我們在西貢享受美好時光。當我們在當地的鄉村餐館享受遲來的泰式午餐時，我開玩笑地到食用營養豐富的食物或有助於防脫髮，根據家族史，Conrad 和Christopher有25％的幾率禿頭。我沒有意識到我的說話會挑起他們彼此之間一場認真的討論，他們開始討論遺傳參數，評估他們母親的隱性基因的影響性等等。討論一直進行以至於他們都沒有好好的用餐。你看，這遠遠超出我說這番話原有的意圖。然後，我想起最近一位法學教授的發言，其呼籲市民佔據中環，以敦促政府加快民主步伐。我認為，這已不僅僅是言論自由的問題，也是一種煽動。製造這樣言論的人可能會將自己陷於觸犯刑事罪行的危險。
Dominating and Recessive genes
We were having a great time at Sai Kung. While enjoying our late lunch meal at country Inn, a Thai food restaurant, I happened to mention that it would be good to take nutritious food to prevent losing hairs, in theory, both Conrad and Christopher may carry recessive genes which may cause them losing hairs. I didn’t realise that my remark as such would stir up a serious discussion between them. They started to rationalize my statement by genetic argument, saying that given the family background of their dad and mon, the chance of getting to lose hairs would be 25% chance. XY and YY chromosomes etc and which one of us carries the dominating and which one is carrying the recessive genes. The discussion carried to its full length and they did not bother with their meal at all. You see, just one casual remark could spark off a serious discussion. It could not be difficult to imagine what sort of serious impact might bring to Hong Kong when some one who said himself to be a law lecturer to incite the public to occupy the Central in order to urge the government for speeding up the pace for democracy. It is not just a matter of freedom of speech. That is an incitement, it could be an attempt to breach the peace and result a serious commotion. The maker of such a statement may face with a serious charge and be put to jail for a long long time! Hong Kong has not seen these sorts of trial for over 40 years.