關於 free patriotic movement ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

//今年10月1日是中共建政71周年，支聯會將聯同友好團體代表於10月1日11時，以倒行形式分組前往中聯辦宣讀聲明及中港在囚異見人士狀況，敦促中共改善人權，落實當年建政的承諾，停止粉飾太平，回應聲明提出的訴求。//

【沒有人權，哪有國慶？停止打壓異見 還我言論自由】聯署聲明全文

(English below)

中共建政71周年，也是中國人民飽受苦難的歷史。建政前，中共以民主、自由、繁榮、富強的承諾，欺騙萬千愛國者為其拋頭顱、灑熱血。建政後首30年，階級鬥爭為綱，政治運動頻仍；經濟冒進失誤，赤地千里，餓殍遍野。接著的10年，推行經濟改革，但仍堅持獨裁專政，打壓人民訴求，導致胡耀邦、趙紫陽下台，更發生「六四」血腥鎮壓。「六四」後31年來，貪污腐敗猖獗，貧富兩極分化，弱勢社群備受壓榨，道德倫理殆盡，維權和異見人士被拘入獄，全國籠罩白色恐怖，人權蕩然。習近平專政下，14億人民仍活在沒有人權、沒有尊嚴中，有甚麼值得慶祝？

今天是中共所謂的「國慶」，但71年來，許多人只因表達政治立場慘遭拘禁和酷刑，直到今天，仍有不計其數人士因言獲罪，身陷囹圄。在這個令人憤慨而非喜慶的日子，支聯會等團體特別關注被所謂「危害國家安全」罪名拘押的中國和香港抗爭者，他們面對獨裁政權迫害，我們在香港也正經歷同樣命運。

對中國異見人士來說，中國政府以所謂「國家安全」為理由作出種種打壓，是每天不能承受的痛。今年，香港人失去法治和自由，自中央政府於6月30日強推《港區國安法》後，多名人士以所謂與「國安」有關的罪名被起訴，12位年輕人更因為逃亡台灣途中「被送中」，香港人自由岌岌可危，與中國異見人士更是唇齒相依。

他們代表不同年齡和不同背景人士對民主自由的渴求，在鐵幕高牆的國度仍不畏強權，以各種方式爭取民主和傳播尊重人權的訊息，但他們合法和合理的行動和訴求，卻被政權以違反所謂「國家安全」惡法無理打壓，他們的案件在中國只是冰山一角，深信還有不少被專制政權迫害而不知名的受害人。

港區《國安法》強推以來僅僅數月，言論自由空間不斷收窄，過往不少可以喊的口號和可以發起的行動，已被政府強詞奪理解讀為違反《國安法》，營造赤色恐怖，企圖噤聲，打壓異己，令香港的自由急速消逝，嚴重侵犯市民的言論自由與集會自由。

我們強烈要求中國政府和香港政府停止粉飾太平，回應以下訴求：
1）平反八九民運，還多年來承受失去至親一個公道！
2）成立獨立調查委員會，調查「六四」及香港自去年「反送中」運動的警暴行為！
3）停止假借「國家安全」名義，肆意破壞香港法治精神和打壓言論自由！
4）立即釋放中港被囚異見人士！

2020年10月1日

聯署團體：(更新 30.9.2020)

香港市民支援愛國民主運動聯合會
四五行動
林鉅成社會服務處
溫哥華支援民主運動聯合會
天安門母親運動
卡城中國民主促進會
良心之友
中國維權律師關注組
社會民主連線
青衣居民權益服務社
香港社會工作者總工會
新婦女協進會
民主黨
工黨
香港職工會聯盟
郭家麒議員辦事處
民間電台
曾健成議員辦事處
六四行動
民間人權陣線
香港基督徒社關團契
關注綜援低收入聯盟
零售、商業及成衣業總工會
基督徒社工
香港教育專業人員協會
關心香港前途小組
公民黨

’Without human Rights, How Can We Celebrate “National Day”?Stop the crackdown on dissidents; give us our freedom‘

1 October 2020

The Chinese Communist Party has been in power for 71 years now—71 years of suffering for the Chinese people. Before coming to power, the Party promised to make China a democratic, free, prosperous and strong country, but it fooled hundreds of thousands of patriots into sacrificing themselves for the nation. For the first 30 years after the establishment of the regime, class struggle was the main focus and mass political campaigns were frequent. Economic policy was poorly devised, leading to famine and death.

In the following 10 years, the regime enacted economic reform but remained totalitarian. It cracked down on demands for change, leading to the fall of liberal state leaders Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang and eventually the bloodshed of the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre. In the subsequent 31 years, corruption has been rampant and uneven wealth distribution serious. Underprivileged groups are squeezed by those in power. Ethics and morality have collapsed. Human rights defenders and dissidents are detained and imprisoned. The whole country lives under white terror. There are simply no human rights. Under Xi Jinping’s dictatorship, 1.4 billion people are living in a society without human rights or dignity. What is there to celebrate?

Today is what the Party calls “National Day”. But over the past 71 years, many have been ruthlessly imprisoned and tortured simply for expressing their political views. Countless people are still detained for their speech. On this day we should feel outrage rather than joy,. Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China and other organizations are particularly concerned about the Chinese and Hong Kong activists facing so-called “national security” charges. While those in China endure the persecution of a totalitarian regime, we in Hong Kong experience the same fate.

Chinese dissidents suffer unbearable pain every day as the Chinese government uses the pretext of “national security” to crack down on them. In this year, Hongkongers have lost rule of law and experience diminishing freedoms. Since the central government forcibly imposed the Hong Kong national security law (officially the “Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region”) on 30 June 2020, dozens of individuals have been charged with so-called “national security” crimes. Twelve young people fleeing to Taiwan were taken to China. Hong Kong people’s freedoms are at greater risk than ever. Hong Kong people’s fate is even more interconnected with the Chinese people’s.

Many, diverse in age and background, desire democracy and freedom. They do not fear challenging the government despite dictatorship. They fight for democracy and share information about human rights. But their legal and legitimate actions and demands have been punished by the government with so-called “national security” charges. Their cases are only the tip of the iceberg in China. There are many unknown people persecuted by the regime.

The Hong Kong national security law has been in force for several months. Freedom of expression is drastically diminishing. Protest slogans are now interpreted by the Hong Kong government as violations of the national security law. The government creates red terror, attempts to silence dissenting views, and cracks down on dissidents. Hong Kong’s freedoms are quickly disappearing. Hong Kong people’s freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are seriously infringed.

We call on the Chinese and Hong Kong governments to stop whitewashing the daunting situation in China and Hong Kong and respond to the following requests:

1. Vindicate the 1989 pro-democracy movement and give victims’ families a fair explanation, apology and compensation;

2. Establish an independent commission to investigate the Tiananmen Massacre as well as police violence during the Anti-Extradition Bill protests in Hong Kong since last year;

3. Stop using “national security” as an excuse to ruthlessly destroy Hong Kong’s rule of law and freedom of expression;

4. Immediately release all detained Chinese and Hong Kong dissidents.

Signatories: (updated on 30.9.2020)

Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China
April Fifth Action
Community service office of KS Lam
Vancouver Society in Support of Democratic Movement
Tiananmen Mothers Campaign
Movement for Democracy in China (Calgary)
Friends of Conscience
China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group
League of social democrats
Tsing Yi Residents Rights and Interests Service Society
Hong Kong Social Workers` General Union
The Association for the Advancement of Feminism
The Democratic Party
Labour Party (Hong Kong)
Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions
Office of Dr. Kwok Ka Ki, Legislative Council Member
Citizens Radio
Office of Tsang Kin Shing District Councillor
June 4th Action
Civil Human Rights Front
Hong Kong Christian Fellowship of Social Concern
Concerning CSSA and Low Income Alliance
Retail, Commerce and Clothing Industries General Union
Christian Social Workers
Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union
Concern the Future of Hong Kong
CIVIC PARTY

—————
註：六四紀念館已於9月15日重新開放，繼續舉辦「走在抗極權最前線——從『八九六四』到『反送中』」主題展覽，同時舉辦「中港被囚異見人士」專題展（至10月31日），介紹異見人士的事蹟，誠邀參觀及報導。查詢：2459 6489（電話/WhatsApp）、 64museum@alliance.org.hk （電郵）
—————

#十一 #六四 #反送中 #人權 #言論自由 #humanrights #freedomofspeech #june4

【 黎安友專文 l 中國如何看待香港危機 】

美國哥倫比亞大學的資深中國通黎安友（Andrew Nathan）教授最近在《外交事務》（Foreign Affairs）雜誌的專文，值得一看。

黎安友是台灣許多中國研究學者的前輩級老師，小英總統去哥大演講時，正是他積極促成。小英在美國的僑宴，黎安友也是座上賓。

這篇文章的標題是：「中國如何看待香港危機：北京自我克制背後的真正原因」。

文章很長，而且用英文寫，需要花點時間閱讀。大家有空可以看看。

Andrew這篇文章的立論基礎，是來自北京核心圈的匿名說法。以他在學術界的地位，我相信他對消息來源已經做了足夠的事實查核或確認。

這篇文章，是在回答一個疑問：中共為何在香港事件如此自制？有人說是怕西方譴責，有人說是怕損害香港的金融地位。

都不是。這篇文章認為，上述兩者都不是中共的真實顧慮。

無論你多痛恨中共，你都必須真實面對你的敵人。

中共是搞經濟階級鬥爭起家的，當年用階級鬥爭打敗國民黨。而現在，中共正用這樣的思維處理香港議題。

文章有一句話：“China’s response has been rooted not in anxiety but in confidence.” 這句話道盡階級鬥爭的精髓。

中共一點都不焦慮。相反地，中共很有自信，香港的菁英階級及既得利益的收編群體，到最後會支持中共。

這個分化的心理基礎，來自經濟上的利益。

文中還提到，鄧小平當年給香港五十年的一國兩制，就是為了「給香港足夠的時間適應中共的政治系統」。

1997年，香港的GDP佔中國的18%。2018年，這個比例降到2.8%。

今日的香港經濟，在中共的評估，是香港需要中國，而不是中國需要香港。

中共正在在意的，是香港的高房價問題。香港的房價，在過去十年內三倍翻漲。

文章是這樣描述：
“Housing prices have tripled over the past decade; today, the median price of a house is more than 20 times the median gross annual household income. The median rent has increased by nearly 25 percent in the past six years. As many as 250,000 people are waiting for public housing. At the same time, income growth for many Hong Kong residents has fallen below the overall increase in cost of living.”

無論你同不同意這些說法，都請你試圖客觀地看看這篇文章。

有趣的是，黎安友在文章中部分論點引述了他的消息來源（但他並沒有加上個人評論），部分是他自己的觀察。

#護台胖犬劉仕傑
Instagram: old_dog_chasing_ball

新書：《 我在外交部工作 》

**

黎安友原文：

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2019-09-30/how-china-sees-hong-kong-crisis?fbclid=IwAR2PwHns5gWrw0fT0sa5LuO8zgv4PhLmkYfegtBgoOMCD3WJFI3w5NTe0S4

How China Sees the Hong Kong Crisis
The Real Reasons Behind Beijing’s Restraint

By Andrew J. Nathan September 30, 2019

Massive and sometimes violent protests have rocked Hong Kong for over 100 days. Demonstrators have put forward five demands, of which the most radical is a call for free, direct elections of Hong Kong’s chief executive and all members of the territory’s legislature: in other words, a fully democratic system of local rule, one not controlled by Beijing. As this brazen challenge to Chinese sovereignty has played out, Beijing has made a show of amassing paramilitary forces just across the border in Shenzhen. So far, however, China has not deployed force to quell the unrest and top Chinese leaders have refrained from making public threats to do so.

Western observers who remember the violent crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square 30 years ago have been puzzled by Beijing’s forbearance. Some have attributed Beijing’s restraint to a fear of Western condemnation if China uses force. Others have pointed to Beijing’s concern that a crackdown would damage Hong Kong’s role as a financial center for China.

But according to two Chinese scholars who have connections to regime insiders and who requested anonymity to discuss the thinking of policymakers in Beijing, China’s response has been rooted not in anxiety but in confidence. Beijing is convinced that Hong Kong’s elites and a substantial part of the public do not support the demonstrators and that what truly ails the territory are economic problems rather than political ones—in particular, a combination of stagnant incomes and rising rents. Beijing also believes that, despite the appearance of disorder, its grip on Hong Kong society remains firm. The Chinese Communist Party has long cultivated the territory’s business elites (the so-called tycoons) by offering them favorable economic access to the mainland. The party also maintains a long-standing loyal cadre of underground members in the territory. And China has forged ties with the Hong Kong labor movement and some sections of its criminal underground. Finally, Beijing believes that many ordinary citizens are fearful of change and tired of the disruption caused by the demonstrations.

Beijing therefore thinks that its local allies will stand firm and that the demonstrations will gradually lose public support and eventually die out. As the demonstrations shrink, some frustrated activists will engage in further violence, and that in turn will accelerate the movement’s decline. Meanwhile, Beijing is turning its attention to economic development projects that it believes will address some of the underlying grievances that led many people to take to the streets in the first place.

This view of the situation is held by those at the very top of the regime in Beijing, as evidenced by recent remarks made by Chinese President Xi Jinping, some of which have not been previously reported. In a speech Xi delivered in early September to a new class of rising political stars at the Central Party School in Beijing, he rejected the suggestion of some officials that China should declare a state of emergency in Hong Kong and send in the People’s Liberation Army. “That would be going down a political road of no return,” Xi said. “The central government will exercise the most patience and restraint and allow the [regional government] and the local police force to resolve the crisis.” In separate remarks that Xi made around the same time, he spelled out what he sees as the proper way to proceed: “Economic development is the only golden key to resolving all sorts of problems facing Hong Kong today.”

ONE COUNTRY, TWO SYSTEMS, MANY QUESTIONS

Chinese decision-makers are hardly surprised that Hong Kong is chafing under their rule. Beijing believes it has treated Hong Kong with a light hand and has supported the territory’s economy in many ways, especially by granting it special access to the mainland’s stocks and currency markets, exempting it from the taxes and fees that other Chinese provinces and municipalities pay the central government, and guaranteeing a reliable supply of water, electricity, gas, and food. Even so, Beijing considers disaffection among Hong Kong’s residents a natural outgrowth of the territory’s colonial British past and also a result of the continuing influence of Western values. Indeed, during the 1984 negotiations between China and the United Kingdom over Hong Kong’s future, the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping suggested following the approach of “one country, two systems” for 50 years precisely to give people in Hong Kong plenty of time to get used to the Chinese political system.

But “one country, two systems” was never intended to result in Hong Kong spinning out of China’s control. Under the Basic Law that China crafted as Hong Kong’s “mini-constitution,” Beijing retained the right to prevent any challenge to what it considered its core security interests. The law empowered Beijing to determine if and when Hong Kongers could directly elect the territory’s leadership, allowed Beijing to veto laws passed by the Hong Kong Legislative Council, and granted China the right to make final interpretations of the Basic Law. And there would be no question about who had a monopoly of force. During the negotiations with the United Kingdom, Deng publicly rebuked a top Chinese defense official—General Geng Biao, who at the time was a patron of a rising young official named Xi Jinping—for suggesting that there might not be any need to put troops in Hong Kong. Deng insisted that a Chinese garrison was necessary to symbolize Chinese sovereignty.

Statements made by U.S. politicians in support of the recent demonstrations only confirm Beijing’s belief that Washington seeks to inflame radical sentiments in Hong Kong.

At first, Hong Kongers seemed to accept their new role as citizens of a rising China. In 1997, in a tracking poll of Hong Kong residents regularly conducted by researchers at the University of Hong Kong, 47 percent of respondents identified themselves as “proud” citizens of China. But things went downhill from there. In 2012, the Hong Kong government tried to introduce “patriotic education” in elementary and middle schools, but the proposed curriculum ran into a storm of local opposition and had to be withdrawn. In 2014, the 79-day Umbrella Movement brought hundreds of thousands of citizens into the streets to protest Beijing’s refusal to allow direct elections for the chief executive. And as authoritarianism has intensified under Xi’s rule, events such as the 2015 kidnapping of five Hong Kong–based publishers to stand trial in the mainland further soured Hong Kong opinion. By this past June, only 27 percent of respondents to the tracking poll described themselves as “proud” to be citizens of China. This year’s demonstrations started as a protest against a proposed law that would have allowed Hong Kongers suspected of criminal wrongdoing to be extradited to the mainland but then developed into a broad-based expression of discontent over the lack of democratic accountability, police brutality, and, most fundamentally, what was perceived as a mainland assault on Hong Kong’s unique identity.

Still, Chinese leaders do not blame themselves for these shifts in public opinion. Rather, they believe that Western powers, especially the United States, have sought to drive a wedge between Hong Kong and the mainland. Statements made by U.S. politicians in support of the recent demonstrations only confirm Beijing’s belief that Washington seeks to inflame radical sentiments in Hong Kong. As Xi explained in his speech in September:
As extreme elements in Hong Kong turn more and more violent, Western forces, especially the United States, have been increasingly open in their involvement. Some extreme anti-China forces in the United States are trying to turn Hong Kong into the battleground for U.S.-Chinese rivalry…. They want to turn Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy into de facto independence, with the ultimate objective to contain China's rise and prevent the revival of the great Chinese nation.

Chinese leaders do not fear that a crackdown on Hong Kong would inspire Western antagonism. Rather, they take such antagonism as a preexisting reality—one that goes a long way toward explaining why the disorder in Hong Kong broke out in the first place. In Beijing’s eyes, Western hostility is rooted in the mere fact of China’s rise, and thus there is no use in tailoring China’s Hong Kong strategy to influence how Western powers would respond.

IT’S NOT ABOUT THE BENJAMINS

The view that Xi has not deployed troops because of Hong Kong’s economic importance to the mainland is also misguided, and relies on an outdated view of the balance of economic power. In 1997, Hong Kong’s GDP was equivalent to 18 percent of the mainland’s. Most of China’s foreign trade was conducted through Hong Kong, providing China with badly needed hard currencies. Chinese companies raised most of their capital on the Hong Kong stock exchange. Today, things are vastly different. In 2018, Hong Kong’s GDP was equal to only 2.7 percent of the mainland’s. Shenzhen alone has overtaken Hong Kong in terms of GDP. Less than 12 percent of China’s exports now flow through Hong Kong. The combined market value of China’s domestic stock exchanges in Shanghai and Shenzhen far surpasses that of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, and Chinese companies can also list in Frankfurt, London, New York, and elsewhere.

Although Hong Kong remains the largest offshore clearing center for renminbi, that role could easily be filled by London or Singapore, if Chinese leaders so desired.
Investment flowing into and out of China still tends to pass through financial holding vehicles set up in Hong Kong, in order to benefit from the region’s legal protections. But China’s new foreign investment law (which will take effect on January 1, 2020) and other recent policy changes mean that such investment will soon be able to bypass Hong Kong. And although Hong Kong remains the largest offshore clearing center for renminbi, that role could easily be filled by London or Singapore, if Chinese leaders so desired.

Wrecking Hong Kong’s economy by using military force to impose emergency rule would not be a good thing for China. But the negative effect on the mainland’s prosperity would not be strong enough to prevent Beijing from doing whatever it believes is necessary to maintain control over the territory.

CAN’T BUY ME LOVE?

As it waits out the current crisis, Beijing has already started tackling the economic problems that it believes are the source of much of the anger among Hong Kongers. Housing prices have tripled over the past decade; today, the median price of a house is more than 20 times the median gross annual household income. The median rent has increased by nearly 25 percent in the past six years. As many as 250,000 people are waiting for public housing. At the same time, income growth for many Hong Kong residents has fallen below the overall increase in cost of living.

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