■立法會議員聯同殘障人士及家屬示威，要求社署接管「康橋之家」，並修訂法例及加強懲處。 資料圖片【原文】社會福利署（Social Welfare Department）10月發出書面通知，撤銷私營殘障人士院舍「康橋之家」原有效期至明年3月的豁免證明書（certificate of exemption）（等同「釘牌」）。這是《殘疾人士院舍條例》自2011年11月生效後，社署首次作出的「釘牌」行動。
「康橋之家」近日最被輿論關注的，是前院長張健華在兩年前涉（alleged）性侵（sexually harassed）一名中度智障的女院友，被控非法性交罪名，但由於女受害人患創傷壓力症（post-traumatic stress disorder）不宜作供，被告獲律政司撤控。
該院舍自1997年成立以來屢次出現嚴重問題（scandal-stricken），包括2001年涉嫌疏忽導致一名院友受傷死亡；張健華亦早有兩宗涉嫌非禮弱智女院友的前科。「康橋之家」過往劣跡斑斑（notorious），社署在輿論炮轟多日（days of public outcry）之後作此行動，難免讓人覺得是後知後覺的被動之舉。
《條例》生效5年 272家院舍仍未領牌
當然，社署給出的「釘牌」理由，是「康橋之家」未能符合社署發出指示（directions），並非因為前院長的官司，但事件已經反映一些殘障人士院舍管理不善，社署監管明顯不足（inadequate supervision）。
現時社會上存在大量類似「康橋之家」模式，只是以「殘疾人士院舍豁免證明書」經營，而未領有「殘疾人士院舍牌照」的經營者。根據政府數字（governmental figures），全港僅有40家持有牌照的院舍，而僅僅持有豁免證明書的院舍卻多達272家。《殘疾人士院舍條例》自2011年生效，在條例生效前已經存在的院舍，可以申請豁免證明書，政府解釋是旨在給予時間讓原有院舍進行改善工程，但是時隔5年，絕大部分院舍仍然沒有領牌，卻可以通過證明書來不斷續期及持續經營，不禁令人質疑《條例》是否名存實亡（exist only in name）。
當局應訂時間表 背景審清楚
由於絕大部分私營殘障人士院舍仍然沒有領取牌照，社會不能不懷疑「康橋之家」的管理不善事件僅屬冰山一角（a tip of the iceberg）。當局有必要全面檢視當前對殘障人士院舍的監管條例及其執行情況，尤其是對持有豁免證明書的院舍過渡至持牌院舍訂出明確的時間表，提高《條例》執行的透明度（transparency），讓社會監督這些院舍的改善進程。
當局對今後申請營辦私人院舍牌照的人士，需作更詳細的背景和品格審查（vetting and integrity checks），嚴格拒絕有風化案底者經營，對此不能有絲毫寬待。
（標題及小標題為編輯所加）
（摘錄自文匯報社評21-10-2016）
Care home's licence revocation raises alerts
【譯文】The Bridge of Rehabilitation, a privately-run residential care home for persons with disabilities, was handed a written notice in October as the Social Welfare Department (SWD) revoked its temporary operating licence. The care home's certificate of exemption was originally effective until March 2017.
This is the first time the SWD has revoked a licence since the Residential Care Homes (Persons with Disabilities) Ordinance came into effect in November 2011.
The care home has remained on the headlines recently. Its ex-director Cheung Kin-wah was alleged to have sexually harassed a female resident with moderate intellectual disability in 2014. But the charge against Cheung was eventually dropped by the Department of Justice because the victim had been suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and was deemed unfit to testify.
Full certificate holders still scarce
The centre has been scandal-stricken ever since its opening in 1997: A resident allegedly died from injury in 2001 due to neglect; Cheung was prosecuted in the past for molesting two mentally disabled women who were under his care. The SWD will inevitably be questioned as being asleep at the wheel as nothing has been done to this notorious care home until days of public outcry.
According to the SWD, the centre's certificate was taken away due to failure in following the department's directions, rather than the sexual assault allegations on Cheung. However, the incident has already exposed the subpar management of care homes and the inadequate supervision from the SWD.
Like the Bridge of Rehabilitation, a large number of care homes are currently operating with a certificate of exemption instead of a full licence. According to governmental figures, there are only 40 licence holders as opposed to the 272 exemption certificate holders.
When the Residential Care Homes (Persons with Disabilities) Ordinance commenced in 2011, care homes then in operation were given time to apply for a certificate of exemption so that improvements could be carried out. It has been five years but most of these homes are still renewing their certificates, and it is questionable whether the ordinance now exist only in name.
Background check must be thorough
As the majority of private care homes are still unlicensed, the public cannot help but suspect that the mismanagement of the Bridge of Rehabilitation is only a tip of the iceberg. The authorities must review comprehensively the existing regulations and how they are enforced.
In particular, the government should set up a clear timetable to phase out such temporary licence and boost transparency of regulation enforcement, so that the public can monitor the improvement progress of these homes. Authorities will have to tighten vetting and integrity checks for future licence applicants, so as to make sure sex offenders will not have a chance to run care homes for the disabled.■Jeffrey Tse [ywc_jeffrey@hotmail.com]
Questions
1. 透明度
2. 疏忽
3. 背景審查
4. 風化案底者
5. 勞工及福利局
6. 社會福利署
7. 創傷壓力症
8. 釘牌
9. 非法性交
10. 品格審查
Answer
1. transparency
2. neglect
3. vetting
4. sex offender
5. Labour and Welfare Bureau
6. Social Welfare Department
7. post-traumatic stress disorder
8. licence revocation
9. unlawful sexual intercourse
10. integrity check