【對華政策的範式轉移】絕對是歷史性講話.
#成萬字 #萬言書 #頹譯都譯死人
----小弟頹譯------
蓬佩奧:謝謝。謝謝你們。州長,您的慷慨介紹。的確是這樣:當您在那個體育館裡散步時,說出“蓬佩奧”的名字,人們就會耳語。因為,我有一個兄弟,Mark,他是一個非常好,一位非常出色的籃球運動員。
請為藍鷹榮譽衛隊(Blue Eagles Honor Guard)及飛行員Kayla Highsmith下士對國歌的精彩演繹給多一次掌聲如何? (掌聲)
也要感謝Laurie牧師那動人的祈禱,我還要感謝Hugh Hewitt和尼克遜基金會的邀請讓我在這個重要的美國機構發言。很高興能受空軍人員演唱,由海軍陸戰隊介紹,讓個一個陸軍傢伙站在海軍傢伙的房子前面。 (笑聲)(按蓬佩奧曾在美國陸軍服役 )一切都很好。
很榮幸來到Yorba Linda,尼克遜的父親在那裡建立了他出生和成長的房屋。
在這困難時刻,使今天成為可能的尼克遜中心董事會和工作人員,感謝,感謝我和我的團隊使這一天成為可能。
我們很幸運能在觀眾中見到一些特別的嘉賓,包括我認識的Chris Nixon (尼克遜的孫,Christopher Nixon Cox)。我還要感謝Tricia Nixon和Julie Nixon Eisenhower (尼克遜兩位女兒)對這次訪問的支持。
我還想提一提幾位勇敢的中國持不同政見者,他們長途跋涉並出席。其他尊貴的客人-(掌聲)-尊貴的客人,謝謝您的光臨。那些在帳篷下的人,您們必須支付額外的費用(笑)。
以及那些正在觀看直播的人,感謝您的收看。
最後,正如州長所說,我在Santa Ana出生,離這裡不遠。今天有我的姐姐和她的丈夫在聽眾中。謝謝大家的光臨。我敢打賭,您從沒想過我會站在這裡。
我今天的講話是我在一系列中國演講中的第四組講話,我請國家安全顧問Robert O’Brien,聯邦調查局局長Chris Wray和司法部長Barr陪同我發言。
我們有一個非常明確的目標,一個實在的任務。這是在解釋美國與中國關係的不同方面,數十年來這種關係中出現的巨大失衡以及中國共產黨所計劃的霸權。
我們的目標是明確指出,特朗普總統的中國政策正在解決的對美國人的威脅是明顯的,並且我們正確立保障自由的戰略。Robert O’Brien談到了意識形態。聯邦調查局局長Wray談到了間諜活動。司法部長Barr談到了經濟學。現在,我今天的目標是將這一切匯總給美國人民,並詳細說明中國的威脅對我們的經濟,我們的自由,乃至全球自由民主國家的未來的衝擊。
自基辛格(Kissinger)博士秘密訪問中國以來,到明年已經過去了半個世紀,而尼克松總統訪華50週年也就在2022年。
那時世界大不一樣了。
我們以為與中國交往(engagement)將創造一個帶有友好合作前景的美好未來。
但是今天—今天我們仍然戴著口罩,看著疫性的死亡人數仍在增加,因為中共對世界的承諾沒有兌現。我們每天早上都在讀到鎮壓香港和新疆的新聞消息。
我們看到的中國貿易濫用行為的驚人數字使美國失去了工作,並給整個美國經濟帶來了沉重打擊,包括南加州。而且我們正在看著一支越來越強大,甚至更具威脅性的中國軍隊。
從加利福尼亞州到我的家鄉堪薩斯州以及其他地區,我都有著與美國人心中的疑問:從與中國交往至今,美國人民這50年見到了什麼?
領袖們曾說過的中國邁向自由與民主發展的理論是否正確?
這是中國對 "雙贏" 局面的定義嗎?
實際上,從國務卿的角度來看,美國更安全嗎?我們是否有更大的可能為我們自己實現和平,並為我們之後的子孫後代享有和平?
看,我們必須承認一個硬道理。我們必須承認一個硬道理,它將指導我們在未來幾十年中發展,如果我們要擁有一個自由的21世紀,而不是習近平夢想的中國世紀,那麼與中國盲目交往的舊範式坦白說是沒有贏的機會。我們決不能在此繼續,也絕不能重返。
正如特朗普總統已明確指出的那樣,我們需要一項保護美國經濟乃至我們生活方式的戰略。自由世界必須戰勝這一新的暴政。 The free world must triumph over this new tyranny.
現在,在我似乎不太希望拆除尼克遜總統的遺產之前,我想明確地說,他做了當時他認為最適合美國人民的事情,而且他很可能是對的。
他是中國的傑出學生,冷酷的勇士和中國人民的偉大仰慕者,正如我們一樣。
他意識到中國太重要而不能忽視,即使國力由於自身的共產主義野蠻行為而被削弱。這值得尼克遜給予極大的讚譽。
1967年,尼克遜在一篇非常著名的外交事務文章中解釋了他的未來戰略。
他的話是這樣的:他說:“從長遠來看,我們根本無法永遠把中國留在國際大家庭之外……在中國改變之前,世界不會安全。因此,我們的目標是 —在可能的範圍內,我們必須作出影響,而我們的目標應該是促使改變。”
我認為這是整篇文章中的關鍵詞:“促使改變”。
因此,在歷史性的北京之行中,尼克遜總統開始了我們的交住戰略。他崇高地尋求一個更自由,更安全的世界,並希望中國共產黨能兌現這一承諾。
隨著時間的流逝,美國決策者越來越多地認為,隨著中國變得更加繁榮,它將會對外開放,它會在國內變得更加自由,而實際上在國外所面臨的威脅卻越來越小,它將變得更加友好。這一切似乎都是不可避免的。
但是那個必然的時代已經過去了。我們一直在進行的這種交往並沒有帶來尼克遜總統希望所引起的中國內部的變化。事實是,我們的政策以及其他自由國家的政策使中國經濟從衰落得以恢復,但北京反咬了養活它的國際力量。
我們曾向中國公民張開雙臂,只是看到中國共產黨利用我們的自由開放社會。中國派宣傳員參加了我們的新聞發布會,研究中心,高中,大學,甚至參加了家長教師會議。
我們將台灣的朋友邊緣化,後來台灣蓬勃發展為積極的民主國家。
我們給中國共產黨和政權本身以特殊的經濟待遇,只是看到中共堅持以對其人權侵犯保持沉默作為讓西方公司進入中國市場的代價。
前一天,Robert O’Brien大使舉了幾個例子:萬豪,美國航空,達美航空,聯合航空都從其公司網站上刪除了對台灣的提及,以免激怒北京。在荷里活,這裏的不遠處,距離美國創作自由的中心和自命為社會正義的仲裁者,他們的自我審查可說是對中國發展最不利的參考。
公司對CCP的默許也發生在世界各地。
這種企業忠誠度如何運作?奉承會得到獎勵嗎?讓我引述Barr總檢察長在講話。他在上週的一次演講中說:“中國統治者的最終野心不是與美國進行貿易。是要略奪美國。”
中國剝奪了我們寶貴的知識產權和商業機密,損失了在美國各地了數百萬個就業機會。它從美國吸走了供應鏈,然後添加了一個由奴隸制度製成的小工具。
它使世界上主要的水路對國際貿易而言變得不那麼安全。
尼克遜總統曾經說過,他擔心自己通過向中共開放世界而創造了一個“科學怪人”,這正是如此。
現在,有誠信的人可以辯論為什麼自由國家允許這些年來,這些不好的事情發生。也許我們對中國的惡毒的共產主義幼稚,或者在我們在冷戰勝利後變得自大,或者軟弱的資本主義者被北京所說的“和平崛起”所愚昧。
無論出於何種原因—無論出於何種原因,今天的中國在國內都越來越專制,並開始對其他地方的自由作出干預。
特朗普總統說:夠了。
我不認為兩派的人對我今天所說的事實提出異議。但是即使到現在,也有人堅持認為,為了對話而對話。
現在,要明確地說,我們將繼續討論。但是這些對話的意義是不同的。幾週前,我去了檀香山,與楊潔篪見面。
這是同樣的古老故事—說了很多話,但實際上沒有任何改變任何行為的提議。
楊的承諾,就像中共在他面前做出的許多承諾一樣,都是空洞的。我想,他的期望是我會屈服於他們的要求,因為坦率地說,這是許多前任政府所做的。我沒有,特朗普總統也不會。正如O’Brien很好地解釋的那樣,我們必須記住,中共政權是馬克思列寧主義政權。習近平堅信這已破產的極權主義思想。
正是這種意識形態,正是這種意識形態反映了他數十年來對全球共產主義中國霸權的渴望。美國再也不能忽視我們兩國之間的根本政治和意識形態差異,就像中共從來沒有忽視它們一樣。
以我在眾議院情報委員會,然後擔任中央情報局局長,以及擔任美國國務卿兩年多的經驗,使我對這種中央理解成為可能:
唯一的方式 — 真正改變共產主義中國的唯一方法,不是對中國領導人聽其言,而是觀其行。您會看到美國政策對此結論做出了回應。列根總統說,他是在“信任但要核實”的基礎上與蘇聯打交道的。關於中共,我說我們必須"不信任和核查"。 (掌聲)
我們,世界上熱愛自由的國家,必須像尼克遜總統所希望的那樣,促使中國發生變化。我們必須促使中國以更具創造性和果斷性的方式進行變革,因為北京的行動威脅著我們的人民和我們的繁榮。
我們必須首先改變我們的人民和我們的伙伴對中國共產黨的看法。我們必須說實話。我們不能像其他任何國家一樣,把這個假象視為正常國家。
我們知道,與中國進行貿易不像與一個正常的,遵守法律的國家進行貿易。北京威脅將國際協議視為—將協議視為建議,以作為主導全球的渠道。
但是,通過堅持公平條款,就像我們的貿易代表在獲得第一階段貿易協議時所做的那樣,我們可以迫使中國考慮其知識產權盜竊和損害美國工人的政策。
我們也知道,與擁有CCP支持的公司開展業務與與一家加拿大公司開展業務不同。他們不回答獨立委員會的問題,而且其中許多是由國家贊助的,因此無需追求利潤。
華為就是一個很好的例子。我們不再假裝華為是一家無辜的電信公司,它的出現是為了確保您可以和朋友聊天。我們稱其為真正的國家安全威脅,並為採取了相應的行動。
我們也知道,如果我們的公司在中國投資,他們可能會有意或無意地支持共產黨嚴重侵犯人權的行為。
因此,我們的美國財政部和商務部已批准並將那些危害和濫用世界人民最基本權利的中國領導人和實體列入黑名單。多個部門已就商業諮詢機構合作,以確保我們的CEO了解其供應鏈在中國境內的工作。
我們也知道,我們也知道並非所有的中國學生和僱員都只是來這裡賺錢和積累一些知識的普通學生和工人。他們太多人來這裡竊取我們的知識產權並將其帶回自己的國家。司法部和其他機構已對這些罪行進行了嚴厲的懲罰。
我們知道,解放軍也不是正規軍。其目的是維護中國共產黨精英的絕對統治,擴大中國帝國,而不是保護中國人民。
因此,美國國防部加大了工作力度,擴大了在東,南海以及台灣海峽以及整個海峽的航行操作自由。我們還建立了一支太空部隊,以幫助阻止中國對這一最後邊界的侵略。
同樣,坦率地說,我們在美國國務院制定了一套與中國打交道的新政策,推動特朗普總統實現公正與互惠的目標,以改寫幾十年來不斷加劇的失衡。
就在本週,我們宣布關閉在休斯敦的中國領事館,因為它是間諜和知識產權盜竊的樞紐。 (掌聲)
兩週前,我們在南中國海扭轉了過去八年忽略的國際法權益。
我們呼籲中國限制其核能力以適應當今時代的戰略現實。
國務院- 在世界各地,各個層面- 都與中國同行進行了交流,只是要求公平和互惠。
但是我們的方法不只是要變得強硬。那不可能達到我們想要的結果。我們還必須與中國人民互動並賦予他們權力,他們是一個充滿活力,熱愛自由的人民,他們與中國共產黨完全不同。首先是面對面的外交。 (掌聲)
無論我走到哪裡,我都遇到了有才華和勤奮的中國人。我遇過逃離新疆集中營的維吾爾族和哈薩克族。我曾與香港的民主領袖進行了交談,有陳日君樞機到黎智英。兩天前,我在倫敦會見了香港自由戰士羅冠聰。
上個月在我的辦公室裡,我聽到了天安門廣場倖存者的故事。其中之一今天在這裡。王丹是一名關鍵學生,他從未停止為中國人民爭取自由。王先生,請您站起來,以便我們見到您嗎? (掌聲)
今天與我們同在的還有中國民主運動之父魏京生。他在中國的勞改營度過了幾十年的時間。魏先生,你能站起來嗎? (掌聲)
我成長及服役於冷戰時期。如果我學到一件事,共產黨人幾乎總是撒謊。他們告訴我們的最大謊言是,他們認為自己能代表14億被監視,壓迫和害怕說出來的人。
恰恰相反。中共比任何敵人都更擔心中國人民的誠實觀點,失去對權力的控制。
試想一下,如果我們能夠從武漢的醫生那裡聽到他們的來信,並且允許他們對新疫病的爆發發出警報,那麼世界會變得更好—更不用說中國內部的人了。
幾十年來,我們的領袖一直無視,淡化勇敢的中國異見者的話,他們警告過我們所面對之政權。
我們不能再忽略它了。他們與任何人一樣知道我們永遠無法回到現狀。
但是改變中共的舉動並不單單是中國人民的使命。自由國家必須努力捍衛自由。這不是簡單的事情。
但是我有信心我們可以做到。我有信心,因為我們以前做過。我們知道這是怎麼回事。我有信心,因為中共正在重複蘇聯犯下的一些同樣的錯誤-疏遠潛在的盟友,破壞國內外的信任,拒絕財產權和法治。
我有信心。我之所以有信心,是因為我看到其他國家之間的覺醒,他們知道我們無法回到過去,美國亦如是。我從布魯塞爾,悉尼到河內都聽說過。
最重要的是,我相信我們可以捍衛自由,因為自由本身是漂亮的。
看看香港人因中共加強對這個驕傲城市的控制,要移居海外。他們揮舞著美國國旗。
是的,確實有差異。與蘇聯不同,中國已深入融入全球經濟。但是,北京對我們依賴,甚於我們依賴他們。 (掌聲)
瞧,我拒絕相信我們生活在一個不可避免中國的時代,某些陷阱(按:修昔底德陷阱)是預設的,中共至上是未來。我們的方法不是注定失敗的,因為美國正在衰落。正如我在今年早些時候在慕尼黑說的那樣,自由世界仍在勝利的一方。我們只需要相信它,就明白它並為此感到自豪。來自世界各地的人們仍然希望加入開放社會。他們來到這裡學習,來到這里工作,來到這里為家人謀生。他們並不想留在中國。
是時候了。今天很高興來到這裡。這是完美的時機。現在是自由國家採取行動的時候了。並非每個國家都將以同樣的方式對待中國,也不應該。每個國家都必須對如何保護自己的主權,如何保護自己的經濟繁榮以及如何保護自己的理想不受中國共產黨的觸碰而有所了解。
但是我呼籲每個國家的每一個領導人—如美國所先行的—簡單地堅持互惠,堅持中國共產黨的透明度和問責制。
這些簡單而強大的標準將取得很大的成就。太長時間了,我們讓中共制定交往條款,但不再這樣做。自由國家必須定下基調。
我們必須遵循相同的原則。我們必須在沙子上劃出共同的界線,而這不能被中共的討價還價或他們的野蠻沖走。確實,這就是美國最近所做的事情,因為我們一勞永逸地拒絕了中國在南中國海的非法主張,因為我們已敦促各國成為廉潔國家,以免其公民的私人信息落在手裡中國共產黨。我們通過制定標準來做到這一點。
現在,這確實很困難。對於一些小國家來說很難。他們害怕被人欺負。因此,其中一些人根本沒有能力,沒有勇氣暫時與我們站在一起。的確,我們與北約的盟友並未以其對香港的立場站起來,因為他們擔心北京會限制中國市場的准入。這種膽怯會導致歷史性的失敗,我們無法重複。
我們不能重複過去幾年的錯誤。中國面臨的挑戰要求民主國家發揮作用和精力,民主國家包括歐洲,非洲,南美,尤其是印度太平洋地區。
而且,如果我們現在不採取行動,那麼中共最終將侵蝕我們的自由,並顛覆我們的社會努力建立的基於法規的秩序。如果我們現在屈膝,我們孩子的孩子可能會受到中國共產黨的擺佈,中國共產黨的行動是當今自由世界中的主要挑戰。
習近平總書記註定不會永遠在中國內外施暴,除非我們允許
現在,這與圍堵無關。不要相信這策略。這是我們從未遇到過的複雜的新挑戰。蘇聯與自由世界隔絕了。共產主義中國已經在我們的邊界之內。
因此,我們不能獨自面對這一挑戰。聯合國,北約,七國集團國家,二十國集團,我們的經濟,外交和軍事力量合力,如果我們清楚明確地並勇往直前,無疑足以應付這一挑戰。
也許是時候讓志趣相投的國家組成一個新的團體,一個新的民主國家聯盟了。
我們有工具。我知道我們可以做到。現在我們需要意志。引用聖經經文,我問“要警醒禱告,免得陷入試探。你們心靈雖然願意,肉體卻是軟弱的。”
如果自由世界沒有改變 —沒有改變,共產主義中國一定會改變我們。無法因為舒適或便利而返回到過去的做法。
確保我們脫離中國共產黨的自由是我們這個時代的使命,而美國完全有能力領導它,
因為我們的建國原則為我們提供了這一機會。正如我上週在費城站立時所看到的那樣,注視著獨立廳,我們的國家建立在所有人類都擁有不可剝奪的某些權利的前提下。
確保這些權利是我們政府的工作。這是一個簡單而有力的真理。它使我們成為全世界人民的自由燈塔,包括中國境內的人。
確實,尼克遜在1967年寫道“除非中國改變,否則世界是不安全的”是正確的。現在我們該聽他的話了。
今天的危機已經明確了。
今天,覺醒正在發生。
今天,自由世界必須作出回應。
我們永遠無法回到過去。
願上帝保佑你們每個人。
願上帝保佑中國人民。'
願上帝保佑美利堅合眾國人民。
謝謝你們。(掌聲)
Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you, Governor, for that very, very generous introduction. It is true: When you walk in that gym and you say the name “Pompeo,” there is a whisper. I had a brother, Mark, who was really good – a really good basketball player.
And how about another round of applause for the Blue Eagles Honor Guard and Senior Airman Kayla Highsmith, and her wonderful rendition of the national anthem? (Applause.)
Thank you, too, to Pastor Laurie for that moving prayer, and I want to thank Hugh Hewitt and the Nixon Foundation for your invitation to speak at this important American institution. It was great to be sung to by an Air Force person, introduced by a Marine, and they let the Army guy in in front of the Navy guy’s house. (Laughter.) It’s all good.
It’s an honor to be here in Yorba Linda, where Nixon’s father built the house in which he was born and raised.
To all the Nixon Center board and staff who made today possible – it’s difficult in these times – thanks for making this day possible for me and for my team.
We are blessed to have some incredibly special people in the audience, including Chris, who I’ve gotten to know – Chris Nixon. I also want to thank Tricia Nixon and Julie Nixon Eisenhower for their support of this visit as well.
I want to recognize several courageous Chinese dissidents who have joined us here today and made a long trip.
And to all the other distinguished guests – (applause) – to all the other distinguished guests, thank you for being here. For those of you who got under the tent, you must have paid extra.
And those of you watching live, thank you for tuning in.
And finally, as the governor mentioned, I was born here in Santa Ana, not very far from here. I’ve got my sister and her husband in the audience today. Thank you all for coming out. I bet you never thought that I’d be standing up here.
My remarks today are the fourth set of remarks in a series of China speeches that I asked National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, FBI Director Chris Wray, and the Attorney General Barr to deliver alongside me.
We had a very clear purpose, a real mission. It was to explain the different facets of America’s relationship with China, the massive imbalances in that relationship that have built up over decades, and the Chinese Communist Party’s designs for hegemony.
Our goal was to make clear that the threats to Americans that President Trump’s China policy aims to address are clear and our strategy for securing those freedoms established.
Ambassador O’Brien spoke about ideology. FBI Director Wray talked about espionage. Attorney General Barr spoke about economics. And now my goal today is to put it all together for the American people and detail what the China threat means for our economy, for our liberty, and indeed for the future of free democracies around the world.
Next year marks half a century since Dr. Kissinger’s secret mission to China, and the 50th anniversary of President Nixon’s trip isn’t too far away in 2022.
The world was much different then.
We imagined engagement with China would produce a future with bright promise of comity and cooperation.
But today – today we’re all still wearing masks and watching the pandemic’s body count rise because the CCP failed in its promises to the world. We’re reading every morning new headlines of repression in Hong Kong and in Xinjiang.
We’re seeing staggering statistics of Chinese trade abuses that cost American jobs and strike enormous blows to the economies all across America, including here in southern California. And we’re watching a Chinese military that grows stronger and stronger, and indeed more menacing.
I’ll echo the questions ringing in the hearts and minds of Americans from here in California to my home state of Kansas and beyond:
What do the American people have to show now 50 years on from engagement with China?
Did the theories of our leaders that proposed a Chinese evolution towards freedom and democracy prove to be true?
Is this China’s definition of a win-win situation?
And indeed, centrally, from the Secretary of State’s perspective, is America safer? Do we have a greater likelihood of peace for ourselves and peace for the generations which will follow us?
Look, we have to admit a hard truth. We must admit a hard truth that should guide us in the years and decades to come, that if we want to have a free 21st century, and not the Chinese century of which Xi Jinping dreams, the old paradigm of blind engagement with China simply won’t get it done. We must not continue it and we must not return to it.
As President Trump has made very clear, we need a strategy that protects the American economy, and indeed our way of life. The free world must triumph over this new tyranny.
Now, before I seem too eager to tear down President Nixon’s legacy, I want to be clear that he did what he believed was best for the American people at the time, and he may well have been right.
He was a brilliant student of China, a fierce cold warrior, and a tremendous admirer of the Chinese people, just as I think we all are.
He deserves enormous credit for realizing that China was too important to be ignored, even when the nation was weakened because of its own self-inflicted communist brutality.
In 1967, in a very famous Foreign Affairs article, Nixon explained his future strategy. Here’s what he said:
He said, “Taking the long view, we simply cannot afford to leave China forever outside of the family of nations…The world cannot be safe until China changes. Thus, our aim – to the extent we can, we must influence events. Our goal should be to induce change.”
And I think that’s the key phrase from the entire article: “to induce change.”
So, with that historic trip to Beijing, President Nixon kicked off our engagement strategy. He nobly sought a freer and safer world, and he hoped that the Chinese Communist Party would return that commitment.
As time went on, American policymakers increasingly presumed that as China became more prosperous, it would open up, it would become freer at home, and indeed present less of a threat abroad, it’d be friendlier. It all seemed, I am sure, so inevitable.
But that age of inevitability is over. The kind of engagement we have been pursuing has not brought the kind of change inside of China that President Nixon had hoped to induce.
The truth is that our policies – and those of other free nations – resurrected China’s failing economy, only to see Beijing bite the international hands that were feeding it.
We opened our arms to Chinese citizens, only to see the Chinese Communist Party exploit our free and open society. China sent propagandists into our press conferences, our research centers, our high-schools, our colleges, and even into our PTA meetings.
We marginalized our friends in Taiwan, which later blossomed into a vigorous democracy.
We gave the Chinese Communist Party and the regime itself special economic treatment, only to see the CCP insist on silence over its human rights abuses as the price of admission for Western companies entering China.
Ambassador O’Brien ticked off a few examples just the other day: Marriott, American Airlines, Delta, United all removed references to Taiwan from their corporate websites, so as not to anger Beijing.
In Hollywood, not too far from here – the epicenter of American creative freedom, and self-appointed arbiters of social justice – self-censors even the most mildly unfavorable reference to China.
This corporate acquiescence to the CCP happens all over the world, too.
And how has this corporate fealty worked? Is its flattery rewarded? I’ll give you a quote from the speech that General Barr gave, Attorney General Barr. In a speech last week, he said that “The ultimate ambition of China’s rulers isn’t to trade with the United States. It is to raid the United States.”
China ripped off our prized intellectual property and trade secrets, causing millions of jobs[1] all across America.
It sucked supply chains away from America, and then added a widget made of slave labor.
It made the world’s key waterways less safe for international commerce.
President Nixon once said he feared he had created a “Frankenstein” by opening the world to the CCP, and here we are.
Now, people of good faith can debate why free nations allowed these bad things to happen for all these years. Perhaps we were naive about China’s virulent strain of communism, or triumphalist after our victory in the Cold War, or cravenly capitalist, or hoodwinked by Beijing’s talk of a “peaceful rise.”
Whatever the reason – whatever the reason, today China is increasingly authoritarian at home, and more aggressive in its hostility to freedom everywhere else.
And President Trump has said: enough.
I don’t think many people on either side of the aisle dispute the facts that I have laid out today. But even now, some are insisting that we preserve the model of dialogue for dialogue’s sake.
Now, to be clear, we’ll keep on talking. But the conversations are different these days. I traveled to Honolulu now just a few weeks back to meet with Yang Jiechi.
It was the same old story – plenty of words, but literally no offer to change any of the behaviors.
Yang’s promises, like so many the CCP made before him, were empty. His expectations, I surmise, were that I’d cave to their demands, because frankly this is what too many prior administrations have done. I didn’t, and President Trump will not either.
As Ambassador O’Brien explained so well, we have to keep in mind that the CCP regime is a Marxist-Leninist regime. General Secretary Xi Jinping is a true believer in a bankrupt totalitarian ideology.
It’s this ideology, it’s this ideology that informs his decades-long desire for global hegemony of Chinese communism. America can no longer ignore the fundamental political and ideological differences between our countries, just as the CCP has never ignored them.
My experience in the House Intelligence Committee, and then as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and my now two-plus years as America’s Secretary of State have led me to this central understanding:
That the only way – the only way to truly change communist China is to act not on the basis of what Chinese leaders say, but how they behave. And you can see American policy responding to this conclusion. President Reagan said that he dealt with the Soviet Union on the basis of “trust but verify.” When it comes to the CCP, I say we must distrust and verify. (Applause.)
We, the freedom-loving nations of the world, must induce China to change, just as President Nixon wanted. We must induce China to change in more creative and assertive ways, because Beijing’s actions threaten our people and our prosperity.
We must start by changing how our people and our partners perceive the Chinese Communist Party. We have to tell the truth. We can’t treat this incarnation of China as a normal country, just like any other.
We know that trading with China is not like trading with a normal, law-abiding nation. Beijing threatens international agreements as – treats international suggestions as – or agreements as suggestions, as conduits for global dominance.
But by insisting on fair terms, as our trade representative did when he secured our phase one trade deal, we can force China to reckon with its intellectual property theft and policies that harmed American workers.
We know too that doing business with a CCP-backed company is not the same as doing business with, say, a Canadian company. They don’t answer to independent boards, and many of them are state-sponsored and so have no need to pursue profits.
A good example is Huawei. We stopped pretending Huawei is an innocent telecommunications company that’s just showing up to make sure you can talk to your friends. We’ve called it what it is – a true national security threat – and we’ve taken action accordingly.
We know too that if our companies invest in China, they may wittingly or unwittingly support the Communist Party’s gross human rights violations.
Our Departments of Treasury and Commerce have thus sanctioned and blacklisted Chinese leaders and entities that are harming and abusing the most basic rights for people all across the world. Several agencies have worked together on a business advisory to make certain our CEOs are informed of how their supply chains are behaving inside of China.
We know too, we know too that not all Chinese students and employees are just normal students and workers that are coming here to make a little bit of money and to garner themselves some knowledge. Too many of them come here to steal our intellectual property and to take this back to their country.
The Department of Justice and other agencies have vigorously pursued punishment for these crimes.
We know that the People’s Liberation Army is not a normal army, too. Its purpose is to uphold the absolute rule of the Chinese Communist Party elites and expand a Chinese empire, not to protect the Chinese people.
And so our Department of Defense has ramped up its efforts, freedom of navigation operations out and throughout the East and South China Seas, and in the Taiwan Strait as well. And we’ve created a Space Force to help deter China from aggression on that final frontier.
And so too, frankly, we’ve built out a new set of policies at the State Department dealing with China, pushing President Trump’s goals for fairness and reciprocity, to rewrite the imbalances that have grown over decades.
Just this week, we announced the closure of the Chinese consulate in Houston because it was a hub of spying and intellectual property theft. (Applause.)
We reversed, two weeks ago, eight years of cheek-turning with respect to international law in the South China Sea.
We’ve called on China to conform its nuclear capabilities to the strategic realities of our time.
And the State Department – at every level, all across the world – has engaged with our Chinese counterparts simply to demand fairness and reciprocity.
But our approach can’t just be about getting tough. That’s unlikely to achieve the outcome that we desire. We must also engage and empower the Chinese people – a dynamic, freedom-loving people who are completely distinct from the Chinese Communist Party.
That begins with in-person diplomacy. (Applause.) I’ve met Chinese men and women of great talent and diligence wherever I go.
I’ve met with Uyghurs and ethnic Kazakhs who escaped Xinjiang’s concentration camps. I’ve talked with Hong Kong’s democracy leaders, from Cardinal Zen to Jimmy Lai. Two days ago in London, I met with Hong Kong freedom fighter Nathan Law.
And last month in my office, I heard the stories of Tiananmen Square survivors. One of them is here today.
Wang Dan was a key student who has never stopped fighting for freedom for the Chinese people. Mr. Wang, will you please stand so that we may recognize you? (Applause.)
Also with us today is the father of the Chinese democracy movement, Wei Jingsheng. He spent decades in Chinese labor camps for his advocacy. Mr. Wei, will you please stand? (Applause.)
I grew up and served my time in the Army during the Cold War. And if there is one thing I learned, communists almost always lie. The biggest lie that they tell is to think that they speak for 1.4 billion people who are surveilled, oppressed, and scared to speak out.
Quite the contrary. The CCP fears the Chinese people’s honest opinions more than any foe, and save for losing their own grip on power, they have reason – no reason to.
Just think how much better off the world would be – not to mention the people inside of China – if we had been able to hear from the doctors in Wuhan and they’d been allowed to raise the alarm about the outbreak of a new and novel virus.
For too many decades, our leaders have ignored, downplayed the words of brave Chinese dissidents who warned us about the nature of the regime we’re facing.
And we can’t ignore it any longer. They know as well as anyone that we can never go back to the status quo.
But changing the CCP’s behavior cannot be the mission of the Chinese people alone. Free nations have to work to defend freedom. It’s the furthest thing from easy.
But I have faith we can do it. I have faith because we’ve done it before. We know how this goes.
I have faith because the CCP is repeating some of the same mistakes that the Soviet Union made – alienating potential allies, breaking trust at home and abroad, rejecting property rights and predictable rule of law.
I have faith. I have faith because of the awakening I see among other nations that know we can’t go back to the past in the same way that we do here in America. I’ve heard this from Brussels, to Sydney, to Hanoi.
And most of all, I have faith we can defend freedom because of the sweet appeal of freedom itself.
Look at the Hong Kongers clamoring to emigrate abroad as the CCP tightens its grip on that proud city. They wave American flags.
It’s true, there are differences. Unlike the Soviet Union, China is deeply integrated into the global economy. But Beijing is more dependent on us than we are on them. (Applause.)
Look, I reject the notion that we’re living in an age of inevitability, that some trap is pre-ordained, that CCP supremacy is the future. Our approach isn’t destined to fail because America is in decline. As I said in Munich earlier this year, the free world is still winning. We just need to believe it and know it and be proud of it. People from all over the world still want to come to open societies. They come here to study, they come here to work, they come here to build a life for their families. They’re not desperate to settle in China.
It’s time. It’s great to be here today. The timing is perfect. It’s time for free nations to act. Not every nation will approach China in the same way, nor should they. Every nation will have to come to its own understanding of how to protect its own sovereignty, how to protect its own economic prosperity, and how to protect its ideals from the tentacles of the Chinese Communist Party.
But I call on every leader of every nation to start by doing what America has done – to simply insist on reciprocity, to insist on transparency and accountability from the Chinese Communist Party. It’s a cadre of rulers that are far from homogeneous.
And these simple and powerful standards will achieve a great deal. For too long we let the CCP set the terms of engagement, but no longer. Free nations must set the tone. We must operate on the same principles.
We have to draw common lines in the sand that cannot be washed away by the CCP’s bargains or their blandishments. Indeed, this is what the United States did recently when we rejected China’s unlawful claims in the South China Sea once and for all, as we have urged countries to become Clean Countries so that their citizens’ private information doesn’t end up in the hand of the Chinese Communist Party. We did it by setting standards.
Now, it’s true, it’s difficult. It’s difficult for some small countries. They fear being picked off. Some of them for that reason simply don’t have the ability, the courage to stand with us for the moment.
Indeed, we have a NATO ally of ours that hasn’t stood up in the way that it needs to with respect to Hong Kong because they fear Beijing will restrict access to China’s market. This is the kind of timidity that will lead to historic failure, and we can’t repeat it.
We cannot repeat the mistakes of these past years. The challenge of China demands exertion, energy from democracies – those in Europe, those in Africa, those in South America, and especially those in the Indo-Pacific region.
And if we don’t act now, ultimately the CCP will erode our freedoms and subvert the rules-based order that our societies have worked so hard to build. If we bend the knee now, our children’s children may be at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party, whose actions are the primary challenge today in the free world.
General Secretary Xi is not destined to tyrannize inside and outside of China forever, unless we allow it.
Now, this isn’t about containment. Don’t buy that. It’s about a complex new challenge that we’ve never faced before. The USSR was closed off from the free world. Communist China is already within our borders.
So we can’t face this challenge alone. The United Nations, NATO, the G7 countries, the G20, our combined economic, diplomatic, and military power is surely enough to meet this challenge if we direct it clearly and with great courage.
Maybe it’s time for a new grouping of like-minded nations, a new alliance of democracies.
We have the tools. I know we can do it. Now we need the will. To quote scripture, I ask is “our spirit willing but our flesh weak?”
If the free world doesn’t change – doesn’t change, communist China will surely change us. There can’t be a return to the past practices because they’re comfortable or because they’re convenient.
Securing our freedoms from the Chinese Communist Party is the mission of our time, and America is perfectly positioned to lead it because our founding principles give us that opportunity.
As I explained in Philadelphia last week, standing, staring at Independence Hall, our nation was founded on the premise that all human beings possess certain rights that are unalienable.
And it’s our government’s job to secure those rights. It is a simple and powerful truth. It’s made us a beacon of freedom for people all around the world, including people inside of China.
Indeed, Richard Nixon was right when he wrote in 1967 that “the world cannot be safe until China changes.” Now it’s up to us to heed his words.
Today the danger is clear.
And today the awakening is happening.
Today the free world must respond.
We can never go back to the past.
May God bless each of you.
May God bless the Chinese people.
And may God bless the people of the United States of America.
Thank you all.
(Applause.)
「why do we need to defend our country」的推薦目錄:
why do we need to defend our country 在 吳文遠 Avery Ng Facebook 八卦
黃浩銘:
//法官閣下,我能夠參與雨傘運動,爭取民主,實是毫無悔意,畢生榮幸。我已花了最青春的10年在社會運動上,假若我有80歲,我仍有50年可以與港人同行,繼續奮鬥。要是法官不信,且即管以刑罰來考驗我的意志,試煉我的決心,希望我的戰友們在我囚禁的時候,可以激發愛心,勉勵行善,更加有勇氣和力量作個真誠的人對抗謊言治國的中共政權。
「希望在於人民,改變始於抗爭」,唯有透過群眾力量,直接行動,才能改變社會。8年前如是,今日亦如是。但願港人堅定不移,爭取民主,打倒特權,彰顯公義。自由萬歲!民主社會主義萬歲!願公義和慈愛的 主耶穌基督與我同在,與法官先生同在,與香港人同在!//
希望在於人民 改變始於抗爭
—雨傘運動公眾妨擾案陳情書
陳法官仲衡閣下:
自2011年你審理只有23歲的我,追問時任特首曾蔭權知否米貴涉擾亂公眾秩序的案件距今已有8年。在命運的安排下,我再次站在你面前,只是當你讀到這封陳情書的時候,我已經不是當年被你宣判無罪釋放的年青人,而是一個準備迎接第三次入獄的積犯。然而,今天我不是尋求你的憐憫,而是希望道明我參與雨傘運動,公民抗命的緣由,讓法官閣下可以從我的動機及行為來給予合理判刑。
8年以來,我們的崗位稍有轉變,但香港的變化更大,充滿爭議的各個大白象基建均已落成,更多旅客走訪社區,似是一片繁華景象,但同時,更多窮人住在劏房,更多群眾走上街頭,亦有更多我們愛惜的年青人進入監牢。從前我們認為香港不會發生的事,都一一在這8年間發生了。當我8年前站在你面前那一刻,我們都不會想像得到香港人可被挾持返大陸,亦想像不到原來有一天大陸的執法人員可在香港某地方正當執法,更想像不到中共政府除了透過人大釋法外,還可藉著「一言九鼎」的人大決定,甚至中央公函來決定香港人的前途命運和收緊憲制權利。
爭取民主的本意
民主只是口號嗎?當年,我痛罵無視100萬窮人及30萬貧窮長者利益,卻慶祝不知辛亥革命本意的前行政長官曾蔭權,並要求設立全民退休保障,廢除強積金,因此首次被捕被控。但時至今日,香港仍然有過百萬貧窮人口,超過30萬貧窮長者,貧富懸殊及房屋短缺的問題愈加嚴重。2014年,我見過一位75歲的伯伯跪在立法會公聽會向時任勞工及福利局局長張建宗下跪,懇求政府不要拆遷古洞石仔嶺安老院。2019年,我又見到一位67歲執紙皮維生的婆婆在立法會公聽會哭訴難以找工作,現任勞工及福利局局長羅致光竟然叫她找勞工處。為何官員如此冷酷無情?為何我們的意見均未能影響政府施政?歸根結柢,就是因為香港人沒有真正的選擇,喪失本來應有制訂政策及監督的權力!
所謂民主,就是人民當家作主。任何施政,應當由人民倡議監督,公義分配,改善公共服務,使得貧者脫貧,富者節約。今日香港,顧全大陸,官商勾結,貧富懸殊,耗資千億的大白象跨境基建接踵而來,但當遇見護士猝死,教師自殺,老人下跪,政府政策就只有小修小補,小恩小惠,試問如何服眾?由1966年蘇守忠、盧麒公民抗命反對天星小輪加價,乃至1967年暴動及1989年中國愛國民主運動,甚至2003年反廿三條大遊行,無不是因政權專政,政策傾斜,分配不公,引致大規模民眾反抗。2014年雨傘運動的起點,亦是如此。
多年來,港人爭取民主,為求有公義分配,有尊嚴生活,有自主空間,但我們得到的是甚麼?1984年,中英兩國簽署《聯合聲明》前夕,前中共總書記趙紫陽曾回覆香港大學學生會要求「民主治港,普選特首」的訴求,清楚承諾「你們所說的『民主治港』是理所當然的」。當時,不少港人信以為真,誤以為回歸之後可得民主,但自1989年六四血腥鎮壓及2003年50萬人反對《廿三條》立法大遊行後,中共圖窮匕現,在2004年透過人大釋法收緊政制改革程序,並粗暴地決定2007及2008不會普選行政長官及立法會。自此,完全不民主的中國立法機關-全國人民代表大會常務委員會掌控香港人的命運福祉,人大釋法及人大決定可以隨時隨地配合極權政府的主張,命令香港法庭跟從,打壓香港的民主和法治。
2014年8月31日,是歷史的轉捩點。儘管多少溫和學者苦苦規勸,中共仍以6月的<一國兩制白皮書>為基礎,展示全面管治權的氣派,包括法官閣下在內,都要屈從愛國之說。在《8‧31人大決定》之後,中共完全暴露其假民主假普選的面目,其時,我們認為對抗方法就只有公民抗命。
公民抗命的起點
違法就是罪惡嗎?我們違法,稱之為「公民抗命」,就是公民憑良心為公眾利益,以非暴力形式不服從法律命令,以求改變不義制度或法律。終審法院非常任法官賀輔明(Leonard Hoffmann)勳爵曾在英國著名案例 R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136 案提出:「發自良知的公民抗命,有着悠久及光榮的傳統。那些因着信念認為法律及政府行為是不義而違法的人,歷史很多時候都證明他們是正確的……能包容這種抗爭或示威,是文明社會的印記。」
終審法院在最近的公民廣場案(Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35)亦道明「公民抗命」的概念可獲肯定(該案判詞第70至72段)。因此,亦印證我等9人及其他公民抗命者並非可以一般「違法犯事」來解釋及施刑。港人以一般遊行示威爭取民主30年,無論從殖民年代乃至特區年代,皆無顯著改進,今日以更進步主張,公民抗命爭取民主,正如印度、南非、波蘭等對抗強權,實在無可厚非。誠然,堵塞主要幹道,影響民眾上班下課,實非我所願,但回想過來,中共及特區政府多年來豈不更堵塞香港民主之路,妨擾公眾獲得真正的發聲機會?
如果我是公民抗命,又何以不認罪承擔刑責?2014年12月,警方以成文法「出席未經批准集結」及「煽動參與未經批准集結」在村口將我逮捕。2017年3月,警方改以普通法「煽惑他人作出公眾妨擾」及「煽惑他人煽惑公眾妨擾」提控。正如戴耀廷先生在其結案陳詞引述英國劍橋大學法學教授 John R. Spencer 提及以普通法提訴的問題:「近年差不多所有以『公眾妨擾罪』來起訴的案件,都出現以下兩種情況的其中一個:一、當被告人的行為是觸犯了成文法律,通常懲罰是輕微的,檢控官想要以一支更大或額外的棒子去打他;二、當被告人的行為看來是明顯完全不涉及刑事責任的,檢控官找不到其他罪名可控訴他」,無獨有偶,前終審法院常任法官鄧楨在其2018年退休致詞提及:「普通法同樣可被用作欺壓的工具。它是一種變化多端的權力,除非妥善地運用人權法加以適當控制,否則可被不當使用。」如今看來,所言非虛。
今我遭控二罪,必定據理力爭,冀借助法官閣下明智判決推翻檢控不義,但法庭定讞,我自當承擔刑責,絕無怨言,以成全公民抗命之道。
試問誰還未覺醒
我是刻意求刑標榜自己,讓年青人跟從走進監獄大門嗎?我反覆推敲這個問題。然而,我的答案是,正正是希望後輩不用像我此般走進牢獄,我更要無懼怕地爭取人們所當得的。縱使今日面對強權,惡法將至,烏雲密佈,我依然一如既往,毋忘初衷地認為真普選才是港人獲得真正自由之路。任何一個聲稱為下一代福祉者,理應為後輩爭取自由平等的選擇權利,讓他們能自立成長,辨明是非,而非家長式管控思想,讓下一代淪為生財工具,朝廷鷹犬。
主耶穌基督說:「我確確實實地告訴你們:一粒麥子如果不落在地裡死去,它仍然是一粒;如果死了,就結出很多子粒來。(《約翰福音》第12章24節)」沒有犧牲,沒有收穫。故然,我不希望年青人跟我一樣要踏上公民抗命之路,承受牢獄之苦,但我請教所有智慧之士,既然舉牌示威遊行均已無顯其效,公民抗命和平抗爭為何不是能令政權受壓求變之策?若非偌大群眾運動,梁振英豈不仍安坐其位?
刑罰於我而言,無情可求,唯一我心中所想,就是希望法庭能顧念75歲的朱耀明牧師年事已高,望以非監禁方式處之,讓港人瞥見法庭對良心公民抗命者寬容一面。美國法哲學家羅納德‧德沃金(Ronald Dworkin)在1968年論及公民抗命時(On Not Prosecuting Civil Disobedience),不但認為法庭應給予公民抗命者寬鬆刑罰,甚至應不予起訴。事實上,終審法院非常任法官賀輔明在2014年12月4日,即雨傘運動尾聲(已發生大規模堵路多日),佔中三子自首之後一日,接受《蘋果日報》及《南華早報》訪問時提到「抗爭者及掌權者均未有逾越公民抗命的『遊戲規則』,抗爭活動並沒有損害香港法治」,更進一步提到「一旦他們被判有罪,應該從輕發落,認為這是傳統,因為自首的公民不是邪惡的人」,由此,我期盼法庭將有人道的判刑。
法官閣下,我能夠參與雨傘運動,爭取民主,實是毫無悔意,畢生榮幸。我已花了最青春的10年在社會運動上,假若我有80歲,我仍有50年可以與港人同行,繼續奮鬥。要是法官不信,且即管以刑罰來考驗我的意志,試煉我的決心,希望我的戰友們在我囚禁的時候,可以激發愛心,勉勵行善,更加有勇氣和力量作個真誠的人對抗謊言治國的中共政權。
「希望在於人民,改變始於抗爭」,唯有透過群眾力量,直接行動,才能改變社會。8年前如是,今日亦如是。但願港人堅定不移,爭取民主,打倒特權,彰顯公義。自由萬歲!民主社會主義萬歲!
願公義和慈愛的 主耶穌基督與我同在,與法官先生同在,與香港人同在!
社會民主連線副主席、雨傘運動案第八被告
黃浩銘
二零一九年四月九日
Hope lies in the people
Changes come from resistance
- Umbrella Movement Public Nuisance Case Statement
Your Honour Judge Johnny Chan,
It has been 8 years since I have met you in court. You were the judge to my case on disorder in public places. It was in 2011 and I was only 23 years old. I chased after the then Chief Executive Mr. Donald Tsang and asked if he knew the price of rice and whether he understood the struggles of the poor. Fate has brought us here again, I am before you once again, but I am no longer the young man who was acquitted. When you are reading this statement, I am a “recidivist”, ready to be sent to prison for the third time. However, I do not seek your mercy today, but wish to explain the reasons for my participation in the Umbrella Movement and civil disobedience, so that your honour can give a reasonable sentence through understanding my motives and actions.
Our positions have slightly altered in the past 8 years, but not as great as the changes that took place in Hong Kong. The controversial big white elephant infrastructures were completed. More tourists are visiting, making Hong Kong a bustling city. At the same time, however, more poor people are living in sub-divided flats, more people are forced to the street to protest, more young people are sent to jail. Things we wouldn’t have imagined 8 years are now happening in Hong Kong. When I was before you 8 years ago, we would not have imagined Hong Kong people could be kidnapped by the Chinese authority to Mainland China. We wouldn’t have imagined that one day, the Mainland law enforcement officers could perform their duties in Hong Kong. We wouldn’t have imagined, not only could the Community Chinese government interpret our law, but they could decide on our future and tightened the rule on constitutional rights through the National People’s Congress Decision.
The Original Intention
Is democracy just a slogan? 8 years ago, I criticised the then Chief Executive Mr. Donald Tsang for ignoring the interests of 1 million poor people and 300,000 elderly. I scolded him for celebrating the 1911 Revolution without understanding its preliminary belief. I called for the establishment of universal retirement protection and the abolition of MPF, and was arrested for the first time. Yet, there are still over a million poor people in Hong Kong today, with more than 300,000 of poor elderly. The disparity between the rich and the poor and housing problem have only become worsen.
In 2014, I witnessed a 75-year-old man kneeling before the Secretary for Labour and Welfare Mr. Matthew Cheung Kin-Chung at a public hearing in the Legislative Council. The old man begged the government not to demolish the elderly home in Kwu Tung Dills Corner. In 2019, a 67-year-old woman, who scavenges for cardboards to make a living, cried during the Legislative Council public hearing. She cried because it was impossible for her to get a job. The Secretary for Labour and Welfare Mr. Law Chi-Kwong simply told her to ask for help in the Labour Department. Why are the government officials so callous? Why have our opinions failed to affect the government’s administration? The root of the problem is that Hong Kong people do not have real choices, we have been deprived of the power to supervise the government and to formulate policies.
What is democracy? Democracy means people are the masters. Any policies should be supervised by the people, the society’s resources should be justly distributed to improve the public services, so that the poor is no longer in poverty. However, in today’s Hong Kong, the focus is on the Mainland China, there is collusion between the government and the businesses, there is a great disparity between the rich and the poor, and multi-billion-dollar big white elephant cross-border infrastructure are built one after another. Nurses die from overexertion at work, teachers commit suicide and old man kneels to beg for what he deserves. Yet, the government policies were only minor repairs here and there, giving small treats and favours to the people. How can you win the support of the people? From the civil disobedience movement in 1966 by So Sau-chung and Lo Kei against the increase of Star Ferry fare, until the 1967 riots and 1989 China Patriotic Democratic Movement, even the 2003 march against the purported legistlation of Article 23, they were all due to the political dictatorship, imbalance policies as well as unfair distribution of public resources. It is for these reasons that led to large scale protests. It is for the same reason that the 2014 Umbrella Movement started.
For so many years, Hong Kong people have been fighting for democracy. We demand a just allocation, a life with dignity and space of freedom. However, what do we get in return? On the eve of the signing of the Joint Declaration in 1984, the then premier of the Communist Chinese government Zhao Ziyang in his reply to the demand for democracy and universal suffrage by the University of Hong Kong Student Council clearly promised that ‘what you referred to, namely “rule Hong Kong by democracy” is a matter that goes without saying.’ At the time, a lot of Hong Kong people believed it. They thought they would have democracy after the handover. However, since the bloody suppression on 4th June 1989 and the 500,000 people demonstration against Article 23 in 2003, the plot of the Chinese communist revealed itself. They decided by force through the NPC interpretation in 2004 that there would be no universal suffrage of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council in 2007 and 2008. Since then, the undemocratic authority of NPC kept a tight grip on the destiny of Hong Kong people. NPC’s interpretation and decisions can be deployed anytime when convenient to assist the propaganda of the authoritative government, forcing the hands of the Hong Kong court and suppressing Hong Kong democracy and the rule of law.
31st August 2014 was a turning point in history. No matter how the moderate scholars tried to persuade it from happening, the Community Chinese government has used the One Country Two System White Paper in June as the foundation and forced its way down onto the people. Even your honour was among them, succumbed to the so called patriotism. After the 8.31 Decision of the National People’s Congress, the plot of the Communist Chinese government has revealed itself, the Chinese government has been lying to the Hong Kong people, they never intended to give Hong Kong genuine universal suffrage. At that time, we believed that civil disobedience was inevitable and was the only way out.
The Starting Point of Civil Disobedience
Is breaking the law sinful? We broke the law with a cause, as “civil disobedience” is the refusal to comply with certain laws considered unjust, as a peaceful form of political protest in the interest of the public to change the unjust system or law. Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal Honourable Leonard Hoffman stated in the well-known R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136 case that, “civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country. People who break the law to affirm their belief in the injustice of a law or government action are sometime vindicated by history. It is the mark of a civilised community that it can accommodate protests and demonstrations of this kind.”
The recent decision by the Court of Appeal concerning the Civic Square outside the government headquarter(Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35) also confirmed the idea of civil disobedience(paragraphs 70-72 of the judgment refer). This , therefore, confirmed that myself and the other 8 defendants as well as other civil disobedience protestors, should not be understood as “breaking the law” in its general circumstances, nor should our sentencing be weighted against the usual standard. Hong Kong people have been fighting for democracy through protest for 30 years already, whether it was during the times of colonial British rule or during the special administrative region, there has been no improvement. Today, we fought for democracy, just as the fights for freedom and democracy in India, South Africa and Poland, and civil disobedience is inevitable. It is true that we did not want to block the roads or affect Hong Kong citizens attending to work or school. But on reflection, didn’t the Communist Chinese and Special Administrative governments block our road to democracy and interfere with our rights to speak up?
If what I did was in the name of civil disobedience, why should I defend my case and not bear the criminal responsibility? In December 2014, the police made use of the statutory offences of “attending unauthorised assembly and inciting participation in unauthorised assembly” and arrested me at the village I live in. In March 2017, the police amended their charges to common law offences of “incitement to commit public nuisance and incitement to incite public nuisance”. As Mr. Benny Tai said in his closing submissions, quoting law professor of Cambridge University John R. Spencer on common law charges, “...almost all the prosecutions for public nuisance in recent years seem to have taken place in one of two situations: first, where the defendant’s behaviour amounted to a statutory offence, typically punishable with a small penalty, and the prosecutor wanted a bigger or extra stick to beat him with, and secondly, where the defendant’s behaviour was not obviously criminal at all and the prosecutor could think of nothing else to charge him with.” Coincidentally, the then Court of Appeal Honourable Mr Justice Robert Tang Kwok-ching stated in his retirement speech in 2018 that, “Common law can be used oppressively. It is protean power, unless adequately controlled by the proper application of human rights law, can be misused.” What he said has become true today.
Faced with 2 charges, I am going to stand by reasons and my principles, in order to assist the Court to overturn an unjust prosecution. However, should the court find me guilty, I shall bear the criminal responsibility. I have no qualm or regrets, in fulfilment of my chosen path of civil disobedience.
Who has not yet awoken?
I do reflect as to whether I am simply seeking a criminal sentence in order to make a point, or to encourage other young men to follow my footsteps into the gates of the prison. I have reflected upon this repeatedly. However, my answer is that, I am doing this precisely because I do not wish to see other young men following my suit into the prison. Because of this, I need to fight for what is ours fearlessly. Although today we are confronted by an oppressive authority, the looming legislation of unjust laws and a clouded future, I shall be as I always am: relentless maintaining my stance that a real election is the path to freedom for Hong Kong people. Anyone who claims to be acting in the interest of the next generation should fight for a free and equal choice for their youths. This is in order for them to learn to be independent, to be able to tell rights from wrongs. There should be no paternal thinking, simply teaching the next generation to be slaves of money and accessories to the oppressor.
My Lord Jesus Christ has said: ‘Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. (Book of John 12:24.) Without sacrifice, there is no reward. I don’t wish to see any more young men having to join the path of civil disobedience as I did, and to pay the price as I did. However, I ask this of all men and women of wisdom: if peaceful demonstration in the old fashioned way has lost its effectiveness and was simply ignored, why is peaceful civil disobedience not a good way to bring about change whilst one is being oppressed? If not for this crowd movement, C Y Leung would still be sitting comfortably on the throne.
I have no mitigation to submit. I only wish that the Court would spare Reverend Chu, who is an elderly of 75 years of age. I pray that a non-custodial sentence may be passed for Reverend Chu. I hope that the Court will have leniency and mercy for Reverend Chu. I refer to the work of the American legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin in 1968, namely: ‘On Not Prosecuting Civil Disobedience’. He opined that, not only should the Court allow leniency to civil disobedience participants, but also should they not be prosecuted. In fact, Lord Hoffmann NPJ of the CFA stated the following in an interview with Apple Daily and South China Morning Post on 4th December 2014 (which was at the end of the Umbrella Movement, a day before the surrender of the 3 initiators of the Occupy Central Movement): ‘In any civilised society, there is room for people making political points by civil disobedience.’ ‘These are not wicked people.’ Civil disobedience had ‘an old tradition’ in the common law world. ‘When it comes to punishment, the court should take into account their personal convictions.’ In light of this, I hope the Court shall pass a humane sentence.
Your honour, I have no regret for participating in the Umbrella Movement and the fight for democracy. It was an honour of a lifetime. I have spent the best 10 years of my youth in social movements. If I can live up to 80-year-old, I would still have 50 years to walk alongside the people of Hong Kong, to continue the fight. If this is in doubt, please test my will against the whips of criminal punishment. I shall take this as a trial of my determination. I only hope that my brothers and sisters-in-arms can be inspired whilst I am imprisoned, to do goods and encourage others. I hope they shall have further courage and strength to be honest men and women, to fight against the lies of the ruling Chinese Communist authority.
“Hope lies in the hands of the people, change starts from resistance.’ It’s only through the power of the people and direct action that the society can be changed. This was so 8 years ago. This is still the case today. May the will of the people of Hong Kong be firm and determined, to fight for democracy, overthrow the privileged, and let justice be done. All hail for freedom! All hail for democratic socialism!
May justice and peace of my Lord Jesus Christ be with me, with your Honour and with the People of Hong Kong!
Vice President of the League of Social Democrats,
the 8th Defendant of the Umbrella Movement Case
Raphael Wong Ho Ming
10th April 2019
why do we need to defend our country 在 黃浩銘 Raphael Wong Facebook 八卦
戴教授,說得太好了!😭😭😭😭
//公民抗命的目的並不是要妨擾公眾,而是要喚起公眾關注社會的不公義,並贏取人們認同社會運動的目標。若一個人被確立了是在進行公民抗命,那他就不可能會意圖造成不合理的阻礙,因那是與公民抗命背道而馳,即使最後因他的行動造成的阻礙是超出了他所能預見的。//
//這些香港人進行公民抗命,是要喚起香港社會及世界的關注,中國政府不公義地違背了憲法的承諾,也破壞了它的憲法責任。我們所作的,是為了維護我們及所有香港人的憲法權利,包括了反對我們的行動的人;是為了要我們的主權國履行承諾;是為了爭取香港憲制進行根本改革;及為香港的未來帶來更多公義。//
//不恰當檢控
......在 “Public Nuisance – A Critical Examination,” Cambridge Law Journal 48(1), March 1989, pp. 55-84, 一文,J. R. Spencer 看到:「近年差不多所有以公眾妨擾罪來起訴的案件,都出現以下兩種情況的其中一個: 一、當被告人的行為是觸犯了成文法律,通常懲罰是輕微的,檢控官想要以一支更大或額外的棒子去打他; 二、當被告人的行為看來是明顯完全不涉及刑事責任的,檢控官找不到其他罪名可控訴他。」兵咸勳爵在 R v Rimmington [2006] 1 AC 469 採納了J. R. Spencer 對檢控官在控訴公眾妨擾罪時暗藏的動機的批評。//
//同樣地,在一宗公民抗命的案件及一宗涉及和平示威自由的權利的案件,以串謀及煽惑人煽惑為罪名起訴,那是過度的。在串謀的控罪,控方提出的証據是我們的公開發言。按定義,公民抗命一定是一項公開的行為。若這些公開發言可以用於檢控,那會把所有的公民抗命都扼殺於萌芽階段。那麼說公民抗命是一些光榮之事就變得毫無意義,因公民抗命根本就不可能出現。更惡劣的後果是,社會出現寒蟬效應,很多合理的言論都會被噤聲。對言論自由的限制必然是不合乎比例。//
//我們都有責任去守護香港的法治和高度自治。我在這裹,是因我用了生命中很多的年月,直至此時此刻,去守護香港的法治,那亦是香港的高度自治不可或缺的部份。我永不會放棄,也必會繼續爭取香港的民主。
我相信法治能為公民抗命提供理據。公民抗命與法治有共同的目標,就是追求公義。公民抗命是有效的方法去確保這共同目標能達成,至少從長遠來說,公民抗命能創造一個氛圍,讓其他方法可被用來達成那目標。
若我們真是有罪,那麼我們的罪名就是在香港這艱難的時刻仍敢於去散播希望。入獄,我不懼怕,也不羞愧。若這苦杯是不能挪開,我會無悔地飲下。//
戴耀廷的結案陳詞
公民抗命的精神
首先,這是一宗公民抗命的案子。
我站在這裏,就是為了公民抗命。陳健民教授、朱耀明牧師與我一起發起的「讓愛與和平佔領中環運動」,是一場公民抗命的運動。在以前,少有香港人聽過公民抗命,但現在公民抗命這意念在香港已是家傳戶曉。
終審法院在律政司對黃之鋒案Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35採納了約翰羅爾斯在《正義論》中為公民抗命所下的定義。公民抗命是「一項公開、非暴力、真誠的政治行為,通常是爲了導致法律上或社會上的改變,所作出的違法行爲。」
在律政司對黃之鋒案,賀輔明勳爵是終審法院的非常任法官。在此案,終審法院引述了賀輔明勳爵在R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136的說法:「出於真誠理由的公民抗命在這國家有源遠流長及光榮的歷史。」終審法院認同公民抗命的概念是同樣適用於其他尊重個人權利的法制如香港。但為何公民抗命是光榮和文明呢?終審法院沒有進一步解釋。
約翰羅爾斯的定義大體只能說出公民抗命的行為部分。 在馬丁路德金博士非常有名關於公民抗命的著作《從伯明罕市監獄發出的信》中,他道出更多公民抗命的意圖部分或公民抗命的精神。這信函是他在 1963年4 月16日,因在亞拉巴馬州伯明罕市參與示威爭取民權後被判入獄時寫的。
在信函中他說:「一個人若不遵守不公義的法律,必須要公開,充滿愛心和願意接受懲罰。個人因為其良心指出某法律是不公義的,而且甘心接受懲處,是要喚起社會的良知,關注到那中間的不公義,這樣其實是對法律表達了最大的敬意。」
馬丁路德金博士認為有時法律在表面上是公義的,但實行時卻變得不公義。他說:「我未得准許而遊行,並因而被捕,現在的確有一條法例,要求遊行須得准許,但這條法例如果是用了來…否定公民運用和平集會和抗議的權利,則會變成不公義。」
他還說:「 面對一個經常拒絕談判的社區,非暴力的直接行動正是為了營造一次危機,以及加強一種具創造力的張力,逼使對方面對問題,也使問題戲劇地呈現出來,讓其不能再被忽略。」
馬丁路德金博士對我啟發良多,我們也把這精神栽種在「讓愛與和平佔領中環運動」中。緊隨馬丁路德金博士在公民抗命之路的腳步,我們努力去開啟人心中那份自我犧牲的愛及平靜安穩,而非煽惑憤怒與仇恨。
終審法院在律政司對黃之鋒案進一步引述賀輔明勳爵在R v Jones (Margaret) 的說法:「違法者與執法者都有一些規則要遵守。示威者的行為要合乎比例,並不會導致過量的破壞或不便。以証明他們的真誠信念,他們應接受法律的懲處。」
雖然終審法院在律政司對黃之鋒案沒有引述這部分,賀輔明勳爵在R v Jones (Margaret) 還說:「另一方面,警察與檢控官的行為也要有所節制,並法官在判刑時應考慮示威者的真誠動機。」這些有關公民抗命的規則應也適用,終審法院應不會反對。
公民抗命的目的並不是要妨擾公眾,而是要喚起公眾關注社會的不公義,並贏取人們認同社會運動的目標。若一個人被確立了是在進行公民抗命,那他就不可能會意圖造成不合理的阻礙,因那是與公民抗命背道而馳,即使最後因他的行動造成的阻礙是超出了他所能預見的。
非暴力是「讓愛與和平佔領中環運動」的指導原則。公民抗命的行為,就是佔領中環,是運動的最後一步。進行公民抗命時,示威者會坐在馬路上,手扣手,等候警察拘捕,不作反抗。我們計劃及希望達到的佔領程度是合乎比例的。我們相信所會造成的阻礙是合理的。
我相信我們已做了公民抗命中違法者所當做的,我們期望其他人也會做得到他們所當做的。
追求民主
在一宗公民抗命的案件,公民抗命的方法是否合乎比例,不能抽空地談,必須考慮進行那行動的目的。
這是一宗關乎一群深愛香港的香港人的案件,他們相信只有透過引入真普選,才能開啟化解香港深層次矛盾之門。
我就是他們其中一人。與那些一起追尋同一民主夢的人,為了我們的憲法權利,我們已等了超過三十年。當我還在大學讀法律時,我已參與香港的民主運動。現在,我的兒子也剛大學畢業了,香港還未有民主。
馬丁路德金博士在信函中還說:「壓迫者從不自願施予自由,自由是被壓迫者爭取得來的。…如同我們出色的法學家所說,延誤公義,就是否定公義。」我們在追求公義,但對當權者來說,我們計劃的行動誠然是妨擾。
《基本法》第45 條規定行政長官的產生辦法最終達至由一個有廣泛代表性的提名委員會按民主程序提名後普選產生的目標。《公民及政治權利國際公約》第 25 條規定:「凡屬公民,無分第二條所列之任何區別,不受無理限制,均應有權利及機會:…(乙)在真正、定期之選舉中投票及被選。選舉權必須普及而平等,選舉應以無記名投票法行之,以保證選民意志之自由表現 …」
聯合國人權委員會在《第25號一般性意見》,為《公民及政治權利國際公約》第 25 (乙) 條中的 「普及而平等」,提供了它的理解和要求。第15段說:「有效落實競選擔任經選舉產生的職位的權利和機會有助於確保享有投票權的人自由挑選候選人。」第17段說:「不得以政治見解為由剝奪任何人參加競選的權利。」
全國人民代表大會常務委員會在2004年就《基本法》附件一及附件二作出的解釋,實質改變了修改行政長官選舉辦法的憲法程序。在行政長官向立法會提出修改產生辦法的法案前,額外加了兩步。行政長官就是否需要進行修改,須向全國人民代表大會常務委員會提出報告。全國人民代表大會常務委員會根據香港特別行政區的實際情況和循序漸進的原則作出確定。相關法案須經立法會全體議員三分之二多數 通過,行政長官同意,並報全國人民代表大會常務委員會批准或者備案。
在2014年8月31日,全國人民代表大會常務委員會完成了憲法修改程序的第二步,作出了有關行政長官產生辦法的決定。全國人民代表大會常務委員會除決定行政長官可由普選產生外,就普選行政長官的產生辦法設下了具體及嚴厲的規定。
提名委員會的人數、構成和委員產生辦法都得按照第四任行政長官選舉委員會的人數、構成和委員產生辦法而規定。提名委員會按民主程序只可提名產生二至三名行政長官候選人。每名候選人均須獲得提名委員會全體委員半數以上的支持。
按著全國人民代表大會常務委員會自行設定的程序,全國人民代表大會常務委員會應只有權決定是否批准或不批准行政長官提交的報告,而不能就提名委員會的組成及提名程序,設下詳細的規定。全國人民代表大會常務委員會連自己設定的程序也沒有遵守。
若按著全國人民代表大會常務委員會設下的嚴厲條件去選舉產生行政長官,香港的選民就候選人不會有真正的選擇,因所有不受歡迎的人都會被篩選掉。這與普選的意思是不相符的。
這些香港人進行公民抗命,是要喚起香港社會及世界的關注,中國政府不公義地違背了憲法的承諾,也破壞了它的憲法責任。我們所作的,是為了維護我們及所有香港人的憲法權利,包括了反對我們的行動的人;是為了要我們的主權國履行承諾;是為了爭取香港憲制進行根本改革;及為香港的未來帶來更多公義。
和平示威的權利
這案件是關乎和平示威自由及言論自由的權利。
根據「讓愛與和平佔領中環運動」的原先計劃,舉行公眾集會的地方是遮打道行人專用區、遮打花園及皇后像廣場,時間是由2014年 10月1 日下午三時正開始,最長也不會超過2014年 10月5 日。我們期望會有三類人來到。
第一類人已決定了會參與公民抗命。他們會在過了合法的時限後,繼續坐在遮打道上。他們是那些在「讓愛與和平佔領中環運動」意向書上選了第二或第三個選項的人。第二類人決定不會參與公民抗命,而只是來支援第一類人。過了合法的時限後,他們會離開遮打道,去到遮打花園或皇后像廣場。他們是那些在「讓愛與和平佔領中環運動」意向書上選了第一個選項的人。第三類人還未決定是否參與公民抗命的行動。他們可以到合法時限快要過去的最後一刻,才決定是否留在遮打道上。
我們相信警方會有足夠時間把所有參與佔領中環公民抗命的示威者移走。估計會有數千人參與。我們要求參與者要嚴守非暴力的紀律。我們採用了詳細的方法去確保大部分即使不是所有參與者都會跟從。
我們是在行使受《基本法》第27 條保障的和平示威自由的憲法權利。這也與同受《基本法》第27 條保障的言論自由有緊密關係。透過《基本法》第39條,言論自由、表達自由、和平集會的自由受《香港人權法》第16 及17條的憲法保障,而這些條文與《公民及政治權利國際公約》第19 及21是一樣的,是《公民及政治權利國際公約》適用於香港的部分。
若原訂計劃真的執行,那可能會觸犯《公安條例》一些關於組織未經批准集結的規定,但我們相信那會舉行的公眾集會是不會對公眾構成不合理的阻礙的。會被佔領的空間,包括了馬路,是公眾在公眾假期可自由使用的。計劃佔領的時期,首兩天是公眾假期,最後兩天是周末。
當公眾集會的地方轉到政府總部外的添美路、立法會道及龍匯道的行人路及馬路的範圍(下稱「示威區域」),雖然集會的主題、領導、組織及參加者的組成已改變了,但精神卻沒有。在2014年9 月27 和 28日,人們是被邀請來示威區域參加集會的。這仍然是公民在行使和平示威自由及言論自由的權利。
相類似的公眾集會也曾在2012年9 月3至 8日,在反國民教育運動中在示威區域內舉行。除卻公民在那時候還可以進入公民廣場(政府總部東翼前地),在2012年9月在反國民教育運動的佔領空間,與示威者在2014年9 月27 和 28日在警方封鎖所有通往示威區域通道前所佔領的空間是很相近的。
自2012年的反國民教育運動後,這示威區域已被普遍認同,是可以用來組織有大量公眾參與,反對香港特別行政區政府的大型公眾集會的公共空間。換句話說,公眾都認知示威區域是一個重要場地,讓香港公民聚集去一起行使和平示威自由的權利。
根據此我們也抱有的公眾認知,當我在2014年9 月28日凌晨宣布提前佔領中環的時候,我們只可能意圖叫人來到示威區域而不會是任何其他地方。要佔領示威區域以外的地方,沒可能是當時我們所能想到的。沒有人會如此想的。
在梁國雄對香港特別行政區案Leung Kwok-hung v. HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 229, 終審法院指出: 「和平集會權利涉及一項政府(即行政當局)所須承擔的積極責任,那就是採取合理和適當的措施,使合法的集會能夠和平地進行。然而,這並非一項絕對責任,因為政府不能保證合法的集會定會和平地進行,而政府在選擇採取何等措施方面享有廣泛的酌情權。至於甚麼是合理和適當的措施,則須視乎個別個案中的所有情況而定。」
如控方証人黃基偉高級警司 (PW2) 在作供時所說,當有太多的示威者聚集在鄰接的行人路,警方為了示威者的安全,就會封鎖示威區域內的馬路。能有一個公共空間讓反對政府的人士和平集會以宣洩他們對香港特別行政區政府的不滿,對香港社會來說,那是一項公共利益。即使在示威區域長期舉行集會是違反《公安條例》,但這不會對公眾構成共同傷害。受影響的部分公眾只是很少,而造成的不便相對來說也是輕微。
終審法院常任法官包致金在楊美雲對香港特別行政區案Yeung May-wan v. HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 137中說:「《基本法》第二十七條下的保障,不會純粹因為集會、遊行或示威對公路上的自由通行造成某種干擾而被撤回。本席認為,除非所造成的干擾屬不合理,即超出可合理地預期公眾可容忍的程度,否則集會、遊行或示威不會失去這項保障。關於這一點,本席認為,大型甚或大規模集會、遊行或示威的參加者往往有理由指出,只有如此大規模的活動才能協助有效地表達他們的意見。除此之外,本席認為最明顯的相關考慮因素是干擾的嚴重程度和干擾為時多久。不過,也可能有其他的相關考慮因素,本席認為包括以下一項:在有關的干擾發生之前,是否有人曾一度或數度作出一項或多項干擾行為?可合理地預期公眾能容許甚麼,乃屬事實和程度的問題,但在回答這個問題時,法庭務須謹記,毫無保留地保存相關自由,正是合理性的定義,而非僅是用作決定是否合理的因素之一。」
參與示威區域的公眾集會的示威者並不能構成阻礙,因示威區域的馬路是由警方封鎖的。警方封鎖示威區域的馬路是為了保障示威者的安全 ,讓他們可以安全地及和平地行使和平集會的權利。就算在示威區域是造成了一定程度的阻礙,考慮到示威者是在行使他們的和平示威自由的憲法權利,那阻礙也不能是不合理的。
即使當示威者在2014年9 月28日走到分域碼頭街及夏慤道,人們只是被邀請來到示威區域而不是留在那些道路上。警方被要求開放通向示威區域的通路,好讓人們能去到示威區域與示威者們一起。若非通往示威區域的通路被警方封鎖了,大部份人即使不是所有人,應都會進入示威區域,而那些道路就不會被佔領。催淚彈也就沒有需要發放。
警方應有責任去促使公民能在示威區域舉行公眾集會,但警方卻把示威區域封鎖了,阻礙人們來到示威區域參與公眾集會。示威區域內的示威者不可能意圖或造成任何在示威區域以外所出現的阻礙,因他們只是邀請人們來到示威區域與他們一起。
當警方見到已有大量人群在示威區域外意圖進入示威區域,警方仍不負責任地拒絕開放通向示威區域的通路。警方必須為示威區域外所造成的阻礙及之後發生的所有事負上責任。
在警方發放87催淚彈及使用過度武力後,一切都改變了。如此發放催淚彈是沒有人能預見的,事情再不是我們所能掌控。到了那時候,我們覺得最重要的事,就是帶領參加運動的人平安回家。
在發放催淚彈後的無數個日與夜,我們竭力用不同方法去盡快結束佔領。我們幫助促使學生領袖與政府主要官員對話。我們與各方商討能否接受以變相公投為退場機制。我們籌組了廣場投票。即使我們這些工作的大部分最後都沒有成效,但我們真的是盡了力及用盡能想到的方法去達到這目標。最後,我們在2014年12 月3日向警方自首。金鐘範圍的佔領在2014年12 月11日也結束了。
不恰當檢控
這是關乎不恰當地以公眾妨擾罪作為罪名起訴的案件。
如賀輔明勳爵in R v Jones (Margaret) 所指出,檢控官也有公民抗命的規則要遵守的,他們的行為要有所節制。
在 “Public Nuisance – A Critical Examination,” Cambridge Law Journal 48(1), March 1989, pp. 55-84, 一文,J. R. Spencer 看到:「近年差不多所有以公眾妨擾罪來起訴的案件,都出現以下兩種情況的其中一個: 一、當被告人的行為是觸犯了成文法律,通常懲罰是輕微的,檢控官想要以一支更大或額外的棒子去打他; 二、當被告人的行為看來是明顯完全不涉及刑事責任的,檢控官找不到其他罪名可控訴他。」兵咸勳爵在 R v Rimmington [2006] 1 AC 469 採納了J. R. Spencer 對檢控官在控訴公眾妨擾罪時暗藏的動機的批評。
若有一適當的成文罪行能涵蓋一宗公民抗命案件中的違法行為,我們可以合理地質問為何要以公眾妨擾罪來起訴?即使這不構成濫用程序,但這案件的檢控官一定已違反了賀輔明勳爵在 R v Jones (Margaret) 所指出適用於他的公民抗命的規則,因他並沒有節制行為。
這是關乎不恰當地以串謀及煽惑人煽惑為罪名起訴的案件。
同樣地,在一宗公民抗命的案件及一宗涉及和平示威自由的權利的案件,以串謀及煽惑人煽惑為罪名起訴,那是過度的。在串謀的控罪,控方提出的証據是我們的公開發言。按定義,公民抗命一定是一項公開的行為。若這些公開發言可以用於檢控,那會把所有的公民抗命都扼殺於萌芽階段。那麼說公民抗命是一些光榮之事就變得毫無意義,因公民抗命根本就不可能出現。更惡劣的後果是,社會出現寒蟬效應,很多合理的言論都會被噤聲。對言論自由的限制必然是不合乎比例。
在香港普通法是否有煽惑人煽惑這罪名仍存爭議,但即使真有這罪行,在一宗公民抗命的案件及一宗涉及和平示威自由的權利的案件,以串謀及煽惑人煽惑為罪名起訴,那是過度地、不合理地及不必要地擴展過失責任。
因主罪行是那惹人猜疑的公眾妨擾罪,以煽惑人煽惑去構成公眾妨擾罪來起訴,那更會把過失責任擴展至明顯不合理的程度。若檢控官的行為不是那麼過度和不合理,起訴的罪名是恰當的,我們是不會抗辯的。無論如何,當控罪相信是過度及不合理,我們提出抗辯不應被視為拒絕接受法律的懲處,違反了違法者的公民抗命規則。
有些問題是我這位置難以解答的。若檢控官違反了賀輔明勳爵在 R v Jones (Margaret) 所指出的公民抗命的規則,那會有甚麼後果呢?由誰來糾正這錯誤呢?
守護法治
歸根究底,這是一宗關乎香港法治與高度自治的案件。
作為香港法治及憲法的學者,我相信單純依靠司法獨立是不足以維護香港的法治。 缺乏一個真正的民主制度,政府權力會被濫用,公民的基利不會得到充分的保障。沒有民主,要抵抗越來越厲害對「一國兩制」下香港的高度自由的侵害,會是困難的。在「雨傘運動」後,還有很長的路才能到達香港民主之旅的終點。
終審法院常任法官鄧國楨在退休前法庭儀式上致辭說:「雖然法官決意維護法治,讓其在香港的價值及運用恒久不變,但關鍵在於社會對法官予以由衷的支持。那應是何等形式的支持?我認為,應是全面而徹底的支持。如果法官受到不公的抨擊,請緊守立場並支持他們。可是,不要只因爲某些事件才對他們表示支持。那並不足夠,也可能已經太遲。大家應致力在社會上培養有利於法治的氛圍。我們在香港擁有新聞自由及選舉自由,必須努力發聲,讓你的選票發揮作用。請相信我,自由的代價是要時刻保持警覺。更重要的是,永遠不要放棄或低估自己的力量。如果我們整體社會堅持維護法治,無人可以輕易把它奪走。千萬不要讓此事變得輕而易舉。」
我們都有責任去守護香港的法治和高度自治。我在這裹,是因我用了生命中很多的年月,直至此時此刻,去守護香港的法治,那亦是香港的高度自治不可或缺的部份。我永不會放棄,也必會繼續爭取香港的民主。
我相信法治能為公民抗命提供理據。公民抗命與法治有共同的目標,就是追求公義。公民抗命是有效的方法去確保這共同目標能達成,至少從長遠來說,公民抗命能創造一個氛圍,讓其他方法可被用來達成那目標。
若我們真是有罪,那麼我們的罪名就是在香港這艱難的時刻仍敢於去散播希望。入獄,我不懼怕,也不羞愧。若這苦杯是不能挪開,我會無悔地飲下。
DCCC 480/2017
Closing Submission of Tai Yiu-ting (D1)
1. First, this is a case of civil disobedience.
2. Here, I am standing up for civil disobedience.
3. The Occupy Central with Love and Peace Movement, initiated by Professor Chan Kin-man, Reverend Chu Yiu-ming and I, was a movement of civil disobedience.
4. Civil disobedience, known little by Hong Kong people in the past, is now a household idea in Hong Kong.
5. The Court of Final Appeal in Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35 at paragraph 70 endorsed the definition of civil disobedience put forward by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice (Revised Edition, 1999) at p. 320.
6. Civil disobedience is “a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government.”
7. In Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung, the Court of Final Appeal with Lord Hoffmann as the non-permanent judge repeated at paragraph 72 what Lord Hoffmann had said in R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136 at paragraph 89, “civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country.” The Court of Final Appeal accepted that the concept of civil disobedience is equally recognisable in a jurisdiction respecting individual rights, like Hong Kong.
8. However, it was not explained why civil disobedience is honourable and civilised.
9. John Rawls’ definition spells out more the actus reus of civil disobedience.
10. In his very famous work on civil disobedience, Letter from a Birmingham Jail reproduced in The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 71, No. 1/4 (Winter - Autumn, 1986), pp. 38-44, Dr Martin Luther King Jr. provided more the mens rea of civil disobedience or the spirit of civil disobedience. The Letter was written by him on 16 April 1963 while in jail serving a sentence for participating in civil rights demonstration in Birmingham, Alabama.
11. He said (p. 41), “One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.”
12. To Dr King, a law could be just on its face but unjust in its application. He said in the Letter (p. 40-41), “I was arrested…on a charge of parading without a permit. Now there is nothing wrong with an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade, but when the ordinance is used to …deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and peaceful protest, then it becomes unjust.”
13. He also said (p. 39), “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatise the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”
14. I was inspired very much by Dr King, and this is the same spirit we have implanted in the Occupy Central with Love and Peace Movement. Following Dr King’s steps closely in the path of civil disobedience, we strive to inspire self-sacrificing love and peacefulness but not to incite anger and hatred.
15. The Court of Final Appeal in Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung further cited what Lord Hoffmann had said in R v Jones (Margaret), “[T]here are conventions which are generally accepted by the law-breakers on one side and the law-enforcers on the other. The protesters behave with a sense of proportion and do not cause excessive damage or inconvenience. And they vouch the sincerity of their beliefs by accepting the penalties imposed by the law.”
16. Though the Court of Final Appeal did not quote this part of the judgment in Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung, Lord Hoffmann in R v Jones (Margaret) also said, “The police and prosecutors, on the other hand, behave with restraint and the magistrates impose sentences which take the conscientious motives of the protesters into account.” These other conventions of civil disobedience should also apply, and it is not likely that the Court of Final Appeal would object.
17. The purpose of civil disobedience is not to obstruct the public but to arouse public concern to the injustice in society and to win sympathy from the public on the cause of the social movement.
18. If it is found that a person is committing an act of civil disobedience, he could not have intended to cause unreasonable obstruction as it will defeat the whole purpose of civil disobedience itself even if his action might at the end have caused a degree of obstruction more than he could have known.
19. Non-violence was the overarching principle of the Occupy Central with Love and Peace Movement. The act of civil disobedience, i.e. occupy Central, was the last resort of the movement. The manner of civil disobedience by the protesters was to sit down together on the street with arms locked and wait to be arrested by the police without struggling. The scale of occupation was planned and intended to be proportionate. We believe that the obstruction must be reasonable.
20. I believe we have done our part as the law-breaker in civil disobedience. We expect the others will do their parts.
21. In a case of civil disobedience, whether the means of civil disobedience is proportionate; contextually, the end must be considered.
22. This is a case about some Hong Kong people who love Hong Kong very much and believe that only through the introduction of genuine universal suffrage could a door be opened to resolving the deep-seated conflicts in Hong Kong.
23. I am one of those Hong Kong people. With all people who share the same democratic dream, we have waited for more than thirty years for our constitutional rights. Since the time I was a law student at the University, I had been involved in Hong Kong’s Democratic Movement. Now, my son has just graduated from the University, democracy is still nowhere in Hong Kong.
24. Also said by Dr King in the Letter (p. 292), “…freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed…We must come to see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that ‘justice too long delayed is justice denied.’”
25. In seeking for justice, our planned action in the eyes of the powerholders may indeed be a nuisance.
26. According to Article 45 of the Basic Law the ultimate aim of the selection of the Chief Executive (“CE”) is by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.
27. Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) provides that, “Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: … (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors…”
28. The United Nations Human Rights Committee gave its understanding and requirements of universal and equal suffrage under Article 25 of the ICCPR in its General Comment No. 25 adopted on 12 July 1996. (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7).
29. Paragraph 15 provides that, “The effective implementation of the right and the opportunity to stand for elective office ensures that persons entitled to vote have a free choice of candidates.”
30. Paragraph 17 provides that, “political opinion may not be used as a ground to deprive any person of the right to stand for election.”
31. Through its Interpretation of Annex I and Annex II of the Basic Law in 2004, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (“NPCSC”) in effect changed the constitutional procedures to amend the election methods of the CE.
32. Before the CE can put forward bills on the amendments to the election methods to the Legislative Council (“LegCo”), two more steps are added. The CE is required to make a report to the NPCSC as regards whether there is a need to make an amendment and the NPCSC must make a determination in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“HKSAR”) and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. Such bills need to have the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the members of the LegCo and the consent of the CE, and they shall be reported to the NPCSC.
33. On 31 August 2014, the NPCSC completed the second step of the constitutional reform process by issuing a decision on the election method of the CE. The NPCSC laid down specific and stringent requirements on the election method of the CE by universal suffrage in addition to the determination that starting from 2017 the selection of the CE may be implemented by the method of universal suffrage.
34. The number of members, composition and formation of the Nomination Committee (“NC”) have to be made in accordance with the number of members, composition and formation method of the Election Committee for the 4th CE. The NC can only nominate two to three candidates for the office of CE in accordance with democratic procedures. Each candidate must have the endorsement of more than half of all the members of the nominating committee.
35. In accordance with the procedure added by itself, the NPCSC should only have the power to make a determination of approving or not approving the CE’s report but not providing detailed requirements on the composition and nomination procedures of the NC. The NPCSC has failed to follow the procedures set by itself.
36. If the requirements set by the NPCSC on the election method of the CE were to be followed, electors in Hong Kong would not have a genuine choice of candidates in the election as all unwelcome candidates would be screened out. This is not compatible with the meaning of universal suffrage.
37. These Hong Kong people resorted to civil disobedience to arouse more concern in the community and the world that the Chinese Government had unjustly broken its constitutional promise and breached its constitutional obligation.
38. We did all we had done to protect our constitutional rights and the constitutional rights of all Hong Kong people including those who disagreed with our action, to demand a constitutional promise to be honored by our sovereign, to strive for a fundamental reform in the constitutional system of Hong Kong, and to bring more justice to the future of Hong Kong.
39. This is also a case of the right to freedom of peaceful demonstration and the right to freedom of speech.
40. According to the original plan of the Occupy Central with Love and Peace Movement, the public meeting to be organised was to be held at the Chater Road Pedestrian Precinct, the Chater Garden, and the Statue Square, from 3:00 pm on 1 October 2014 to the latest on 5 October 2014.
41. We expected that there would be three groups of people coming. The first group of people decided to commit the act of civil disobedience. They would continue to sit on the Chater Road after the notified time expired. They would be the people who had chosen the second or the third option in the letter of intent of the Occupy Central with Love and Peace Movement.
42. The second group of people decided not to commit the act of civil disobedience but just came to support the first group of people. They would leave the Chater Road after the notified time expired and move to the Chater Garden or the Statue Square. They would be the people who had chosen the first option in the letter of intent of the Occupy Central with Love and Peace Movement.
43. The third group of people might not have made up their mind yet on whether they would join the action of civil disobedience. They could decide at the very last moment when the notified time expired by choosing where to stay.
44. We believed that the police would have sufficient time to remove all the protesters joining the act of civil disobedience of occupy Central; estimated to be a few thousands.
45. We asked all participants to observe the discipline of non-violence strictly. We adopted specific measures to ensure most if not all participants would follow.
46. We were exercising our constitutional right to the freedom of peaceful demonstration protected by Article 27 of the Basic Law. It is also closely associated with the right to freedom of speech also protected by Article 27 of the Basic Law. By Article 39 of the Basic Law, constitutional protection is also given to freedom of opinion, of expression and of peaceful assembly as provided for in Articles 16 and 17 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, those articles being the equivalents of Articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR and representing part of the ICCPR as applied to Hong Kong.
47. If the original plan were to be carried out, it might breach some requirements under the Public Order Ordinance concerning the organisation of unauthorised assembly. However, we believed that the public meeting to be held would not cause unreasonable obstruction to the public.
48. The space to be occupied, including the carriageway, can be freely used by every citizen on public holidays.
49. The first two days of the planned occupation were public holidays and the last two days were the weekend.
50. When the venue of the public meeting was moved to the area outside the Central Government Offices including the pavements and carriageways at Tim Mei Avenue, Legislative Council Road and Lung Hui Road (“the Demonstration Area”), though the public meeting’s themes, leadership, organization and composition of participants had changed, the spirit had not.
51. People were asked to join the public meeting in the Demonstration Area on 27 and 28 September 2014. It was still an exercise of their constitutional right to freedom of peaceful demonstration and freedom of speech by Hong Kong citizens.
52. Similar public meetings had been held in the Demonstration Area during the Anti-national Curriculum Campaign from 3-9 September 2012. Citizens at that time could have access to the Civic Square, i.e. the East Wing Forecourt of the Central Government Offices. Other than that, the space being occupied by protesters during the Anti-national Curriculum Campaign in September 2012 was very similar to the space that was being occupied by protesters on 27 and 28 September 2014 before the police cordoned all access to the Demonstration Area.
53. Since the Anti-national Curriculum Campaign in 2012, the Demonstration Area has been generally recognised to be the public space that can be used for organising big public meetings with a large number of people participating to protest against the Government of the HKSAR. In another word, the Demonstration Area is known to the public to be an important venue for citizens of Hong Kong to gather and to exercise their right to peaceful demonstration together.
54. On the basis of this public knowledge that we share, at the time when I announced the early beginning of the Occupy Central in the small hours on 28 September 2014, we could only be intending to ask people to come to the Demonstration Area but no other place. Occupying places outside the Demonstration Area could not have been in the thought of us at that time. No one could have intended that.
55. The Court of Final Appeal in Leung Kwok-hung v. HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 229 at paragraph 22 pointed out that, “…the right of peaceful assembly involves a positive duty on the part of the Government, that is the executive authorities, to take reasonable and appropriate measures to enable lawful assemblies to take place peacefully.”
56. As senior superintendent Wong Key-wai (PW2) said in his evidence, the police closed the carriageways in the Demonstration Area for the safety of the protesters when there were too many protesters on the adjacent pavements.
57. Having a public space for the public opposing the Government of the HKSAR to gather and vent their dissatisfaction against the Government peacefully is a public benefit to the society of Hong Kong. No common injury to the public can be caused even if a public meeting is being held in the Demonstration Area in contravention with the Public Order Ordinance for a prolonged period. The section of the public that will be affected is very small and the inconvenience caused is comparatively insignificant.
58. Mr Justice Bokhary PJ said in Yeung May-wan v. HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 137 at paragraph 144, “The mere fact that an assembly, a procession or a demonstration causes some interference with free passage along a highway does not take away its protection under art. 27 of the Basic Law. In my view, it would not lose such protection unless the interference caused is unreasonable in the sense of exceeding what the public can reasonably be expected to tolerate. As to that, I think that the participants in a large or even massive assembly, procession or demonstration will often be able to say with justification that their point could not be nearly as effectively made by anything on a smaller scale. Subject to this, the most obviously relevant considerations are, I think, how substantial the interference is and how long it lasts. But other considerations can be relevant, too. These include, I think, whether the interference concerned had been recently preceded by another act or other acts of interference on another occasion or other occasions. What the public can reasonably be expected to tolerate is a question of fact and degree. But when answering this question, a court must always remember that preservation of the freedom in full measure defines reasonableness and is not merely a factor in deciding what is reasonable.”
59. No obstruction can be caused by the protesters participating in a public meeting in the Demonstration Area as all carriageways in the Demonstration Area were closed by the police. The police closed the carriageways in the Demonstration Area to ensure the protesters there can exercise their right to freedom of peaceful assembly safely and peacefully. Even if there were to be some degree of obstruction in the Demonstration Area, the obstruction could not be unreasonable in light of the constitutional right to freedom of peaceful demonstration of the protesters.
60. Even after protesters walked into the carriageways of Fenwick Pier Street and Harcourt Road on 28 September 2014, people were continuing to be asked to come to the Demonstration Area but not to stay on those roads. The police were demanded to reopen the access to the Demonstration Area so that people could come and join the protesters in the Demonstration Area. If the access to the Demonstration Area were not blocked by the police, most if not all of the people out there would have entered the Demonstration Area and those roads would not have been occupied. No tear gas would need to be fired.
61. It should be the duty of the police to facilitate the holding of a public meeting in the Demonstration Area by citizens. However, the police had cordoned the Demonstration Area and prevented people from joining the public meeting in the Demonstration Area. Any obstruction outside the Demonstration Area could not be intended or caused by the protesters gathering in the Demonstration Area who were just inviting other people to join them in the Demonstration Area.
62. The police irresponsibly refused to reopen the access to the Demonstration Area even after the police saw that a large number of people were gathering outside the Demonstration Area intending to enter the Demonstration Area. The police must be responsible for the obstruction outside the Demonstration Area and what happened afterwards.
63. Everything changed after the firing of the 87 canisters of tear gas and excessive force had been used by the police.
64. The firing of tear gas in such a way was something that no one could have known. Matters were no longer in our control. By then, the most important thing we wanted to do was to bring everyone home safe.
65. In the many days and nights following the firing of the tear gas, we had tried to use different methods to bring an earlier end of the occupation. We helped arrange a dialogue between the student leaders and senior government officials. We tried to convince others to accept an arrangement of de facto referendum as a mechanism to retreat. We organised a plaza voting. Even though most of the things we had done came to be futile, we did work very hard and exhausted all methods we could think of to achieve this goal. In the end, we surrendered to the police on 3 December 2014. The occupation at the Admiralty area ended on 11 December 2014.
66. This is a case about the improperness of laying charges relating to public nuisance.
67. As asserted by Lord Hoffmann in R v Jones (Margaret), prosecutors also have conventions to follow in a case of civil disobedience. They should behave with restraint.
68. In “Public Nuisance – A Critical Examination,” Cambridge Law Journal 48(1), March 1989, pp. 55-84, at p. 77, J. R. Spencer observed that, “...almost all the prosecutions for public nuisance in recent years seem to have taken place in one of two situations: first, where the defendant’s behaviour amounted to a statutory offence, typically punishable with a small penalty, and the prosecutor wanted a bigger or extra stick to beat him with, and secondly, where the defendant’s behaviour was not obviously criminal at all and the prosecutor could think of nothing else to charge him with.”
69. Lord Bingham in R v Rimmington [2006] 1 AC 469 at paragraph 37 endorsed the criticisms of J. R. Spencer concerning the ulterior motive of a prosecutor laying a charge of public nuisance.
70. If there is an appropriate statutory offence to cover the unlawful act in a case of civil disobedience, one would rightly ask why laying the charges of public nuisance? Even though it might not be an abuse of process, the prosecutor in this case must have breached the convention of civil disobedience applicable to him as asserted by Lord Hoffmann in R v Jones (Margaret) for failing to behave with restraint.
71. This is a case about the improperness of laying charges of conspiracy and incitement to incite.
72. Similarly, laying charges of conspiracy and incitement to incite is excessive in a case of civil disobedience and a case of the right to freedom of peaceful demonstration.
73. Pieces of evidence relied upon by the prosecution in the conspiracy charge were public statements made by us. Civil disobedience by definition must be a public act. If these public statements can be used to support the prosecution, all civil disobedience at its formation stage will be suppressed. It is meaningless to talk about civil disobedience as something honourable as no civil disobedience would have happened. Even worse, a chilling effect will be generated in society, and many legitimate speeches will be silenced. The restriction on the right to freedom of speech must be disproportionate.
74. Whether there can be an offence of incitement to incite under the Hong Kong common law is still disputable. Even if there is such an offence, laying charges of incitement to incite in a case of civil disobedience and a case of the right to freedom of peaceful demonstration must have extended culpability excessively, unreasonably and unnecessarily.
75. Since the substantial offence is the questionable offence of public nuisance, laying a charge of incitement to incite public nuisance must have extended culpability to even a manifestly unreasonable degree.
76. If the prosecutor has not acted in such an excessive and unreasonable manner and proper charges were laid, we would not have filed a defence.
77. Nonetheless, filing a defence against charges believed to be excessive and unreasonable should not be considered to be failing to comply with the conventions of civil disobedience on the part of the law-breakers as not accepting the penalties imposed by the law.
78. There are some questions that I am not in the position to answer. If the prosecutor fails to comply with the convention of civil disobedience asserted by Lord Hoffmann in R v Jones (Margaret), what will be the consequence? Who is responsible for rectifying the wrongs?
79. At the end, this is a case about Hong Kong’s rule of law and high degree of autonomy.
80. As a scholar of the rule of law and the constitutional law of Hong Kong, I believe that merely having judicial independence is not sufficient to maintain the rule of law in Hong Kong.
81. Without a genuinely democratic system, powers of the government can still be exercised arbitrarily, and the fundamental rights of citizens will not be adequately protected. Also, without democracy, it will be difficult to withstand the more and more severe encroachment on Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy under the policy of “One Country Two Systems”. After the Umbrella Movement, there is still a long way before we can reach the destination of Hong Kong’s journey to democracy.
82. Mr Justice Tang, PJ at his Farewell Sitting (2018) 21 HKCFAR 530 at paragraphs 17-19 said, “…although judges are prepared to uphold the rule of law as it has always been understood and applied in Hong Kong, the community must be willing to support them. In what form the support should take? I think the support should be all-embracing. If the judiciary is unfairly attacked, you should hold firm and stand up for them. But, support should not only be events driven. That is not enough. It may be too late. You should endeavour to nurture an atmosphere friendly to the rule of law. We have a free press and free elections in Hong Kong. Make your voice heard and your vote count. Believe me, the price of freedom is indeed eternal vigilance. Above all else, do not give up or underestimate your strength. If we as a community insist on the rule of law, it cannot be taken from us easily. Do not make it easy.”
83. We all have our duty to defend the rule of law and the high degree of autonomy in Hong Kong.
84. I am here because I have used many years of my life and up to this very moment to defend the rule of law of Hong Kong, an integral part of Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy. I will also never give up on striving for Hong Kong’s democracy.
85. I believe that civil disobedience can be justified by the rule of law. Civil disobedience and the rule of law share the same goal in pursuing justice. Civil disobedience is an effective way of securing the attainment of this common goal at least in the long run by creating the climate within which other means can be used to achieve that goal. (See Benny Yiu-ting Tai, “Civil Disobedience and the Rule of Law,” in Ng, M. H. (Ed.), Wong, J. D. (Ed.). (2017). Civil Unrest and Governance in Hong Kong. London: Routledge. At pp. 141-162.)
86. If we were to be guilty, we will be guilty for daring to share hope at this difficult time in Hong Kong.
87. I am not afraid or ashamed of going to prison. If this is the cup I must take, I will drink with no regret.
List of Authorities
1. Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35, paragraphs 70 and 72.
2. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Revised Edition, 1999), p. 320.
3. Martin Luther King Jr. “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 71, No. 1/4 (Winter - Autumn, 1986), pp. 38-44.
4. R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136, paragraph 89.
5. UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 25 adopted on 12 July 1996 (on Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7, paragraph 15 and 17.
6. Leung Kwok-hung v HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 229, paragraph 22.
7. Yeung May-wan v HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 137, paragraph 144.
8. J. R. Spencer, “Public Nuisance – A Critical Examination,” Cambridge Law Journal 48(1), March 1989, pp. 55-84, p. 77.
9. R v Rimmington [2006] 1 AC 469, paragraph 37.
10. Farewell Sitting for the Honourable Mr Justice Tang PJ (2018) 21 HKCFAR 530, Tang PJ, paragraphs 17-19.
11. Benny Yiu-ting Tai, “Civil Disobedience and the Rule of Law” in Ng, M. H. (Ed.), Wong, J. D. (Ed.). (2017). Civil Unrest and Governance in Hong Kong. London: Routledge. At pp. 141-162.