人權的慨念,偷偷的把佈道會來肯定中共非理性(未經大部份香港人投票公決,一如家暴及淫審條例)佔領香港,對中華基督教會蘇穎智為親中共的梁美芬助選視而不見,偷偷的在九月生效的新學制為智慧設計論創造空間,更偷偷的用公帑為基督右派在馬灣製做年輕地球論/神創論/智慧設計論的教材,偷偷的把公民教育換成國民教育,用通識教育三份一為學生喂狼奶,事後再以學生夠不夠愛國來決定他/她的成績,一如基右學校考核學生愛不愛基督一樣,偷偷的把淫審制度改革竄改成網絡廿三條/網絡金盾工程,而當自己的道德權威來自中共的武力及絕對真理的基督教聖經。如此,香港特區政府豈不是和中共一樣,天天在行反思想自由,反理性運動呢?

我是發明家,曾在私人網誌提出不少新科學及哲學理論,反對部份牛頓力學定律(因屬循環論證)、相對論、量子力學、電磁學,亦提出了不少實驗去證明或否定我的想法,我不明白如果香港特區政府真的主張理性分析探討諸子百家,為什麼不把我提出的理論及實驗加入新學制呢?說學術資格,我和主張智慧設計論的人都是業餘人仕,但我可以用實驗證明真偽,比它更勝一籌的是,還可以由理論推導一些可以客觀預測的自然現象,用作解決世界能源危機,例如我以為地磁和地球自轉有關,螺旋而下的物件的總動量多於直線而下的物件,地心吸力及磁場的能源可以被提取等。如果連六四都可以當成未曾發生,錯誤百出的聖經都可以是真理,如成報所言互聯網上的暴力、色情一定是社會暴力、色情的原兇,智慧設計論、年輕地球說都可以在馬灣公園被當是真的,為什麼在全世界有數以千萬計的另類科學人仕的想法,同類以美國為大本營的另類科學(如overunity)就不可能為真?為什麼不同時打破哲學、科學、心理學、神學(基督教有神論)、懦家思想的非理性權威,來一次香港思想大解放?

(資料綜合各報章報導。)

http://paper.wenweipo.com/2009/05/28/HK0905280003.htm

引聖經「所羅門審判」 梁自謂「臻美生母」

【本報訊】（記者劉美顏、彭美芳）據了解，被外界指控歛財、利益輸送的梁淑貞來自基督徒家庭，曾聲言創辦臻美是「為神工作」，昨日她亦多次將聖經經文掛在嘴邊，其中更引述「所羅門的審判」故事，聲稱臻美是自己的親生仔，願意放棄辦學權，正是「愛校」的表現。但有不願透露姓名的校董則表示，很難認同她所謂愛學校的說法。

聲稱愛校才放棄辦學權

梁淑貞舉行記者招待會前，即開始唸誦主禱文，令在場記者頗為奇怪。期間她以聖經列王紀上3章16至 28節的「所羅門的審判」故事，表明自己的愛校之心。故事中2位新生兒的母親帶著一名男嬰來到所羅門王面前，爭著認孩子是自己的兒子，對方是偽冒。所羅門王思索了一下，吩咐拿刀來，要將孩子劈為兩半，每個母親各得一半。孩子真正的母親即時大喊要將孩子讓給另一婦人，關愛之情溢於言表；相反「假母親」卻不介意孩子被「瓜分」。自稱為「臻美生母」的梁淑貞指，想辦好學校，「無論擔任校董、校監都好……學校就好似我個仔咁樣。」說明自己是為了學校好，才忍痛放棄辦學權。

但有臻美校董透露，過去4、5年校董會會議中，梁淑貞在會上表現情緒化、發脾氣，又經常責難他人，卻很少承認個人責任﹔而另一位校董是她的丈夫楊師義，他在會上多為太太辯護，用大量時間談論誰是誰非，「結果7時開始的會議，到凌晨也未完結，由於夜已深，又討論不出結果，最終校董會無法作出有效的決定」，結果校監繼續按其意思行事，校董會的監督作用形同虛設。

06至08年帳目仍未曝光

就鄧仲明在記者會上指05/06帳目中出現150萬元不明來歷的帳項，該名校董回應時指，05/06年的帳目都已交會計師審核及交予教育局，證明已正確無誤，但關鍵問題是06至08年的賬目仍然未曝光，這才令人懷疑。

http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/200 ... 6_050.html

廉署搜臻美疑利益輸送

連日來被指行政財政皆出現嚴重混亂的基督教臻美黃乾亨小學暨初中學校，校監梁淑貞終舉行記者會反擊指控，她承認臻美機構曾向朋友、會員及董事籌措服務經費，又稱機構曾經「蝕底啲」承投學校的外判服務。專責調查公營機構貪污案的廉署執行處Ｂ組人員，昨日傍晚到臻美黃乾亨小學暨初中學校位於油塘的校舍，檢走多份文件。

梁淑貞昨晚以基督教臻美社會服務機構名義，豪租旺角帝京酒店一宴會廳舉行一小時記者會。酒店職員透露場租最低消費為每小時四萬元，梁則解釋是避免影響學生及提供舒適環境予傳媒。答問環節甫開始，梁就被追問有關學校帳目及向家長借錢等問題。

她表示，自己於本年一月才出任校監，欠缺的兩個年度帳目報告應由前任校監黃英琦及謝家浩負責。她上任後已即時跟進，其中一份的草稿已做好交予校董會成員過目，而另一份則待核數師下星期進行批核。
忽然披露董事誤存款項

她又「忽然」披露，有校董曾於○五、○六年度將一筆一百五十萬元款項誤存於學校帳目，導致核數師不肯批核，其後已剔除有關帳項。

對於學校將服務外判予辦學團體，梁淑貞解釋，校方一直按教育局及校內守則進行招標及審標，但由於無人投標，故辦學團體才「蝕底啲」承辦。她又反駁有關服務並無施以罰款，亦無對等合約，並非傳媒所指的綑綁式服務，反是「豬頭骨」，堅稱做法合情合法合理。
承認向會員及董事貸款

當梁被問及有否向家長借錢時，她一度強調自己並沒以個人或機構名義向家長借錢，但旋即改口指臻美作為慈善團體，發展會務時或有向會員、董事甚至好友籌款，部分會以借貸方式進行。她強調會向有關人士發單據訂明償還時限，且一定會定時還錢。

梁淑貞強調自己一直是「義工」，任校監期間並無支薪，直至○八年擔任臻美秀華幼稚園之校監時，才獲教育局批准領取每月三萬九千元的津貼。

專責調查公營機構貪污案的廉署執行處Ｂ組人員昨日傍晚到臻美黃乾亨小學暨初中學校位於油塘的校舍，檢走多份文件，消息指，廉署今次是因應傳媒廣泛報道，懷疑有受政府資助的學校掌舵人涉嫌私相授受，決定主動出擊，到學校進行初步調查，首要工作是核查學校的財政有否出現問題，當中是否涉及有人「落格」及利益輸送，暫未拘捕任何人。

據悉，校董梁淑貞原定於昨日下午六時在油塘校舍兩個課室舉行記者會，未知是否有人「收到風」，知道會有廉署人員前來調查，故臨時通知傳媒，於下午五時許將記者會舉行地點改為旺角帝京酒店。

http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/200 ... 6_051.html

斥教局打壓 逼棄辦學權

【本報訊】被揭涉嫌利益輸送及身兼多職的梁淑貞，昨日與其身兼校董的姊夫鄧仲明會見記者作出「大反擊」，述說多年來「艱辛」辦學的心路歷程，又指有人「別有用心」地製造巧合又不尋常事件，試圖掩飾其無法申辦新高中課程的錯誤，但對於何人製造連串事件卻三緘其口。她又聲稱，自己受到教育局打壓，令新高中無法開辦，他們要求立法會盡快成立專案小組調查事件。
有人別有用心製造巧合

基督教臻美黃乾亨小學暨初中學校帳目不清的風波擾攘多日，校監梁淑貞昨召開記者會，並以「受害人」身份作出大控訴。自稱多年來以「一切為教育」為辦學宗旨的她，聲稱有人「別有用心」製造各種巧合的不尋常事件，相信當中牽涉重大問題，她更聲言，「因有人犯錯，令原來可開辦新高中課程的權利被奪去，更試圖毀滅證據」，因此不得不站出來揭露真相。

她透露，早前當她出席介紹新任校長的家長會時，竟發現現場有警務人員出席，校園外更有警車駐守，她認為事件不尋常，決定即時迴避離開，她稱：「後來有消息指，由於擔心當晚場面會失控，因此有警方在場，又指我會即場發難出走，然後在場的家長會拍手歡呼，相信這些事件都是有預謀的。」但當記者追問何人對她作出此舉動時，她卻一再迴避問題，拒絕正面回應。

她又指，○四年她曾接到教育局的通知，指她獲批開辦中四至中六的課程，但至翌年她與教育局開會，她引述當時與她見面的高官指，學校無法開辦高中，又稱「（擴建校舍之地）畀咗冇得再畀。」今年初她接任校監一職時，曾向教育局查詢有關註冊文件的遺漏時，竟被當局叫她自行向前任校監查詢。她批評教育局的連串打壓令她被迫放棄辦學權。

對於有報道指她的家族壟斷校董會，她承認校董會有不少人屬其親屬，但人數未超出校董會的一半，又指他們均在開辦學校前已參與組織的工作，並擁專業資格，如姊夫鄧仲明為註冊社工及擁兩個學位，她又強調眾人無參與任何財務事宜。

http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/200 ... 6_052.html

自稱無殼蝸牛 實擁七百萬豪宅

【本報訊】梁淑貞和楊師義夫婦被揭發坐擁七百萬元上水豪宅，但兩人在○七年接受一間基督教電視台訪問時，自稱為「無殼蝸牛」，早在九十年代更是賣樓來創辦臻美，「努力發展事業，所賺到錢用來繼續服務，一毫子也不要」。

創世電視的節目《創世非常談》在○七年訪問梁淑貞和楊師義夫婦，節目主持人正是立法會議員黃成智。梁淑貞憶述創辦臻美經過，指她在高中時患上絕症，類風濕關節炎入心臟，醫生當時指她無得醫，僅餘三個月命，可是兩年後奇迹康復。

梁淑貞表示，「我重拾生命後，當時社會風氣有好多中、小學生輕生，他們無出路、無方向感，我好想幫助他們，於是租了一個街舖提供服務，舉辦親子講座、開Band房讓青少年玩音樂，我又與青少年一起踢足球。」
「非為賺錢 一毫子也不要」

楊師義則稱，臻美成立一年後，他辭去高薪厚職，拿退休金兼賣樓投入臻美。他又說，臻美已有幼稚園、小學和初中，還打算開辦國際學校。除了辦學，臻美亦有賣魚，稱之為「奇妙魚」，從養魚戶中取魚出售。梁淑貞說，「好多人想搵快錢，好多食物都有問題，我認識到一班漁民，他們的魚無毒，好安全，但艱苦經營，我好想幫他們。」

她稱，「發展事業並非為做生意或賺錢，我一毫子也不要，百分百拿出來成立基金，想辦法繼續提供服務。」

「無殼蝸牛」言猶在耳，土地註冊處的土地登記冊則顯示，梁淑貞夫婦在○七年六月斥資共七百四十萬元購入上水皇府山八座兩個單位，其中梁淑貞名下的八樓F室作價四百一十五萬元，楊師義則購入E室，作價三百二十一萬元。

http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/200 ... 6_053.html

離任兩年 拒交還校長室

【記者李寶怡報道】梁淑貞○七年收到教育局的通知，嚴禁她打理學校事務兩年。據悉梁淑貞退下校長一職後，一直將校長室及門外的五個儲物櫃的櫃門重門深鎖，並拒絕交出鎖匙，直至她重返該校擔任校監，才自行開啟以往她任校長時所屬的校長室房門。

* 放大圖片

指插手校務或遭監禁

在昨日的記者會上，梁淑貞被問及為何仍未向教育局遞交過去兩個學年經審核財務報告時，她突然站立，並舉起教育局於○七年中向她發出的信件，指信件內容是當局嚴禁她打理學校事務兩年，若有違規，最高會被罰款十萬元及監禁兩年。

教育局消息稱，梁淑貞當年因被教育局發現她並未符合校長資歷，才令她不能繼續擔任校長一職，其後梁淑貞暗地裏通過部分校董，企圖逼黃英琦辭去校監一職。事件遭人向教育局投訴後，當局才向梁淑貞發出有關信件。梁淑貞展示的教育局函件，內容指根據教育則例第三十八條，任何人如非校監而執行校監職能，即屬違法。

據校內消息人士透露，○一年至○六年期間梁淑貞擔任校長時，她一直主要負責管理學校財政，當時並於學校的三樓設有校長室。不過當梁淑貞退下校長一職後，校長室一直重門深鎖，嚴禁任何人士進出，而校長室門外的五個櫃門亦同樣上鎖，她更拒絕交出校長室及有關櫃門的鎖匙。即使當時於○六年接任校長一職的彭敬慈，亦不能使用該校長室，只能被迫利用會客室當作校長室使用。直至前校監謝家浩於去年十二月辭職後，梁淑貞重返該校擔任校監，才自行開啟以往她任校長時所屬的校長室房門。
行蹤神秘 教局難接觸

消息指，梁淑貞過去多年行蹤神秘，就算是教育局亦難於接觸，教育局最近頻頻聯絡她商討校政移交事宜，仍不得要領。校董黃英琦則表示，目前家長及學生對學校前景感到很焦慮，她認為梁淑貞應從速與教育局合作，盡早就學校的資產作盤點及移交。