案例名称 HKSAR v MA WAI KWAN
案例名称HKSAR v. MA W AI KWAN, David AND OTHERS
审理法院Court of Appeal of the High Court
案件类别Reservation of Question of Law
受理日期
判决日期1997.07.29
HKSAR v. MA WAI KWAN, David AND OTHERS
CAQL000001/1997
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG
SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
Reservation of Question of Law No. 1 of 1997
Between
HKSAR Applicant
AND
MA WAI-KWAN, David,
Respondents
CHAN KOK-WAI, Donny
and TAM KIM-YUEN
__________
Coram: The Hon Chan, Chief Judge, Nazareth V-P and Mortimer V-P
Dates of Hearing: 22, 23, and 24 July 1997
Date of Judgment: 29 July 1997
----------------------
J U D G M E N T
----------------------
Chan, Chief Judge :
Background
1. The respondents are the three defendants in a criminal trial before the Court of First Instance. They were charged on 11th August 1995 with conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice, contrary to common law. It is alleged that between 12th and 29th June 1995, the three respondents conspired together by offering to pay money to the mother of a Mr Wong who was then charged with robbery before the District Court together with the 3rd respondent and another person. It is further alleged that the purpose of offering money to the lady was to serve as a reward for her son Mr Wong pleading guilty to a lesser offence and maintaining a false version of events which would favour the 3rd respondent and the other person. They were committed for trial in the then High Court after a preliminary inquiry which took several days in December 1996. On 3rd January 1997, Indictment No.1 of 1997 was filed against them. The 3rd respondent also faced an alternative charge of attempting to pervert the course of public justice.
2. The trial was fixed for hearing on 16th June 1997. The first few days were spent on sorting out prosecution witness statements and other documents. On the fifth day of the trial, the 2nd respondent applied for a permanent stay of the criminal proceedings. This lasted several days. On 27th June 1997, the last working day before 1st July, the trial judge, Deputy Judge Lugar-Mawson, refused to stay the proceedings.
3. On 3rd July 1997, the tenth day of the trial, the respondents took issue on the Reunification Ordinance, the Basic Law and the preservation of the common law. On 7th July 1997, which was the twelfth day of the trial, the three respondents were, with their consent, arraigned on an amended indictment which was filed on 19th June 1997. They all pleaded not guilty to the first count of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice. The alternative count against the 3rd respondent was directed by the Court to be put on file, not to be proceeded with without the leave of the Court. The respondents then applied to the Deputy Judge to quash the Amended Indictment. The prosecution opposed this application and applied to reserve certain questions of law for the determination by the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 81 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.221. There was no objection from the respondents. The Deputy Judge made the order.
4. On 9th July 1997, at a hearing for directions before us, we drew the parties' attention to s.81 of Cap 221 which provides that the questions of law reserved for this Court must be on matters arising from the trial. On the following day, the parties went before the Deputy Judge. His order was amended, apparently with the consent of all parties. This is now before this Court. Representation of the parties
5. I should mention that since the questions of law to be determined by this Court involve some important constitutional issues, we requested the Director of Legal Aid to brief leading counsel for the 3rd respondent. However, as it turned out, the Director decided not to do so and was prepared only to instruct junior counsel to hold a watching brief. Pursuant to our directions, counsel for the 2nd respondent filed his skeleton arguments on the questions of law to be decided. Counsel for the 1st respondent indicated that he would adopt those submissions.
6. On the first day of this hearing, counsel for both the 2nd and 3rd respondents informed us that they had no instructions to act for their clients because of lack of funds. They asked to be released from the case. We gave leave to the solicitors to withdraw but invited both counsel to stay and make submissions on the issues before the Court. They agreed to do so. In the afternoon, Ms Gladys Li, SC, Miss Margaret Ng and Mr Paul Harris appeared before us and offered to assist the Court on the issue of the legality of the Provisional Legislative Council. Counsel for the
2nd and 3rd respondents were willing to be led by this team in view of the importance of the issue involved. We readily extended our invitation to Ms Li, SC, and her team. We are most grateful for their assistance.
The two questions of law
7. There were initially five questions of law for the determination of this Court stated in the Motion issued by the prosecution and the Order made by the Deputy Judge. I am given to understand that they were framed in order to cover the grounds relied on by the 2nd respondent in his application to quash the Amended Indictment. Having reconsidered the matter, the prosecution decided to pose only two questions for determination. They are :
(1) Is the offence at common law of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice part of the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR")?
(2) Are the accused liable to answer to and to be tried on count 1 of the Indictment No.1 of 1997 ? Survival of the common law
8. It is the respondents' contention that the common law has not survived the change of sovereignty on 1st July 1997. Their main submission is that the Basic Law, in particular Article 160, provides that the laws previously in force in Hong Kong which include the common law, rules of equity, ordinances, subordinate legislation and customary law shall be adopted. They argue that it is necessary to have a positive act of adoption either by the National People's Congress (NPC) through its Standing Committee and/or the legislature of the HKSAR. It is submitted that there was no valid adoption of these laws by the NPC or its Standing Committee and that the legality and competence of the Provisional Legislative Council is in doubt. Furthermore, the NPC Standing Committee had "repealed" the Application of English Law Ordinance (Cap 88) as contravening the Basic Law. As a result, the common law has not survived the change of sovereignty and there is no common law in Hong Kong after 1st July.
9. Leading counsel for the Government submits that under the Basic Law itself, the common law forms part of the laws of HKSAR. No formal act of adoption of the law previously in force is necessary. A decision is required only to declare which of the laws that are in contravention of the Basic Law are not to be adopted. In any event, the NPC Standing Committee had indeed adopted all the laws previously in force which are not in contravention of the Basic Law. The Reunification Ordinance has not adopted or purported to adopt the common law since that Ordinance was enacted on the basis that the laws previously in force have already been adopted. Counsel submits that the NPC decision not to adopt the Application of English Law Ordinance does not affect the maintenance of the common law in Hong Kong.
10. The answer to the question whether the common law has survived the change of sovereignty depends on whether the laws previously in force in Hong Kong are automatically adopted upon the establishment of the HKSAR on 1st July 1997 or whether it is necessary to have an overt act of adoption of such laws and if so, whether there has been any valid adoption. This turns on an interpretation of the provisions of the Basic Law.
Interpretation of the Basic Law
11. Before one attempts to interpret the Basic Law, it is necessary to bear in mind the history, nature and purpose of this document.
12. On 19th December 1984, the Joint Declaration was signed between the Government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Government of the United Kingdom. By this Joint Declaration, Hong Kong was to be restored to China with effect from 1st July 1997. Under Article 3 of the Joint Declaration, China declared certain basic policies regarding Hong Kong. There was to be established the HKSAR which would enjoy a high degree of autonomy. Under Article 3(12), these basic policies would be stipulated in a Basic Law to be promulgated by the NPC and would remain unchanged for fifty years from 1st July 1997. These policies were further elaborated in Annex I to the Joint Declaration. The Basic Law for the HKSAR was drafted by the Drafting Committee of the Basic Law which consisted of members from China and from Hong Kong. It took many years to complete. It was promulgated on 4th April 1990 and was to take effect from 1st July 1997.
13. The Basic Law is not only a brainchild of an international treaty, the Joint Declaration. It is also a national law of the PRC and the constitution of the HKSAR. It translates the basic policies enshrined in the Joint Declaration into more practical terms. The essence of these policies is that the current social, economic and legal systems in Hong Kong will remain unchanged for 50 years. The purpose of the Basic Law is to ensure that these basic policies are implemented and that there can be continued stablity and prosperity for the HKSAR. Continuity after the change of sovereignty is therefore of vital importance.
14. Mr Fung, SC, for the Government submits that a generous and purposive approach is to be adopted in the interpretation of the Basic Law since it is a constitutional document. See A.G. of Gambia v. Jobe[1984]AC 689 and R. v. Sin Yau-ming[1992] 1 HKCLR 127. While I agree with this as a general proposition, I would add a few words of caution. The Basic Law is a unique document. It reflects a treaty made between two nations. It deals with the relationship between the Sovereign and an autonomous region which practises a different system. It stipulates the organisations and functions of the different branches of government. It sets out the rights and obligations of the citizens. Hence, it has at least three dimensions : international, domestic and constitutional. It must also be borne in mind that it was not drafted by common law lawyers. It was drafted in the Chinese language with an official English version but the Chinese version takes precedence in case of discrepancies. That being the background and features of the Basic Law, it is obvious that there will be difficulties in the interpretation of its various provisions. (See the discussions in Hong Kong's New Constitutional Order, Yash Ghai, Chapter 5.) In my view, the generous and purposive approach may not be applicable in interpreting every article of the Basic Law. However, in the context of the present case which involves the constitutional aspects of the Basic Law, I agree that this approach is more appropriate.
Relevant provisions in the Basic Law
The provisions
15. The provisions in the Basic Law which are relevant to the issue of whether the common law has survived the change of sovereignty are as follows :
"Article 8
The laws previously in force in Hong Kong, that is, the common law, rules of equity, ordinances, subordinate legislation and customary law shall be maintained, except for any that contravene this Law, and subject to any amendment by the legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Article 18
The laws in force in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be this Law, the laws previously in force in Hong Kong as provided for in Article 8 of this Law, and the laws enacted by the legislature of the Region.
Article 19
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be vested with independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication.
The courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall have jurisdiction over all cases in the Region, except that the restrictions on their jurisdiction imposed by the legal system and principles previously in force in Hong Kong shall be maintained.
Article 81
The Court of Final Appeal, the High Court, district courts, magistrates' courts and other special courts shall be established in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The High Court shall comprise the Court of Appeal and the Court of First Instance.
The judicial system previously practised in Hong Kong shall be maintained except for those changes consequent upon the establishment of the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Article 87
In criminal or civil proceedings in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the principles previously applied in Hong Kong and the rights previously enjoyed by parties to proceedings shall be maintained.
Article 160
Upon the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the laws previously in force in Hong Kong shall be adopted as laws of the Region except for those which the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress declares to be in contravention of this Law. If any laws are later discovered to be in contravention of this Law, they shall be amended or cease to have force in accordance with the procedure as prescribed by this Law.
Documents, certificates, contracts, and rights and obligations valid under the laws previously in force in Hong Kong shall continue to be valid and be recognized and protected by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, provided that they do not contravene this Law.
(my emphases)
16. These are the provisions with regard to the laws which are to be in force, the judicial system which are to be in place and the principles relating to legal proceedings which are to be applied in the HKSAR.
Its intention
17. In my view, the intention of the Basic Law is clear. There is to be no change in our laws and legal system (except those which contravene the Basic Law). These are the very fabric of our society. Continuity is the key to stability. Any disruption will be disastrous. Even one moment of legal vacuum may lead to chaos. Everything relating to the laws and the legal system except those provisions which contravene the Basic Law has to continue to be in force. The existing system must already be in place on 1st July 1997. That must be the intention of the Basic Law.
Its wording
18. The wording is equally clear. The Basic Law is the constitution of the HKSAR. It is the most important piece of law in the land. It states clearly what the position is as from 1st July 1997. In my view, the word "shall" in these provisions can only be used in the mandatory and declaratory sense. The meaning of these provisions is this. On 1st July 1997 when the HKSAR comes into existence and the Basic Law comes into effect, these are to be the laws and legal system in force and the principles applicable in the place. There is no express or implied requirement in any of these provisions that the laws previously in force or the legal system previously in place need to be formally adopted before they can continue to be applicable after the change of sovereignty. On the contrary, the use of the terms "shall be maintained", "shall continue" and "shall be" leaves absolutely no doubt in my mind that there can be no question of any need for an act of adoption. These terms are totally inconsistent with such a requirement.
Article 160
19. The respondents' argument is based mainly on Article 160 which uses the words "shall be adopted". It is suggested that "shall" in this term is used in the future tense. In my view, that provision cannot be read in isolation but must be considered in the light of the rest of the Basic Law including in particular the articles to which I have referred above. It cannot be construed to have a meaning which is inconsistent with the other articles relating to the adoption of the existing laws and legal system.
20. In any event, Article 160 even on its own has the same theme as the other provisions. There is a sense of continuity in this article. In the first paragraph of this article, it is provided that any laws which are later to be found to be in contravention of the Basic Law shall be amended or cease to have force. Laws which have not yet come into force cannot cease to have force. In my view, this paragraph clearly indicates that the laws previously in force in Hong Kong are to be effective on 1st July 1997 without any act of adoption. Paragraph 2 of that article puts the matter beyond argument. It provides that documents, certificates, contracts, rights and obligations valid under the laws previously in force shall continue to be valid. How can these continue to be valid if the laws which govern their validity cannot even apply without an act of adoption ? It simply makes no sense that the Basic Law continues the validity of these documents,
certificates, contracts, rights and obligations but requires the laws which upholds them to be adopted.
21. I would also agree that apart from confirming that the laws previously in force are to be the laws of the HKSAR at the time the Region comes into existence, the purpose of Article 160 is to provide for the exclusion of laws which are later found to be in contravention of the Basic Law.
22. Construing Article 160 either by itself or in conjunction with the other articles, I am firmly of the view that it does not have the effect of requiring the laws previously in force in Hong Kong to be formally adopted in order to be effective after 30 June 1997. In fact, no other article in the Basic Law has such effect.
Joint Declaration
23. I find support for this view in the provisions in the Joint Declaration which can be used as an aid to the interpretation of the Basic Law. Article 3 provides:
"Article 3(3)
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication. The laws currently in force in Hong Kong will remain basically unchanged.
Article 3(12)
The above stated basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong and the elaboration of them in Annex I to this Joint Declaration will be stipulated, in a Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China, and they will remain unchanged for 50 years."
24. It is quite clear that the Joint Declaration is a declaration of intent. It evinces the intention of the two Governments and refers to what is to happen in future. Hence the future tense
is used. Contrast Annex I to the Joint Declaraion which was to form the basis of the Basic Law. The first paragraph in Section II says :
"After the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the laws previously in force in Hong Kong (i.e. the common law, rules of equity, ordinances, subordinate legislation and customary law) shall be maintained, save for any that contravene the Basic Law and subject to any amendment by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region legislature. (my emphasis) 25. The wording is in line with Article 8 of the Basic Law. The inevitable conclusion is that "shall" is not used in the future sense but in the mandatory and declaratory sense.
Chinese text
26. Mr Fung, SC, for the Government draws our attention to the fact that the Basic Law was enacted in the Chinese language by the PRC and that the Chinese text prevails over the English version in case of discrepancies. When the relevant articles in the Chinese text are considered, there can be no doubt as to what they mean or are intended to mean. The Chinese characters "采用 cai yong" (meaning "adopt") in Article 160 are clearly used in the mandatory and declaratory sense. They do not admit of an interpretation which requires a future act of adoption before the laws previously in force are to be applicable after 1st July 1997. However, I do not think it is necessary to rely on the Chinese text at all. The English text is already quite clear and without ambiguity. Adoption by NPC Decision
27. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the NPC saw fit to make a Decision on 23rd February 1997 which purported to adopt the laws previously in force. This, it is argued, suggests that it is necessary to have an act of adoption before such laws can become effective after 1st July 1997. In my view, this argument cannot be sustained in the light of the purpose and contents of that Decision.
28. The Decision on 23rd February 1997 was made for the expressed purpose of exercising the NPC's right under Article 160 of the Basic Law to declare which laws previously in force contravene
the Basic Law and are thus excluded from operation after 1st July 1997. The title of the Decision refers to the treatment of laws in accordance with Article 160 and begins with a recital of the relevant part of that article. The reference to Article 8 in fact reinforces the view that the laws previously in force in Hong Kong will automatically become effective as the laws of the HKSAR except for those that contravene the Basic Law. It also supports the view that Article 160 must be read in conjunction with Article 8.
29. Under Paragraph 1 of the Decision, the laws previously in force in Hong Kong are adopted as the laws of the HKSAR. Paragraph 2 refers to those laws which are considered as contravening the Basic Law and therefore not to be adopted when the HKSAR comes into existence. It is also significant to note paragraph 4 which refers to the laws "which have been adopted".
30. In my view, this Decision is clear enough. It adopts the laws previously in force in Hong Kong as the laws of the HKSAR when it comes into existence on 1st July 1997. This is strictly speaking not necessary in the light of the clear provisions in the Basic Law. But since it purports to declare invalid those laws which contravene the Basic Law (as it does), it is natural that it also, for the sake of clarity, refers to the laws which are to be adopted on 1st July 1997. Application of English Law Ordinance
31. The respondents submit that the Application of English Law Ordinance provided a new basis for the application of the English law and the "repeal" of this Ordinance "throws in doubt the precise scope of the common law to be applied in Hong Kong". I do not agree.
32. English law which includes the common law has started to apply in Hong Kong since at least 1844 when the previous Supreme Court Ordinance was enacted. That Ordinance was replaced by the Application of English Law Ordinance in 1966. The 1966 Ordinance did not import the English law. Nor did it terminate the application of English law which was applied by virtue of the previous Supreme Court Ordinance and then re-apply the English law all over again. It continued the application of the English law. Its effect was, as its long title indicated, "to declare the extent to which English law is in force in the Colony". It set out clearly the restrictions in the application of English law in Hong Kong and listed those imperial acts which were still in force.
The reasons for the non-adoption of this Ordinance by the NPC Standing Committee are obvious. The Basic Law has already adopted the laws previously in force. Further, that Ordinance referred to imperial acts which are either not applicable to the HKSAR any more or have been "localised". In other words, that Ordinance is not only no longer necessary, it also contravenes the Basic Law by its incorporation of imperial acts.
33. I do not think the non-adoption of the Application of English Law Ordinance has cast any doubt on the continued application of the common law in the HKSAR.
Cut-off date
34. It is submitted by the respondents that there is an uncertainty in the cut off date of the laws previously in force. They query whether it should be the date of the Joint Declaration in 1984 or the date of the promulgation of the Basic Law in 1990 or 30th June 1997. The relevance of this relates to the common law offence of conspiracy (with which these respondents now face) which was abolished by the Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance 1996.
35. With respect, this point is beyond argument. The cut off date cannot be the date of the Joint Declaration. It was only a treaty and a declaration of intent. It cannot be the date of the promulgation of the Basic Law since it was then stated to take effect on a future date. The Basic Law came into effect on 1st July 1997. It declares in Article 8 and other provisions that the laws previously in force and the existing legal system are adopted. The only logical and in fact proper conclusion is that 30th June 1997 is the cut off date.
36. The respondents are alleged to have committed a conspiracy in June 1995 and they were charged in August 1995. That is one year before the enactment of the Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance 1996. It is clear that the charge is not affected by that amendment. (See s.159E(7)).
Survival of the Indictment
37. The respondents contend that they are not liable to answer to and be tried on the Amended Indictment. The arguments are as follows. The respondents were committed for trial before the
resumption of sovereignty. The Indictment was also filed before that date. The Supreme Court before which they appeared had ceased to operate as from 1st July 1997. They should not now be tried before the Court of First Instance of the HKSAR which is not a properly constituted court and the proceedings which were commenced before the resumption of sovereignty cannot be continued. They argue that the reason is because there is no express provision in the Basic Law governing this situation and although there are provisions in the Reunification Ordinance, that Ordinance was not lawfully and validly enacted by a body competent in law to enact it.
38. The answer to these arguments is simple. There are clear and express provisions in the Basic Law. The laws previously in force are adopted (Articles 8 and 18). The courts of the HKSAR have jurisdiction over all cases in the Region (Article 19). The judicial system except the renaming of the Supreme Court and those changes consequent upon the establishment of the Court of Final Appeal is maintained (Article 81). The principles previously applied and the rights previously enjoyed by parties to criminal and civil proceedings are maintained (Article 87). Under Article 160, documents and rights and obligations valid under the laws previously in force continue to be valid, recognised and protected. Adopting a purposive approach to Article 160, these clearly, in my view, cover indictments, the right of the Government to prosecute offenders and the obligation of an accused person to answer to the allegations made against him.
39. I have no doubt that by virtue of the above provisions of the Basic Law, the Amended Indictment survives and the pending criminal proceedings against these respondents continue after the change of sovereignty.
40. The above reasons are sufficient to dispose of the two questions of law reserved for the determination of this Court. The answers to these questions are both clearly in the affirmative.
41. However, in case I am wrong in my interpretation of the Basic Law, I should deal with the other issues which have been raised in argument. I would also do this out of respect to counsel who have so comprehensively prepared their submissions and because of the public concern which has been generated by this important case. I take note of Ms Li, SC's concern over the risk of
an unnecessary ruling, by way of obiter, on important issues such as those raised in the present case.
Hong Kong Reunification Ordinance
42. In the event that upon its interpretation, the Basic Law does not provide for automatic adoption of the laws previously in force and the legal system in Hong Kong after 1st July 1997, the Government relies on the Hong Kong Reunification Ordinance (Reunification Ordinance) which is an ordinance passed by the Provisional Legislative Council and assented to by the Chief Executive on 1st July 1997.
43. The long title of the Ordinance sets out what it aims at doing. It reads:
" An Ordinance to confirm the Bills passed by the Provisional Legislative Council before 1 July 1997, endorse the appointment of judges of the Court of Final Appeal and the Chief Judge of the High Court, assist the interpretation on and after 1 July 1997 of laws previously in force in Hong Kong, continue those laws and confirm certain other laws, establish the High Court, the District Court, magistracies and other courts, tribunals and boards, continue legal proceedings, the criminal justice system, the administration of justice and the course of public justice on and after 1 July 1997, continue the public service on and after 1 July 1997, assist the construction of certain documents on and after 1 July 1997, transfer the ownership of certain property and rights and provide for the assumption of certain liabilities on and after 1 July 1997, in consequence of the resumption of the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong by the People's Republic of China, and for connected purposes." (my emphases)
Adoption of laws
44. The provisions which relate to the adoption of laws previously in force in Hong Kong are contained in sections 5 and 7 of the Ordinance. Section 5 adds a section to the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, Cap.1. It provides as follows:
"2A. Laws previously in force
(1) All laws previously in force shall be construed with such modifications, adaptations, limitations and exceptions as may be necessary so as not to contravene the Basic Law and to bring them into conformity with the status of Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.
(4) In this section -
'laws previously in force' means the common law, rules of equity, Ordinances, subsidiary legislation and customary law in force immediately before 1 July 1997 and adopted as laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region."
The definition of "laws previously in force" suggests that all the previous laws have been adopted as the laws of the HKSAR. This is reinforced by section 7 of the Ordinance which provides :
"7. Maintenance of previous laws
(1) The laws previously in force in Hong Kong, that is the common law, rules of equity, Ordinances, subsidiary legislation and customary law, which have been adopted as the laws of the HKSAR, shall continue to apply." (my emphases)
45. This section supports the view that the Basic Law has already brought all the laws previously in force in Hong Kong into effect as the laws of the HKSAR on its establishment on 1 July 1997. It also puts all matters beyond doubt by stating that such laws shall continue to apply. Establishment of courts
46. As regards the establishment of the High Court, this is provided in section 8 of the Reunification Ordinance. This section provides that section 3 of the Supreme Court Ordinance (Cap.4) is repealed and substituted by a new section 3 which says:
"3. High Court
(1) There shall be a High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region consisting of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, the High Court shall be a court of unlimited civil and criminal jurisdiction."
47. The effect of this section is to state clearly that the previous Supreme Court is now renamed as the High Court and the former High Court is now renamed as the Court of First Instance. The argument put forth by the respondents that the Supreme Court ceases to operate after 1 July 1997 is laid completely at rest.
Continuity of proceedings
48. With regard to the continuity of legal proceedings, the relevant provisions are sections 10 and 15. They provide that legal proceedings shall not be affected and shall continue after the change of sovereignty.
"10. Continuity of legal proceedings, criminal justice system and administration of justice (1) Subject to this Ordinance, the continuity of legal proceedings, the criminal justice system, the administration of justice and the course of public justice shall not be affected by the resumption of the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong by the People's Republic of China.
15. Pending proceedings
(1) All proceedings, including appeals, pending in any court, statutory tribunal or statutory board or before any magistrate immediately before 1 July 1997 may be continued on and after that date and shall be treated as if they had been pending in the corresponding court, tribunal or board or before the corresponding magistrate of the HKSAR.
(2) Any proceedings pending in any court, statutory tribunal or statutory board or before any magistrate by or against a public officer immediately before 1 July 197 shall on and after that date be deemed to have been brought by or against, as the case may be, the corresponding public officer in the HKSAR.
(3) Any proceedings brought by, in the name of or against the Queen which are pending in any court, statutory tribunal or statutory board or before any magistrate immediately before 1 July 1997 shall on and after that date be deemed to have brought by, in the name of or against, as the case may be, the HKSAR."
49. I do not need to refer to other provisions which deal with the saving of judgments (section 11), the rights of audience (section 12), and barristers and solicitors (section 13). Suffice it to say that the position has not changed after 1st July 1997 and all acts done by previous courts and tribunals shall be regarded as continuing to have effect.
50. It is therefore clear beyond doubt that even if there is any uncertainty in the Basic Law, this has been removed by the provisions in the Reunification Ordinance which I have mentioned above.
51. The question is whether this Ordinance was lawfully and validly enacted by a body competent in law to enact it. This leads to the legality of the Provisional Legislative Council. Jurisdiction of the HKSAR Courts
The arguments
52. Mr Fung, SC, for the Government submits that the HKSAR courts have no jurisdiction to hear and determine the issue of the legality of the Provisional Legislative Council. He argues that the courts must accept the body and the laws made by it.
53. It is submitted that under Article 19 of the Basic Law, the jurisdiction of the HKSAR courts shall have jurisdiction over all cases in the Region except the restrictions on their jurisdiction imposed by the legal system and principles previously in force in Hong Kong. Hence, the HKSAR courts have no greater power than the courts under British rule. Counsel argues that prior to 1st July 1997, the Hong Kong courts could not have determined the constitutionality of either UK metropolitan or imperial legislation vis-a-vis either the unwritten English Constitution or the Hong Kong Letters Patent. This was because the UK Government was the sovereign of Hong Kong.
According to the constitutional hierarchy, the Acts of Parliament and ministerial decisions were not subject to the Hong Kong Letters Patent and therefore the Hong Kong courts had no jurisdiction to query them. The UK legal system was also different from the Hong Kong system. There would be no effective remedy even if the Hong Kong courts are to query the Acts of Parliament or ministerial Decisions. Counsel relies on the case of Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke [1969] 2 AC 645, in particular the dictum of Lord Reid :
"If Parliament chose to do any of them (the enactment of a Parliament which has effect over South Rhodesia) the courts could not hold the Act of Parliament invalid."
54. It is argued that if British Parliament legislates on a topic within its power, the colonial courts are bound by that. Analogies are drawn from the Australian constitution and the Canadian constitution. Counsel submits that the same principles apply to the HKSAR courts.
55. It is the Government's contention that once the HKSAR courts are satisfied that the Provisional Legislative Council was established, was appointed and is acting under the authority of the Sovereign (the PRC), then the courts have no jurisdiction to question whether it was validly established and are bound to give effect to its enactments. While counsel accepts that the jurisdiction of the HKSAR courts can extend to determining whether the Preparatory Committee was in fact formed by the NPC, they have no power to inquire into the vires of its acts, such as, whether it has acted within its conferred powers or followed the proper procedures or whether it has acted in contravention of the Basic Law. Afterall, counsel argues, the Preparatory Committee is a NPC body and not a HKSAR organisation.
56. On the other hand, Ms Li, SC, submits that the HKSAR courts have the jurisdiction and the obligation to examine and interpret the Basic Law. Hence, they can examine the Basic Law and the acts of the NPC to determine whether the NPC had properly established the Provisional Legislative Council and whether that body conforms with the Basic Law and the NPC enactments. Counsel further argues that the courts can examine the decisions and acts to see if they are consistent with the basic policies of the PRC as stated in the Joint Declaration. She submits that the analogy with Acts of Parliament is not appropriate.
Jurisdiction of the courts
57. I would accept for the arguments put forward by Mr Fung, SC, that regional courts have no jurisdiction to query the validity of any legislation or acts passed by the sovereign. There is simply no legal basis to do so. It would be difficult to imagine that the Hong Kong courts could, while still under British rule, challenge the validity of an Act of Parliament passed in U.K. or an act of the Queen in Council which had effect on Hong Kong. However, I cannot find any authority which prohibits the Hong Kong courts to at least examine whether such legislation or imperial act existed, what its scope was and whether what was done in Hong Kong was done in pursuance of such legislation or imperial act. In fact, it is, in my view, the duty of the Hong Kong courts to ensure that the legislation or imperial act is implemented and if there is to be any query about it, the courts should conduct such an enquiry.
58. Take the example given by counsel. The Queen by Letters Patent appoints Mr X to be a governor of Hong Kong. The Hong Kong courts cannot query the validity of the Letters Patent or why and how she comes to appoint Mr X as the Governor. However, I think that the Hong Kong courts should have the power to examine the Letters Patent and its contents to see whether the Queen has in fact made an appointment and to query whether a particular person turning up at Queen's Pier is the Mr X and whether he acts according to the scope of the Letters Patent which appoints him as Governor.
59. The PRC is the Sovereign of the HKSAR. Under its Constitution, the NPC is the highest organ of state power. Together with its Standing Committee, they exercise the legislative power of the PRC. It is submitted by Mr Fung, SC, although Ms Li, SC, may have some reservations, that the NPC and its Standing Committee can exercise such power by way of decisions and resolutions. In the absence of arguments to the contrary, I would accept that this is the case. The Decisions and Resolutions relied on have also been admitted without challenge.
60. In the context of the present case, I would accept that the HKSAR courts cannot challenge the validity of the NPC Decisions or Resolutions or the reasons behind them which set up the Preparatory Committee. Such decisions and resolutions are the acts of the Sovereign and their
企业字号名称登记工作规则
企业名称登记工作规则 一、名称核准的基本原则 企业名称应与企业的住所地的行政区划、经营范围所属行业或行业特点、组织形式相适应，不同的字号（或商号，下同）是同行业企业之间区别的重要标志。 在同一登记机关登记和已预先核准的同行业企业名称字号 不重。 同一登记机关体现了名称地域管辖关系，当同一城市内有多个名称登记机关时，应避免除行政区划不同、其余相同或近似的 企业名称被核准。 二、名称登记的程序 （一）新设企业的名称预先核准由申请人向名称登记机关申请，申请人应当按照申请书的要求填写企业名称（可以载明备选名称）、住所、注册资本、经营范围、投资人名称或者姓名、投资额和投资比例、授权委托意见（指定的代表或者委托的代理人姓名、权限和期限），并由全体投资人签名盖章、投资人的身份证明复印件。受理审查人员对材料齐全，符合法定形式的申请予以受理，经检索本地名称库的同时检索企业住所所在地的企业名称库，如没有相同或近似的，予以核准； （二）变更企业名称不属于登记机关管辖的，由该企业的登记机关受理审查，填写《企业（集团）名称变更核准意见书》， 上报名称登记机关核准；
（三）当名称登记机关与企业登记机关不是同一机关时，受理审查人员应当从联网数据库中检索该区域（市或县）是否有相同或近似的企业名称，如没有，予以核准。 同一城市内有多个名称登记机关的，在核准同一区域登记或管理的企业名称时应当相互检索。避免出现除行政区划不同，字号、行业、组织形式相同或近似的企业名称被核准，特别是对商业、饮食业、服务业等行业的企业名称可以在牌匾中使用简化方 式的尤其要审慎。 三、名称登记机关与企业登记机关不是同一机关时的各自审 查职责 （一）名称登记机关的受理审查人员对申请人提交的名称预先核准申请，仅对其名称是否重名或近似进行书式审查，不对投资人资格和企业设立条件进行审查，在检索本级名称库的同时检索企业住所所在地的在业企业名称库，符合条件的，出具《名称预先核准通知书》，申请人持通知书和其他设立登记材料向企业登记机关办理企业设立登记手续。 （二）企业变更名称，由该企业的登记机关按照变更登记受理，审查合格的，填写《企业（集团）名称变更核准意见书》，上报名称登记机关核准，名称登记机关仅对申请变更的名称是否重名或近似进行书式审查，不对企业其他变更条件进行审查，符合条件的，出具《准予变更登记通知书》，企业登记机关据此办 理企业名称变更登记。
企业名称字号授权使用许可协议
企业名称字号授权使用协议 企业名称字号授权人（甲方）： ************有限公司 企业名称字号被授权人（乙方）：磨店幼儿园 鉴于： 1、甲方与乙方的属于互利共赢的合作企业，双方另存在合作协议，在合作期间，甲方已申请并注册”安徽状元郎电子科技有限公司”为其企业字号名称。现乙方已在合肥开设一家幼儿园，并将更名使用“状元郎”作为其幼儿园注册名称当中的一部分。 2、甲方注册“状元郎”为其企业名称在先，但考虑到互利共存的关系，现甲方同意将其企业名称字号授权给乙方使用。 基于上述情况，根据《民法通则》和《企业名称登记管理实施办法》等有关法律法规的规定，甲、乙双方遵循自愿和诚实信用原则，经协商一致，签订本企业名称字号使用授权协议。 一、关于企业名称字号的授权使用 1、甲方授权乙方使用的企业名称字号为：“状元郎” 2、甲方将其已注册的企业名称“状元郎”字号特授权乙方仅用于民办非企业单位（幼儿园）注册，其他事项不再授权，其他行为均是乙方行为，与甲方不再有关联。 3、甲方授权乙方在其单位名称中的“状元郎”字号保留使用的期限： 自年月日起至年月日止。使用期满不再延展。如需延长使用时间，由甲、乙双方另行续订企业名称使用授权协议。 4、未经甲方授权，乙方不得以任何形式和理由将甲方注册的企业名称字号给第三方使用。 5、经甲方授权，乙方不得以任何形式和理由将该企业名称字号用于开设除 地址以外的幼儿园，本次授权仅限于 地址的幼儿园开设，另开设幼儿园需要另行授权。 6、若乙方以甲方企业名称字号设立幼儿园后，双方各自独立经营，独自承担责任，不具有关联性，乙方对外经营管理产生任何债务时，甲方不因此承担
香港迪士尼乐园为何难以实现目标案例分析-
香港迪士尼乐园为何难以实现目标案例分析 香港迪斯尼乐园在2005年9月开始营运后，第一年游客为520万人次，低于首年560万人次的预期。第二年这一数字继续下滑至400万人次左右，2008年9月香港迪斯尼乐园开幕3周年，后受益于内地游客的上升，“终于”有望达到560万人次。不过，与当年定下的第三年目标620万人次仍有很大差距。香港迪士尼乐园是全球第五个以迪士尼乐园模式兴建、迪士尼全球的第十一个主题乐园，及首个根据加州迪士尼为蓝本的主题乐园。香港迪士尼乐园为游客提供乐趣无穷的娱乐体验，具有多个主题表演和刺激的游戏，园内设有店铺、餐厅以及宾客服务设施，可以说集悠闲娱乐于一体。那又为何香港迪士尼乐园难以实现目标呢？首先作为全球第5个以迪斯尼乐园模式兴建的主题乐园，香港迪斯尼开幕时只有4个主题园区、21个项目，而美国洛杉矶、奥兰多以及东京和巴黎的迪斯尼乐园则分别有8个、7个、7个以及5个主题园区，项目设施也多于香港迪斯尼。香港迪斯尼游乐园刚开业的时候，可供游客游玩的项目非常少，每次都要排很长时间的队，且园内人群拥挤。尽管2006-2008年香港迪斯尼陆续增添了新的设施项目，但其总占地面积仍只有126公顷，是全球面积最小的迪斯尼乐园。很少有游客认为“越小越美”，香港迪斯尼乐园的规模极大地限制了客流量，导致园内出现人满为患，而关门拒客的现象。香港迪斯尼只考虑到人满为患，没有考虑到顾客千里迢迢赶到这里浪费的时间，精力，没有及时为顾客做好后续安排，违背了消费者是上帝这一观念。关门拒客，形象大跌，顾客认识价值降低，回头客自然少了。 其次近年国内各大大城市中也出现了一些游乐园，相比香港迪斯尼乐园，其更含中国本土元素，与其形成了竞争。虽然中国内地的居民接受国际文化的能力在提升，但是，在国际化的表面下，还有许多人比较固守本地的传统、习俗以及思维方式，对于原汁原味的美国大餐他们能否下咽，仍旧是个问题。其次，就成长的文化环境而言，中国内地的游客是在一个充满本土卡通形象的氛围中成长起来，比如葫芦兄弟、黑猫警长、西游记等，比较能接受的是中国古典的神话故事，对于迪斯尼的童话故事脉络，他们显然不是很清楚，仅仅凭借迪斯尼这个名字显然是不够吸引的。数据显示，在2009年度造访香港迪斯尼的游客中，本地游客占41%，内地占36%，国际占23%。其中，香港本地及内地游客人数分别较上一
利丰供应链案例分析
供应链增值驱动的典型模式——利丰模式 第一节冯氏集团概况 冯氏集团（原利丰集团）于1906年在广州创办出口业务，是当时中国首家从事对外贸易的华资公司，打破了当时外国洋行对中国对外贸易的垄断。1937年，利丰的业务重心由当时战乱的广州迁至相对安全的香港，利丰有限公司在香港正式注册成立。20世纪70年代，利丰在冯氏家族第三代冯国经和冯国纶博士的掌握下于香港上市。80年代利丰的私有化成为冯氏家族企业现代化的重要契机。之后，利丰开始出售非核心业务，将业务精简重组为出口贸易和零售业。1992年冯氏控股（1937）有限公司将出口贸易业务以现时“利丰有限公司”的名称及业务形式，在香港再度上市。随后，利丰贸易对英之杰采购的收购使利丰贸易从一家地区性贸易公司一跃成为跨国大企业，接下来冯氏集团逐步从全球不同国家购并企业，实施“填补空间”策略以扩充市场和增加采购网点，令利丰贸易的商贸供应链网络覆盖范围迅速扩大，核心竞争力不断增强。2001年，冯氏集团重组，拆分了其经济业务，把利和经销在香港联交所上市。2009年，冯氏集团属下专营高端奢侈男装的利邦集团在香港联交所主板上市成功。 为了更清晰地划分集团的核心业务架构，并为未来的持续发展打稳根基，冯氏控股（1937）有限公司于2012年特将旗下业务重组：贸易、物流和分销业务将继续由利丰有限公司主理，零售业务归由冯氏零售集团有限公司统筹；以上业务重新组成为冯氏集团（见图10-1） 如今，冯氏集团是香港首屈一指的商贸巨掣，其三大核心业务是出口贸易、经销批发和零售，已经成为业务网络遍布全球40个国家及地区、设立逾350个办事处、拥有超过43000名员工的跨国企业集团。 图10-1 冯氏集团业务架构图
银广夏审计失败案 分析
银广夏审计失败案分析 一、银广夏报表异常数据 分析银广夏的财务数据可以明显的发现公司的业务中存在以下的疑点，这些都是会计师在审计过程中应该重点关注的地方 1.利润过高。利润率高达46％（2000年），而深沪两市农业类、中草药类和葡萄酿酒类上市公司的利润率鲜有超过20％的。 2.应收账款异常。公司2000年销售收入与应收款项保持大体比例的同步增长，货币资金和应收款项合计与短期借款也保持大体比例的同步增长，考虑到公司当年销售及资金回笼并不理想，显然公司希望以巨额货币资金的囤积来显示销售及回款情况。 3.巨额合同。签下总金额达60亿元合同的德国诚信公司只与银广夏单线联系，据称为一家百年老店，但事实上却是注册资本仅为10万马克的一家小型贸易公司。整个企业的收入和利润集中和维系于一家公司上，蕴含巨大经营风险。 4.原材料的巨额采购。原材料购买批量很大，都是整数吨位，一次购买上千吨桂皮、生姜，整个厂区恐怕都盛不下，而库房、工艺不许外人察看。 5.关键产品投入产出异常。2000年度生产卵磷脂的投入产出比率较1999年度大幅下降的异常情况（工作底稿显示，银广夏公司萃取产品卵磷脂1999年度的投入产出率为14：1，2000年度投入产出率为3.2：1）。 6.水电能耗比异常，银广夏公司的生产成本中2000度水电费支出70余万元，1999年20余万元，平均每吨原料消耗电费50元，公司报表显示生产量很大，且主要生产动力为电能。 7．人工费、能源费、运输费异常。银广夏公司的分月产量统计显示各月产量明显有较大波动，但与产量有对应关系的直接人工费用、能源费用无明显的波动。1999年度天津广夏的运输费用为9.9万元，在2000年出口量剧增情况下，运输费反而下降为0.9万元。 8.税收异常。银广夏公司2000年度合并报表实现4.23亿元的利润总额，应缴所得税为739万元，综合所得税率仅为1.75%。另外，公司披露所适用的增值税税率为17%，但从2000年年报中可以知道，公司2000年度的增值税只交5万元，而工业企业性销售收入2000年度为8.27亿元，毛利为5 .43亿元，从毛利率判断，公司产品增值比率较大，故应交增值税额也应较大，若以毛利5.43亿元估算，公司应当计交的增值税至少为9000万元。如此巨大的差异没有合理的解释。1999年、2000年，天津广夏披露执行“外销销项税全免，进项税全部内销抵扣”的增值税政策，注册会计师没有予以应有的关注。 而针对银广夏财务报表中的异常，注册会计师应当做到： 进行分析程序，分析数据异常波动；调查异常的原因，并跟踪查证；对于超出注册会计师专业知识之外的领域，应当事先采取措施，如安排咨询专家意见。 二、分析程序及如何科学控制函证审计程序 审计程序是指注册会计师在审计过程中的某个时间，对将要获取的某类审计证据如何进行收集的详细指令。包括检查、观察、询问、函证、重新计算、重新执行及分析程序。 （一）函证是指注册会计师直接从第三方获取书面答复以作为证据的过程。函证实施的对象为银行存款、借款、应收账款等。函证的范围包括金额较大的项
香港利丰管理案例分析
1.你如何评价利丰贸易目前的成功？其目前供应链管理模式的威胁和风险在哪里？ 利丰贸易适应形势与时并进，灵活地回应市场的挑战，不断地调整业务和角色：从传统贸易商转型为全球供应链管理者。这是外贸企业通过有效的供应链管理延伸服务范围，满足顾客购买产品寻求的利益，从而提高售价和销量和降低供应成本，实现利润的增长的成功案例。 利丰供应链管理模式的威胁主要在于合作风险，包括以下几个方面：第一是企业文化不一致带来的风险，每个企业都具有自己独特的企业文化，这就导致企业的处事方法和原则有较大差异，而供应链管理使不同文化的企业处于同一流程中，有时候需要协调一致才能达到目标。此时文化冲突对供应链管理的冲击是很大的，如果处理不好则有可能造成供应链效率低下，最终导致供应链的破裂；第二是彼此依赖过度带来的风险，供应链形成后企业在上游有固定的供应商，在下游有固定的分销商。这在大大降低交易成本的同时带来另一个问题，即对供应链上的企业过分依赖从而使自己处于不利地位，这样一旦某个环节出现问题。整个链条就会受到影响，甚至崩溃；第三是企业发展不平衡的风险，供应链上的企业在发展规模、发展潜力、管理水平等方面往往是存在很大差异的。这就导致整个链条有非常强势的部分。也有非常薄弱的环节。根据木桶效应原理，供应链整体控制风险能力取决于最薄弱环节控制风险的能力。企业发展不平衡的风险增大了供应链整体风险。第四是业务流程优化的风险，业务流程重组和优化的过程必然影响到既有利益相关者的利益，所以势必会遭到阻挠。一旦不能再一次成功地达到利益平衡，就会造成业务流程重组的失败，从而影响整个供应链的运行；第五是供应链自身管理的风险；第六，信息技术风险。供应链中企业安装使用新的IT运营系统，从旧流程转变到新流程，业务流程和技术方面都会出现麻烦。新系统的运作达不到期望的效果，有
2016年利丰供应链案例分析报告
2016年利丰供应链案例分析报告
《利丰供应链管理实践》案例分析报告 班级信 142 学号 141254 姓名韩兴华 2017年5月11日
利丰供应链案例分析 一、利丰介绍 1.利丰是一家什么样企业？业务有哪些？ 利丰集团是一家以香港为基地的跨国商贸集团，为香港上巿公司及香港恒生指数和美国摩根士丹利香港指数成份股。利丰集团运用供应链治理的概念经营出口贸易、经销及零售三项核心业务，是从传统的华资贸易商转型为运用供应链管理概念来统筹生产和流通的跨国企业。 利丰集团有三大核心业务：利丰贸易、利和经销、利丰零售。 利丰贸易：集团的出口贸易业务，利丰有限公司是全球最具规模的供应链管理企业之一，运用供应链管理的概念，提供高增值及高流量消费品的原料采购、制造、及出口统筹等服务，业务网络遍布全球40多个经济体。 利和经销：集团的经销业务。由利和经销主理，为亚太地区客户提供全方位配套服务，核心业务包括生产制造、物流管理及品牌推广等。 利丰零售：集团的零售业务。包括上市公司利亚零售有限公司及其他私营业务：玩具“反”斗城、Branded lifestyle及利邦有限公司，分店网点分布于大中华市场及新加坡、马来西亚、泰国、印度尼西亚、韩国和菲律宾等。 2.什么是价值链？利丰如何进行价值链分解？P3-8 价值链：哈佛大学商学院教授迈克尔·波特于1985年提出的概念，波特认为，“每一个企业都是在设计、生产、销售、发送和辅助其产品的过程中进行种种活动的集合体。所有这些活动可以用一个价值链来表明。”企业的价值创造是通过一系列活动构成的，这些活动可分为基本活动和辅助活动两类，基本活动包括内部后勤、生产作业、外部后勤、市场和销售、服务等；而辅助活动则包括采购、技术开发、人力资源管理和企业基础设施等。这些互不相同但又相互关联的生产经营活动，构成了一个创造价值的动态过程，即价值链。 利丰的价值链分解：例如，公司获得一欧洲客户服装订单后，一般不会简单地要求在韩国或新加坡的分支机构直接从所在国进货，其可能的做法是，从比较成本出发，在韩国买进棉纱运到台湾纺织和染色，最后在泰国的多个工厂同时生产，再按时、按质、按量交付，这一工作流程体现了供应链管理的集成化和最优化思想。利丰通过动态的价值链分解与重组，使供应链管理更具灵活性，既提高了公司利润，又实现了整个供应链的价值增值。
利丰贸易案例分析问题答案
利丰贸易案例分析问题答案 1、你如何评价利丰贸易目前的成功？其目前供应链管理模式的威胁和风险在哪里？成功的评价： (1)利丰从一家传统贸易商成功转型为现代跨国贸易集团，其成功的关键因素在于不断创新的供应链管理理念。利丰以供应链理念运作企业，积累了丰富的实践经验。利丰以“为全世界消费者提供合适、合时、合价的产品”为目标，以客户需求为中心，为客户提供高水平的产品供应服务，这一供应链管理过程给利丰带来丰厚利润。 (2)以利丰贸易日常成衣订单为例，其所需原材料包括：棉线、布料、拉链、衬里、纽扣、标签和其他辅料，这些原材料的合适的供应商可能分布在全球，比如面料来自韩国、衬料来自台湾、纽扣来自中国内地、标签和其他辅料来自香港等。在生产程序上，衣服可能在南亚染色，在中国内地裁制，然后送回香港作质检和包装，再出口给欧洲、亚洲或美国的客户。因此，要保证分布在不同地区的所有原材料顺利运送到生产地、不同生产地生产的成衣如同出自同一工厂、准时配送等，如果按照以往的传统管理模式几乎不可能完成这么复杂的任务，只有建立现代化的全球供应链管理系统，将无数的工序、地区和企业组织协调起来，实施高效的供应链管理，才能确保各类订单按时、按质完成，客户才能得到更优质、廉价和多元化的商品，供应链管理对利丰的快速发展起着至关重要的作用。 (3)利丰贸易通过集成和协调各种要素，以商品流、信息流和资金流为支撑，促使供应链交易.成本最小、收益最大、风险最低，为整个供应链创造更大的竞争优势。他将优秀传统的理念与先进的供应链管理理念融为一体，引导公司群体行为、凝聚公
司群体意识、激励公司创新精神，发挥供应链组织者和协调者的作用，促进整个供应链的企业、消费者、合作伙伴“多赢” 供应链管理模式的威胁与风险： （1）信息传递风险。由于利丰供应链中的每个企业都是独立经营和管理的经济实体，供应链实质上是一种松散的企业联盟，当供应链规模日益扩大,结构日趋繁复时，供应链上发生信息错误的机会也随之增多。信息传递延迟将导致上下游企业之间沟通不充分，对产品的生产以及客户的需求在理解上出现分歧，不能真正满足市场的需要，同时会产生牛鞭效应，导致过量的库存。 （2）生产组织与采购风险。利丰贸易生产组织强调集成、效率，这样可能导致生产过程刚性太强，缺乏柔性，若在生产或采购过程的某个环节上出现问题，很容易导致整个生产过程的停顿。 （3）物流运作风险。物流活动是利丰供应链管理的纽带，供应链要加快资金流转速度，实现即时化生产和柔性化制造,离不开高效运作的物流系统。这就需要供应链各成员之间采取联合计划，实现信息共享与存货统一管理。但在实际运行中是很难做到这一点的，导致在原料供应、原料运输、原料缓存、产品生产、产品缓存和产品销售等过程中可能出现衔接失误,这些衔接失误都可能导致供应链物流不畅通而产生风险。例如，运输障碍使原材料和产品不能及时供应，造成上游企业在承诺的提前期内无法交货，致使下游企业的生产和销售受到不利影响。 （4）政策风险。当国家经济政策发生变化时，往往会对供应链的资金筹集、投资及其他经营管理活动产生极大影响，使供应链的经营风险增加。利丰也同样面临这样的风险，例如，当产业结构调整时，国家往往会出台一系列的产业结构调整政策和
银广夏案例分析
银广夏案例分析 摘要 银广夏事件是资本市场上最广为人知的造假事件。本案例首先对银广夏财务造假事件及过程进行了详细的阐述，以便使用者对案例形成初步的整体印象。之后又分析了造假的原因，案件的处理结果，对主要人物的处罚规定，进而暴漏出中国财务舞弊监管力量的薄弱。并针对注册会计师，社会现状提出了一系列的措施。【关键词】银广夏；注册会计师；财务舞弊 一、前言 随着经济的发展，财务舞弊已经成为全球性的焦点问题。我国上市公司的会计造假现象屡禁不止，甚至可以用“造假成风”形容。为恢复投资者的信心，必须对舞弊展开行动以查处并减少舞弊。我国上市公司财务欺诈事件一直不断，自上世纪90年代到目前，上市公司财务舞弊事件此起彼浮，“诚信危机”面临着严峻的考验。国家会计学院的调查显示，只有％的总会计师认为中国目前上市公司的财务报告是可信的。舞弊事件的发生对各方面产生了巨大的影响，在此种情况下，审计中对舞弊就需要愈加关注，而从理论上探讨财务报表审计中对舞弊的考虑更是至关重要。 银广夏事件是资本市场上最广为人知的造假事件。1994年，银广夏上市，在市场上各种神话和辉煌。2001年8月，《财经》杂志发表“银广夏陷阱”一文，银广夏虚构财务报表事件被曝光。之后，中国证监会迅速组织力量进行调查，调查结果认定：广夏（银川）实业股份有限公司自1998年至2001年期间，累计虚构销售收入10忆多元，虚增利润忆多元，而天津广夏在造假过程中起了关键作用。专家意见认为，天津广夏出口德国诚信贸易公司的为“不可能的产量、不可能的价格、不可能的产品”。负责银广夏审计业务的深圳中天勤会计师事务所及其签字注册会计师，违反法律法规和职业道德，为银广夏出具严重失实的无保留意见的审计报告。最终，参与造假者受到法律惩处。
利丰案例分析报告
利丰贸易：利用信息技术构建供应链管理 ----案例分析 王亮201112185 2011级MBA 3班 1、利丰贸易成功因素分析 （一）与时俱进的经营策略。 回顾百年利丰的企业发展史，其最成功的经验，就是其创办人或掌舵人能够以开放的视野，紧紧把握时代和经济大势的脉博，并因应宏观经济环境的转变而及时调整、创新经营策略，而决不因循守旧，做到了与时俱进。 随着经济社会的不断发展，利丰贸易的业务角色也经历了从简单的采购代理到全球性的供应链管理者的转变。在此过程中，利丰贸易为客户提供的增值服务日益增加，其创造的附加值也不断增长。 1、采购代理 利丰贸易初成立的时候，它只是充当客户和供应商之间的交易中介人角色一由干其员工懂英文，利丰贸易成为客户与供应商之间沟通的桥梁。之后，利丰贸易逐渐把简单的采购代理业务进行扩展。 2、采购公司 该阶段，利丰贸易扮演一家采购公司即地区性的货源代理商的角色，通过在亚洲的不同地区，如中国内地、中国台湾、韩国和新加坡开设办事处来拓展业务。 3、无边界生产 该阶段，利丰贸易从采购公司向前迈进了一步，成为无边界生产的计划管理者与实施者。 4、虚拟生产模式
在推行无边界生产的计划与管理的基础上，利丰贸易业务又向前迈进了一步，发展出虚拟生产模式。在虚拟生产模式中，利丰贸易直接充当客户供应商的角色，直接与客户签订采购合同。利丰贸易依旧没有工厂，生产任务以外包的形式交给工厂进行，它负责统筹并密切参与整个生产流程，从事一切从产品设计、采购、生产管理与控制、物流与航运到其他支持性的工作。 5、整体供应链管理 虚拟生产企业实际上已经是某个产品全面的供应链管理者。在虚拟生产模式的基础上，为了使整条供应链的运作更加合理与顺畅，利丰贸易继续开发更全面的供应链服务。在整体供应链的规划上，利丰贸易会对整条供应链进行分解，对每个环节进行分析与计划，力求不断优化供应链的运作。简单归纳，利丰贸易供应链管理的内容主要是为境外买家采购合适的产品并缩短交付周期。 （二）管理模式蜕变：从家族企业到国际化跨国公司。 与所有早期创办的华人公司一样，利丰在相当长的历史时期内，一直是一家典型的家庭企业。不过，随着时代的演变，面对每次出现的管理危机，利丰的卓越之处就是懂得变通、不因循守旧，重视将先进的管理模式和管理经验引入公司，使之脱胎换骨，从一家传统的华人商号蜕变为一家职业经理人管理的现代跨国企业集团。 （三）经营角色蜕变：从中间商人到全球供应链经理人。 从 1906 年利丰创办以来的 100 年间，利丰从事的出口贸易业经历了重大的转变。利丰的另一个成功之处，就是与时俱进，不断更新经营理念，利丰的业务角色也随着全口贸易产业的演变，经历了从简单中间商到全球供应链管理的者的历史性转变。 供应链管理就是把供应链最优化以最少的成本，令供应链从采购开始，到满足最终客户的所有流程。利用供应链管理的方法可有效地节约成本。供应链上有很多环节都存在节省成本的空间，如各种交易成本、物流成本，如果进行流程再造，就能大大节约成本及提升回报。另外，
迪士尼案例分析
11 级 专 科 期 末 考 试 案 例 分 析 2011级市场营销一班班级 11021200012 学号姓名莫武 10 / 1 一．迪士尼的简介发展历史1世界第一个迪斯尼乐园是美国电影动画师沃尔特·迪斯尼(Walt
Disney)于1955年在加利福尼亚州成功建成。到目前为止，全球已有四个迪斯尼乐园，分别位于美国洛杉矶和奥兰多、日本东京和法国巴黎。香港迪斯尼将是全球第五个迪斯尼乐园，也是中国首家迪斯尼乐园。 迪斯尼乐园虽不是主题公园的鼻祖，却是连锁规模最大的一个。自从1955年建立之初，迪斯尼乐园就成为现代美国最具煽动性的隐喻。迪斯尼乐园以其丰富的主题, 把动画片所运用的色彩、刺激、魔幻等表现手法与游乐园的功能相结合，运用现代科技，为游客营造出一个充满梦幻、奇特、惊险和刺激的世界，使游客感受到无穷的乐趣。 迪斯尼乐园所获得的巨大成功、带来的良好的示范效应，使主题公园这一游乐形式在世界各地普及推广。1983年日本建成了 东京迪斯尼乐园并获得巨大的成功，被誉为亚洲第一游乐园；法国于80年代末开始兴建迪斯尼乐园；我国的香港特区也于2000年决定筹建迪斯尼乐园。 它除了童话仙境外，还同时是一个大集市，也是一个市民中心(civic center)，附带着老祖母的农场、商业小镇、童子军巡逻队、旋转俱乐部和科学幻境。迪斯尼乐园里堆砌了所有消费者可能熟知的符号和信息。为了使这些信息能够快速识别，它们通过复制，保证原汁原味。在主题公园中，游人不需要发现的惊喜，只要识别的满足。随着迪斯尼乐园在美国、日本、巴黎的扩展，“迪斯 尼幻境”几乎成为赝品的代名词。
所有的迪斯尼乐园几乎一模一样，都是由8个主题园区构成：美国大街、冒险乐园、新奥尔良广场、万物家园、荒野地带、欢乐园、米奇童话城、未来世界。 2现状 迪士尼财务问题-账面连年亏损 10 / 2 自2005年开业至今，香港迪士尼几乎天天爆满，但其账面却仍然保持着亏损。至于亏损额为多少，则无从得知。因为在迪士尼公司的年报中，没有单列这一项目的损益表。只是从香港政府年年分不到红利，而被迫把债权转为股权，以及香港政府偶然透露的一些不满上，才能看出这是一个亏损的项目 首先，游客在香港迪士尼的消费中，门票只占50%，另一半是用于购买纪念品和餐饮，门票占总收入比例大大低于其他迪士尼乐园。根据香港政府与迪士尼公司的协议，香港政府能够分成的，是基于门票收益部分。在扣除迪士尼公司的特许费以后，香港迪士尼则是连年赤字，更无从谈给股东分红。 其次，迪士尼公司其他的附属经营项目，比如迪士尼酒店，收费的迪士尼频道、迪士尼英语教育等，当时作为一揽子项目引进，而这一部分的利润也与香港政府无关 正是这一不合理的分红协议，导致了香港政府目前在这一项目上的尴尬。不过，这或许也是在当时情境下的无奈之举。香港政府
利丰集团供应链管理案例
利丰集团的供应链管理演进 总部位于香港的利丰集团是一个标准的“百年老店”，成立于1906年的利丰如今拥有世界上最庞大的采购和生产网络，并为知名品牌及零售商提供全球供应链管理。历经全球商界之百年风云，利丰集团从传统的贸易商转型为一家供应链管理运作的现代跨国商贸及分销集团，其供应链管理已经成为商学院管理案例的经典。 利丰集团——“分散生产”先行者。利丰集团的供应链管理体系不是在一日之间建立起来的。直到20世纪70年代末期，利丰一直是一个采购代理商的角色。当现任集团主席冯国经于1976年进入集团管理层时，他的朋友曾提醒他采购代理是一个夕阳行业，4年之后就会消失。在种情况下，利丰集团开始了一次重要的战略转型—从采购代理商转型为生产计划的管理者和实施者。在采购代理模式阶段，某位经营布料的客户会对利丰说：“我需要这种布料，请到最好的地方给我买来。”而在新的阶段，客户则对利丰说：“下一季度我们需要这种外形、颜色和质量的布料，你能提出一个生产计划吗？” 从设计师提出的草案出发，利丰对市场进行调研，找到合适种类的纱并对样布染色以达到与其要求的颜色相一致。然后，利丰根据产品构思生产出样品。客户看到样品后说:“我喜欢这种而不喜欢那种，你能生产出更多的这种产品吗?”接下来，利丰就具体说明产品的调配及方案，为下个季节的产品提出完整的生产计划并签订合同。然后，对工厂的生产进行计划和控制以确保质量和及时交付。在整个20世纪80年代，利丰一直采用这种交付生产计划的战略。但接着利丰又遇到了新的挑战：亚洲小龙的出现使香港的生产成本增加而丧失了竞争力。祖国内地的开放政策使香港地区可以把生产的劳动密集型部分向祖国南方转移，这就解决了成本问题。比如说晶体管收音机，利丰只生产收音机的配套元件，然后运到祖国内地去装配。这一劳动密集型的工作完成后，成品再回到香港地区进行测试和检测。利丰将这种模式称之为“分散生产”。这种方式现在已经习以为常，但在当时，利丰可以说是这种模式的先行者。 利丰集团——过渡到供应链管理。与这种分散生产相伴随的，是一种产业价值链的分解。利丰也因此而过渡到供应链管理者的角色。比如说，利丰获得了一份来自欧洲的一个零售商10000件衣服的订单，这种衣服可以在韩国采购获得，但利丰不会简单地要求在韩国的分支机构直接从韩国进货。可能的做法是，从韩国买进纱运到中国台湾去纺织和染色；同时，由于日本的拉链和纽扣是最好的，并且大部分是在祖国内地生产，因此，利丰会从YKK(日本的一家大型拉链厂商)在祖国内地的分厂订购拉链，之后再把纱和拉链等运到泰国去生产服装，因为考虑到配额和劳动力条件，可能在泰国生产服装是最好的。又由于客户要求迅速交货，利丰会在泰国的5个工厂里同时生产，这样就有效地分解了价值链，以尽可能满足客户的需要。5个星期后，10000件衣服就到了欧洲的货架上，它们看起来像是同一个工厂生产的。这是一种价值增值的新方式，结果是使产
2016年利丰供应链案例分析报告
《利丰供应链管理实践》案例分析报告 班级信142 学号141254 姓名韩兴华 2017年5月11日
利丰供应链案例分析 一、利丰介绍 1.利丰是一家什么样企业？业务有哪些？ 利丰集团是一家以香港为基地的跨国商贸集团，为香港上巿公司及香港恒生指数和美国摩根士丹利香港指数成份股。利丰集团运用供应链治理的概念经营出口贸易、经销及零售三项核心业务，是从传统的华资贸易商转型为运用供应链管理概念来统筹生产和流通的跨国企业。 利丰集团有三大核心业务：利丰贸易、利和经销、利丰零售。 利丰贸易：集团的出口贸易业务，利丰有限公司是全球最具规模的供应链管理企业之一，运用供应链管理的概念，提供高增值及高流量消费品的原料采购、制造、及出口统筹等服务，业务网络遍布全球40多个经济体。 利和经销：集团的经销业务。由利和经销主理，为亚太地区客户提供全方位配套服务，核心业务包括生产制造、物流管理及品牌推广等。 利丰零售：集团的零售业务。包括上市公司利亚零售有限公司及其他私营业务：玩具“反”斗城、Branded lifestyle及利邦有限公司，分店网点分布于大中华市场及新加坡、马来西亚、泰国、印度尼西亚、韩国和菲律宾等。 2.什么是价值链？利丰如何进行价值链分解？P3-8 价值链：哈佛大学商学院教授迈克尔·波特于1985年提出的概念，波特认为，“每一个企业都是在设计、生产、销售、发送和辅助其产品的过程中进行种种活动的集合体。所有这些活动可以用一个价值链来表明。”企业的价值创造是通过一系列活动构成的，这些活动可分为基本活动和辅助活动两类，基本活动包括内部后勤、生产作业、外部后勤、市场和销售、服务等；而辅助活动则包括采购、技术开发、人力资源管理和企业基础设施等。这些互不相同但又相互关联的生产经营活动，构成了一个创造价值的动态过程，即价值链。 利丰的价值链分解：例如，公司获得一欧洲客户服装订单后，一般不会简单地要求在韩国或新加坡的分支机构直接从所在国进货，其可能的做法是，从比较成本出发，在韩国买进棉纱运到台湾纺织和染色，最后在泰国的多个工厂同时生产，再按时、按质、按量交付，这一工作流程体现了供应链管理的集成化和最优化思想。利丰通过动态的价值链分解与重组，使供应链管理更具灵活性，既提高了公司利润，又实现了整个供应链的价值增值。
银广夏审计案列
班级：会计1111班姓名：刘宇学号11430105153917 1.深圳中天勤会计事务所对银广夏审计案例的启示 银广夏事件追根究底的原因有以下四点：1经营管理不善、公司治理机制失效，导致其业绩低下。2管理高层道德沦丧、金钱至上，导致其经营失败。3注册会计师的监控机制失效，导致其造假骗局得逞。4投资者非理性，热衷于炒作股票，导致其自食苦果。 由此，给我们的启示是：作为一家现代化企业，战略决策是关键，经营管理是核心。如果管理环节不断出问题，其效益就会降低，到头来只能以失败而告终。因此，我们要加强这方面的系统研究,以避免重蹈覆辙。而作为银广夏高层的某些管理者他们道德沦丧，一味追求个人的金钱利益，而将广大社会公众利益置之度外，加之当时的证券监管机制不健全，才导致了银广夏的重大会计丑闻的出现。警醒我们的是：企业生存的根基之一是合法经营、诚信为本，造假者终究会受到法律的严惩。作为企业反舞弊的第四道防线的中国注册会计师行业，应该努力学习与借鉴国外先进的现代风险导向审计控制技术，以提高他们发现客户会计报表重大错报的能力。同时，注册会计师应该努力提高自身的道德水准和风险素养，在执业过程中应始终保持其独立、客观和公正性，以提高独立审计师的价值。而且作为股市交易者，应时刻关注投资风险，要理性思考和谨慎投资，以减少各种风险损失。同时也有利于对恶意造假者形成有效约束，有利于证券市场的健康发展。 2. 我国企业内部审计的政策及建议 内部审计在当今全面开放的国际市场中，已成为颇具活力和挑战性的职业之一。许多实例表明，现在企业内部审计已超越其他很多管理手段，成为管理机构提供关于效率、效果和节约方面建议的主要智囊，尤其企业在经营管理中处于极其重要又特殊的地位。有效的内部审计可以形成对企业强有力的约束力，可以通过事前预测、事中监控和事后检查，为企业经营者提供及时有效的管理决策信息，从而推动和促进企业利益的实现。
香港迪斯尼案例分析答案
迪斯尼业绩不佳的原因 造成迪士尼乐园在香港遭遇业绩不佳的根本原因，在于“水土不服”导致失去人缘。主要表现在：幻想世界的咖啡杯、探险世界的竹筏、3D剧院以及明日世界的太空飞碟等项目缺乏新意，国内众多主题游乐场都引进了类似的游戏项目，对内地游客的吸引力锐减。随处可见的排队等候、争抢厕所、甚至路边吃饭等乱象，更惊醒了游客们的童话梦。 此外，迪士尼主力客源——内地带小孩的家庭游客，两天花销动辄四五千元，而游戏设施、酒店档次却配不上这样的价钱，对于精打细算又收入有限的内地游客而言，很难成为香港迪士尼的回头客。此外海洋公园建立也给迪士尼带来了挑战，海洋公园拥有自己独有的优势――很多令人惊奇的游览项目，还有一些非常可爱的小动物，游客在娱乐身心的同时，也增长了一些学问和见识。依靠这些，海洋公园就经营得非常出色，吸引了大量的游客。 主题公园成功的关键因素 主题公园是以特定的文化内容为主题，以经济盈利为目的，以现代科技和文化手段为表现，以人为设计创造景观和设施使游客获得旅游体验的封闭性的现代人工景点或景区。 虽然主题公园具有很高的市场需求，但是运作成功也非易事。关键在于其专业性的管理，主题公园是纯粹的人造景观艺术，从基础设施建设到后期的运营维护都需要大量的资金投入。客观上要求主题公园所在地必须是经济发达地区，人均收入、居民可控消费及投资建设较高的地区。 但是其最大的资本来自于独一无二的主题文化。主题公园想要吸引人就要保持新鲜的姿态，必须要融进相关的文化内涵，形成自己的特色。以之为依托开发主题游乐、主题商业、主题演出、主题环业等以及与之相配套的游客服务设施、管理和维护保障设施，在主题公园发展中缺一不可。但是在后续发展中，其成功关键在于专业的管理。根据当地的文化习俗，人们的生活习惯，制定一套相对完备的发展战略，让其主题文化与之相结合，形成自己独特的发展之路。避免因为与对当地的文化习俗考虑不周影响公园的形象。香港迪士尼的“拒客”事件就是一个很好的教训：当时正值中国传统节日春节，因游客爆满，乐园将已经购买门票的数千名中国游客拒之门外。想必许多电视观众都对愤怒的游客聚集在乐园门口晃动大门，试图强行闯入的场面记忆忧新。这一情况的发生说明了一个简单的问题――香港迪斯尼乐园拒客事件虽然反映出迪斯尼管理层的应对失误，但这次拒客事件的背后还有一个更深层次的原因，即香港“米老鼠”还没有真正中国化，也就是说香港迪斯尼乐园忽视了中国内地旅游消费文化的特点。 香港迪斯尼面临的机会与威胁分别是什么，应如何面对？ 香港迪斯尼面临的挑战是客源不足与上海迪斯尼乐园和其他的公园如海洋公园等的建立，机会是香港立法会于本月10日对香港迪士尼扩建方案进行表决并获得通过。迪斯尼乐园应通过提高自主创新特别是创意策划能力，整合内部资源加强基础设施的修建，通过建立一系列的新景点，新设施，如：新的游乐场，新的主题乐园，扩大乐园面积并迎合年轻客群对机动游戏的需求，从而弥补当前游戏设施老旧、缺乏创新的不足。同时提供更多的优惠计划，相应降低乐园门票价格，满足广大国内游客的需求。同时通过对外部环境分析，竞争对手分析等，制定相应的市场战略，提高乐园的吸引力，达到压制竞争对手，保住及扩大市场份额的目的。实现的乐园的扭亏为盈。
银广夏案例分析
如何杜绝虚假会计信息-银广夏案例分析 2002年12月20日上午，银广夏特大虚假利润案终于在宁夏银川开庭审理。 银广夏一案暴露出中国上市公司会计信息虚假的严重程度，也暴露出中国对会计 信息质量监控力量的薄弱。由于市场主体在信息占有上的不对称，中、小投资者 相对于大股东和代表大股东利益的公司管理层来讲，是一个弱势群体，投资者和 潜在投资者对证券市场和上市公司的信心，在很大程度上取决于上市公司所公布 的财务信息和会计报表的可信性。 分析可以从完善公司治理的角度来寻找治理虚假会计信息的途径，指出现代公司治理问题是虚假会计信息产生的根源。信息经济学认为，公司治理就是要解决所有权和经营权分离带来的委托－代理问题。股东和经理人之间的委托代理关系，使虚假会计信息的产生成为可能，因为这两者之间的委托代理契约是不完备的，两者之间存在信息不完全、不对称，这就使造假有利可图，也成为可能。在银广夏案件中，银广夏伪造会计信息之所以得逞，就是因为两权分离下股东和经理人之间信息不对称、不完全，尤其是广大中小股东由于监督成本相对较高而信息严重匮乏。可以说只要存在委托代理关系就存在信息不对称引发的道德风险。 事实上，最终而言，经理人披露虚假信息对中小股东的利益损害最大。 一、经理人和股东的博弈 为了解决董事会和经理人之间的委托代理问题，中国努力完善公司治理结构，赋予了董事会和监事会维护股东权益的职责。但是目前上市公司董事会、监事会仍流于形式，职能的发挥有限，内部人控制仍然十分严重，直接导致内部人利用信息不对称损害中小股东利益。 伪造会计信息成为现实的原因是经理层注重短期利益，铤而走险。为什么经理人会只注重短期利益？因为经理人和股东的博弈近似一次性博弈，上市公司缺乏成长潜力，虚假包装上市严重，没有未来收益，在这种情况下，最大限度地掠夺短期收益是明智的选择。另一方面，环境的不确定性也导致了经理人只注重短期利益，国有控股公司经理人的选任与业绩无关，经理人不知道自己在位几日。还有一个原因是，伪造虚假信息的成本较低（如中小股东的民事赔偿制度尚是空白），这就使虚假会计信息的伪造成为现实。 二、经理期权失效 银广夏经理层伪造虚假会计信息的行为直接原于经理期权失效。虽然银广夏实行了经理期权，且报酬优厚。（如董事局主席张吉生持股3.712万股，公司总裁李有强持股3.858万股，财务总监丁功民持股2.7556万股等，另外董事局主席年薪40万元，董事15万，监事会主席20万元，监事5万元。）但是，优厚的报酬并没有激励董事会和监事会维护广大股东的利益，也没有有效激励经理人行为。其原因分析如下： 银广夏本来就已经经营乏力，据已故董事长陈川生前所言，银广夏上市以来一直为避免下市而要求的利润指标绞尽脑汁。一个未来收益不被看好的公司，经营者也没有能力增加未来收益，如银广夏引进的耗资巨大的萃取设备实际上几乎停工，经理期权的激励作用自然不大。经理期权相对于总股本来说比例太小，李有强等人的经理期股合计占总股本0.025％，微乎其微，占工资总额的比重相对较小，而且很可能是没有成本的。 市场失灵，市场信息虚假现象普遍存在，导致市场信号失真，再加上庄家炒作，资源并非流
案例分析：供应链管理：香港利丰集团的实践
案例分析： 供应链管理：香港利丰集团的实践 （乔建锋,广州） 一、利丰集团的简介： 于1906年，利丰集团由一人年轻的企业家冯耀卿(别名：冯柏燎)和一位瓷器贸易商李道明在广州创建成立。至1937年，利丰有限公司在香港成立。后来经发展成为香港最在的出口贸易公司，公司是以香港为基地的大型跨国商贸集团，运用供应链管理的概念经营出口贸易、经销批发和零售三大核心业务。① 二、利丰集团由传统公司演变为全球性公司的切入点是什么？ 一个公司的成长，也有一个生命周期的问题。公司的发展阶段、规模大小、管理水平、和经营范围，在不同的生命周期阶段有不同的特点，这要求根据公司的实际情况采取不同的变革，以适应这种变化的要求，否则公司的生存就是一个问题。当然，公司的外部环境也是一个非常关键的因素。 利丰集团由小变大，由传统变为现代这个过程中，有许多因素的影响。从其切入点，或者说是关键点来说，笔者认为有以下几个方面的： １．公司规模的变化要求新的组织管理方式。 ①PP．23，24；P74。
在管理学理论中，有一个管理幅度的问题。但是管理幅度只是相对于单个管理者而言。对于公司的整个组织而言，传统的家族式的管理方式只能对一定规模的公司组织进行有效管理，但是随着公司的发展，公司规模的扩大和管理系统的复杂，家族式的管理已经显现出它的局限性。是否能顺利由家族式的公司转变为一个现代意义上的现代化公司是许多传统家族式公司发展能否持续发展的关键一步。 在利丰公司，在1973年，冯国纶和冯国经兄弟二人劝说其父亲把公司的所有权和管理权分离，即把公司上市。这一点正是公司由传统公司转变现代公司的关键步骤。②2．随社会环境变化的公司定位转移 在P57介绍，利丰贸易向高增值模式转型，从贸易中间人、简单代理商、增值代理商、贸易供货商、和虚拟生产逐渐过渡。这一点的逐渐过渡或转移下是公司的一个定位转移。 公司外部环境变化，要求公司适应变化。这不仅是公司的适应变化，而且是公司在社会中价值所在。如果不能随着公司外部环境的变化，公司的原有赢利业务可能变的不赢利，最后失去竞争力。从供应链角度讲，这是利丰公司的供应链长度的延伸和深度的加深。这个转变也是公司从一个采购代理商进渡到供应链管理者。 ②P19
政府公文格式 及公文字体、字号、标准
政府公文格式及公文字体、字号、标准 公文纸一般采用国内通用的16开型，推荐采用国际标准a4型，供张贴的公文用纸幅度面尺寸， 可根据实际需要确定。 保密等级字体：一般用3号或4号黑体 紧急程度字体：字体和字号与保密等级相同（3号或4号黑体） 文头的字体：大号黑体字、黑变体字或标准体、宋体字套色（一般为红）发文字号的字体：一般采用3号或4号仿宋体 签发人的字体：字体字号与发文字号相同（3号或4号仿宋体） 标题的字体：字体一般宋体、黑体，字号要大于正文的字号。 主送机关的字体：一般采用3号或4号仿宋体 正文的字体：常用3号或4号仿宋体 附件的字体：常用3号或4号仿宋体 作者的字体：字体字号与正文相同（3号或4号仿宋体） 日期的字体：字体字号与正文相同（3号或4号仿宋体） 注释的字体：小于正文的的4号或小4号仿宋体 主题词的字体：常用3号或4号黑体公文写作公文格式排版中的字体要求公文写作
抄送机关的字体：与正文的字体字号相同（常用3号或4号仿宋体）或小一号的文字 印发说明的字体：与抄送机关的字体字号相同（常用3号或4号仿宋体）或小一号的文 主标题（又称一级标题）为二号宋体（加粗） 二级标题为三号黑体 三级标题为三号仿宋加粗。 文均为三号仿宋。 上政府文规定。且主标题以外的部份的标题和正文可采用小三号字，1、密级用三号黑体字 2、紧急程度，“特急”、“加急”用三号黑体字 3、文号用四号仿宋体字加黑 4、签发人用三号楷体字 5、标题用二号宋体字加黑 6、大小标题号“一、二、三……”用三号黑体；“（一）（二）（三）……”用三号仿宋体字 7、正文用三号仿宋体字（每页19行，每行25个字） 8、批转（转发、印发）……通知，通知正文用三号楷体字，被批转（转发、印发）文件用三号仿宋体字 9、附件标题用二号宋体字，正文用三号仿宋体字 10、印发传达范围用三号仿宋体字 11、“主题词”三个字用三号黑体字；词组用三号宋体字