【法政匯思就社會進一步動盪的聲明】
【Statement on Further Escalation of Social Unrest】
// 當體制構建不能保障市民應有的追索權,暴力兼「私了」必如落山流水跟著來,這已清晰可見。僅說無諾,何能「止暴制亂」?
// Where the system fails to provide proper recourse, vigilantism and violence proclaiming self-defence arise as simple cause and effect. Without any real commitment by the Government to de-escalate and defuse the political crisis, verbal condemnation and physical crackdown will do nothing to ‘stop violence and curb disorder’.
https://www.facebook.com/…/a.455221741311…/1474268236073377/
【法政匯思就社會進一步動盪的聲明】
【Statement on Further Escalation of Social Unrest】(Scroll for English)
1. 近日,警隊的行為就如國際特赦組織所言越見低劣。[1] 這皆因政府漠視其專家提供的建議,並以歇斯底里、毫無章法可言的策略回應持續的動盪。
2. 五個月來,政府持續容許以下情況發生,對警政問題及根本的政治危機藥石亂投:
a. 阻礙救護人員前往現場拯救傷者;[2]
b. 偏頗地處理強姦或酷刑對待被拘留人士的指控;[3]
c. 肆無忌憚地濫用武力;[4]
d. 以諸多藉口為警察的失控或報復行為辯解。[5]
3. 法政匯思強烈譴責警隊濫用武力,及其本末倒置、往往為社區添煩添亂的驅散示威者行動。警方在十一月十一日於香港中文大學(「中大」)、香港理工大學及香港大學等驅散非法集結及/或堵路行為的行動,指稱的事實根據惹人非議。[6] 在撰寫此聲明之時,警方甚至以催淚彈及橡膠子彈回應中大校長的善意,與學生發生激烈衝突,造成最少60人受傷及多人被捕。[7]
4. 歸根究底,現有的制度未能公正地調查涉及警務人員的刑事指控,乃是警民衝突的源頭。樂觀地看,這可能只是個別調查人員的疏忽;悲觀地看,這反映一種互相包庇的文化,可能已由員佐級警員到警務處處長、保安局局長甚至特首,滲透警隊及政府上下。無論是哪一個情況,這種警察橫行無忌的觀感已經令公眾對負責調查大部分罪行的警察的信任蕩然無存。這個缺口一開,刑事司法制度剩下非常有限的能力,處理失職警員。
5. 法政匯思繼續呼籲香港政府成立獨立調查委員會,調查包括六月份以來政府的治安管理手段。除了將肇事者繩之於法外,更重要的是全面檢閱香港警隊以達至結構上的改革。至今,特區政府對於這個明顯又實際的選擇不屑一顧,堅持讓一個缺乏監察權力的獨立監察警方處理投訴委員會(「監警會」)[8] 去調查警察投訴及內部調查科。這正正就是問題根源所在。
6. 監警會委派的國際專家組就這個問題發表《進展報告》。國際專家組與政府持相反意見。他們批評監警會在結構上欠缺全面調查權力,對監警會這一個輕型、監管式的體制是否能夠做出決定性的貢獻表示懷疑,更指出下一步的可能性諸如「委派一個享有所需權力的獨立調查機構以作更深程度及更廣泛的調查」,意味著一個獨立調查委員會。[9]
7. 對於近數星期暴力頻頻,政府沒有採取任何行動,只是堅拒示威者的訴求(包括成立獨立調查委員會),更稱他們為「人民的敵人」。[10] 警員們多月來非人化地濫稱示威者為「曱甴」。[11]
8. 法政匯思絕對不認同法外制裁。此立場於七月二十五日之聲明已表明。然而,當體制構建不能保障市民應有的追索權,暴力兼「私了」必如落山流水跟著來,這已清晰可見。僅說無諾,何能「止暴制亂」?
法政匯思
2019年11月15日
(PDF: https://tinyurl.com/tt2nzmr)
1. Police conduct has seen, in the words of Amnesty International, ‘another shocking low’ [1] in recent days as the Government ignored constructive feedback by its own experts and hysterically responded to the ongoing unrest without any rational strategy.
2. In particular, these allegations point to a wanton failure on the part of the Government to properly approach policing and the underlying political crisis, now in its 5th month:
a. Obstructing rescuers and ambulances from accessing the injured; [2]
b. Unfair handling of allegations of rape and torture in custody; [3]
c. Unapologetic excesses in its use of force; [4] and
d. Evasive defence of police officers acting impulsively or in retaliation. [5]
3. The Progressive Lawyers Group (the ‘PLG’) vehemently condemns the Police regarding their excessive use of force and dispersal operations which often create the chaos sought to be quelled. On 11 November, the police conducted operations in, amongst others, the Chinese University of Hong Kong (‘CUHK’), the Polytechnic University of Hong Kong and the University of Hong Kong to disperse unlawful assemblies and/or obstruction of traffic, [6] the factual basis of which has been doubted by many. As at the drafting of this Statement, as riot police responded to an olive branch by the CUHK Vice-Chancellor with tear gas and rubber bullets, severe clashes between students and riot police at CUHK are ongoing with at least 60 injured and dozens arrested. [7]
4. Nonetheless, the crux of the problem remains in the institutional failure to investigate criminal allegations involving police officers impartially. At best, it could be an omission by individual police officers in their execution of duty. At worst, it could be a culture that acquiesces and conceals wrongdoings affecting grassroot constables, the Commissioner of Police, the Secretary for Security and the Chief Executive alike. Whichever the case may be, this perception of impunity breaches the trust and confidence the public reposes in the police who are tasked with investigating most offences. With this link broken, there remains very limited recourse in the criminal justice system against rogue officers.
5. The PLG continues to call on the Hong Kong Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry regarding, amongst others, the current approach to policing social unrest since June. Bringing wrongdoers to justice aside, the more important task is a holistic review on the Police Force and a roadmap to structural reforms. So far, the Government brushed aside this obvious and pragmatic option, insisting upon an inquiry by the Independent Police Complaints Council (‘IPCC’) [8] whose (lack of) oversight over the Complaints Against Police Office (‘CAPO’) is the very issue at the heart of the current saga.
6. Curiously, the International Expert Panel of the IPCC appointed for advice on that very inquiry seems to hold a contrary view. In their Position Statement Report of Progress, the experts pointed out ‘structural limitations in the scope and powers of the IPCC Inquiry’ and noted that ‘it remains to be seen whether a light touch, oversight body like the IPCC, can make sufficient progress to produce any decisive contribution…’ It also identified a possible next step such as ‘a deeper more comprehensive inquiry in a number of respects by an independent body with requisite powers’, alluding to a Commission of Inquiry. [9]
7. In response to the extraordinary brutalities these few weeks, the Government did nothing but maintain that it will not yield to the protesters’ demands (including an independent Commission of Inquiry) and call them ‘enemies of the people’. [10] It has not helped that the police have for months been blatantly using such a dehumanising term as ‘cockroaches’ to refer to protesters [11].
8. The PLG stands by our Statement on 25 July 2019 and does not encourage citizens to take justice into their own hands. However, it is obvious by now that where the system fails to provide proper recourse, vigilantism and violence proclaiming self-defence arise as simple cause and effect. Without any real commitment by the Government to de-escalate and defuse the political crisis, verbal condemnation and physical crackdown will do nothing to ‘stop violence and curb disorder’.
The Progressive Lawyers Group
15 November 2019
(PDF version: https://tinyurl.com/tt2nzmr)
lack of confidence中文 在 容海恩 Eunice Yung Facebook 的最佳貼文
葉太是前高官,熟知政府運作和昔日議會的資料及紀錄。可惜政府於是次修例的解說過程中,並沒有人像葉太般能清晰、有理有節地指出泛民的謬誤,在此感謝葉太的敢言,讓市民看清真相。
#香港幸好有葉太
Dear friends, an English summary of the key points I made in the LegCo adjournment debate is set out below:
1.Rebutting the pan democrats’ objections to the government’s fugitive offenders amendment legislation, I pointed out that arising from two criminal cases (the Telford Gardens murder case and the Cheung Tse-keung kidnap case) in which the suspects fled to mainland China after committing the offences, Martin Lee Chu-ming, then a Member of the Legislator, moved a motion in LegCo on 9 December 1998 urging the government to discuss and conclude an agreement with Beijing on rendition arrangements between mainland China and the SAR, so as to restore the public’s confidence in the SAR’s judicial jurisdiction”. The wording is as follows:
“That this Council deeply regrets that, while the cases involving the kidnapping of two business tycoons in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) and the murder of five persons in the
Telford Gardens, which are being handled in the Mainland in accordance with the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, have caused widespread concern among Hong Kong people, the SAR Government has not tried its utmost to seek the return of those who are suspected of violating the law in the SAR by the Basic Law; this Council also urges the SAR Government to expeditiously discuss and conclude an agree-ment with the Central People’s Government, on the basis of internationally agreed principles, on rendition arrangements between the Mainland and the SAR, so as to restore the public’s confidence in the SAR’s judicial jurisdiction.”
2.All the legislators from the Democratic Parry supported this motion. Who made an about-turn in opposing the government’s amendment legislation
to facilitate the rendition of fugitive offenders and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters with mainland China? Who have been lying to the people of Hong Kong?
3.As Secretary for Security, I had, on 3 December 198, reported to LegCo’s Security Panel the government’s plan to conclude an agreement on the rendition of fugitive offenders with mainland China. Then Chief Secretary Anson Chan undertook to expedite action to reach an agreement with the mainland.
4. All decisions about rendition are ultimately made by the courts. Two recent examples: a high court in New Zealand rejected an extradition request from China to extradite an ethnic Korean New Zealand citizen suspected of murdering a sex worker in Shanghai on the ground that the court did not believe that he would have access to “fair trial” in China. A court in Scotland rejected an extradition request from Taiwan to extradite a British national accused of killing a newspaper agent by drink driving on the ground that the court did not believe that he would
have non-discriminatory treatment in prison.
5. The Financial Action Task Force established under the auspices of G20 had described the lack of rendition arrangement and agreement on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters with mainland China as a “significant deficit” in Hong Kong’s fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.
6. On the question of pressure on judges to kowtow to Beijing, why should judges fear pressure? They are appointed by the Chief Executive with approval by the Legislative Council. They are well trained; well paid and have security of tenure. They are only accountable for the judgments they made which would go down in the common law as part of the
jurisprudence on extradition. They are not accountable to Beijing.
7. On the need to formally “withdraw” the fugitive offenders bill, I pointet out that then Chief Executive Tung Chee-hua used wording similar to that of the current administration in announcing the postponement of the second reading debate of the national security bill on 7 July 2003. On 2 October 2003, then Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee wrote to House Committee Chairperson Selina Chow to explain that to give effect to Mr.Tung’s announcement of “withdrawal” of the bill on 5 September, he would not give notice under LegCo Rules of Procedure to resume second reading debate of the bill within the current term of the Legislative Council.
8. Thus it is clear that the current administration followed the same wording and procedure as in 2003. Clear indication that second reading debate
would not be resumed in the rest of the legislative term is effective “withdrawal”. Insistence on withdrawal is merely a ploy adopted by the opposition to dial up pressure on the administration to undermine its ability to govern.
9.The orderly demonstrations carried out recently by large numbers of of Hong Kong people fully testify to the abundance of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong. But I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence after the mass protest on 9 June, the violent attack on the Police on 12 June, the repeated actions taken by unruly protesters to lay siege to the Police Headquarters, the Immigration Tower, the Revenue Tower and the Justice Place. These protesters have become urban “bandits”, disrupting social order and damaging Hong Kong’s overseas reputation as a safe city. The attacks on Police Headquarters, with a view to undermining Police morale, are particularly vicious. These protesters have committed multiple offences and should be brought to justice.
-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\
(中文版本發言全文)
【誰是第一人敦促特區政府與內地商討移交逃犯協議?讓市民看清真相】
多謝代理主席女士,我發言是支持張華峰議員的議案,我完全同意張議員議案指出,政府現時當務之急是盡快恢復社會秩序,穩定營商環境,採取及時的應對措施 ,令市民可以恢復正常的生活。我亦很高興藉這個休會辯論的機會,向市民講真話,講清講楚,告訴市民那些人一直講大話,瞞騙市民!可惜尹兆堅議員不在席,我想告訴所有的泛民議員,究竟誰是第一人敦促特區政府與內地商討移交逃犯協議,以及刑事司法互助安排呢?正是李柱銘議員!
1998年香港出現了兩宗轟動社會的刑事案件,第一宗是德福花園的「五屍命案」,風水師李育輝殺了五名女士後逃到內地,被逮捕及處決;第二宗是「張子強案」,張子強涉嫌綁架和囤積軍火,同樣逃到內地,然後被逮捕及處決。當時立法會非常震驚,要求特區政府盡快與內地商討刑事司法互助安排,例如1998年12月3 日,我擔任保安局局長,向立法會保安事務委員會交代,要與內地訂明有關安排,並與今日的特區政府一樣,承諾所有安排必須符合「雙重犯罪」原則、指定罪行、不得再移交第三國家的保障、死刑及政治罪行或受政治迫害一律豁免移交的保障,就此,根據保安事務委員會會議文件編號CB(2)748/98-99(02) 第十段有清楚說明:「鑑於公眾對近日張子強和李育輝等案件的關注,亦正如政務司司長所承諾,政府會盡力加快工作,以期早日與內地就此重要事項達成協議。」當時政務司司長就是陳方安生女士。
接下來,李柱銘先生亦在1998年12月9 日動議議案。李議員動議的議案內容如下:「由於兩名富商在香港特別行政區(“特 區”)被綁架案及德福花園五屍命案均在內地法院以《中華人民共和國刑法》審理,引起港人極大關注,但特區政府卻未盡全力爭取將在特區境內涉嫌違法的人士,交還特區法院審理,以捍衛《基本法 》賦予特區的司法管轄權,對此,本會深表遺憾;同時,本會促請特區政府以國際社會公認的原則為基礎,盡快就中港兩地移交疑犯的安排與中央人民政 府進行商討及達成協議,恢復港人對特區司法管轄權的信心。」
因此,我真的要問問尹兆堅議員,究竟是誰人表演「四川變臉」?李柱銘去美國告狀時,有沒有告訴美國人他是提出修例的第一人?他當年不斷敦促特區政府和內地達成協議!我則堂堂正正光明正大地多次到北京開會,商討移交逃犯協議和刑事司法互助安排,會議後每次都是光明磊落向本會匯報。為何對這些事實你們全部失憶?是誰欺騙市民?拍攝影片誤導市民,宣傳香港人如何肉隨砧板上,隨時像動物一樣被移送內地!
事實上,所有案例都證明移交逃犯是需要經過法庭冗長而複雜的程序。最近新西蘭的高等法院否決移交一名韓裔新西蘭公民,該人士涉嫌在上海謀殺一名性工作者,而這案件已由2011年審理至今。蘇格蘭的法庭也拒絕了台灣一個引渡要求,有關一名英國人在台灣醉酒駕駛,撞死一名派報紙的職員。由此可見,最終決定權在法庭手上,並非行政長官一人決定。亦有指法官備受壓力,試問法官受高深教育,良好的司法訓練,身受納稅人供給不錯的報酬,他們當然必須承擔責任。我們每個人都有壓力,法官承擔責任,幫助香港人解決法律問題,是他們應有的責任。因此,代理主席,我認為應該就此向市民講清講楚,是誰人不斷向市民講大話?誤導市民!將這條應該做的法例,抹黑成一條所謂「送中」的惡法!
亦看看國際社會怎麼說,Financial Action Task Force, 即G20集團轄下的「財務行動特別組織」,素來批評香港與內地沒有移交逃犯協議和刑事司法互助安排。過往,他們直指這是一個significant deficit ,即一個「重大缺憾」。近來,可能因為要和應香港反對修例的聲音,則改為 legal shortcoming,即一個「法律上的缺憾」。不過,我們仍然需要完善這些法律,所以政府不撤回是正確的。那些要求行政會議成員辭職的人,全部皆作出不公平的指責。這條例本身完全沒有錯,但大家都同意,政府在宣傳和解釋這條條例方面,乃至為市民反駁種種謊言的工作,做得嚴重不足。
說到撤回,我們看看當年政府處理23條的時候所用的語言。2003年7月7日,時任行政長官董建華先生發表聲明:「我即時召開行政會議特別會議。經過詳細商討後,基於自由黨的立場,我們決定將條例草案押後恢復二讀,並在未來一段時間加強向市民解釋修訂案內容。」其實這個方針與現時政府無異,一樣是將其押後並且加強解釋,並沒有表示撤回。再看看我的接任人李少光局長向內務委員會主席周梁淑怡女士致函的內容,信函的日期是2003年10月2日,李局長寫道:「為在程序上落實前文所提及,行政長官會同行政會議的決定,我現確認我不擬根據《議事規則》第 54(5)條發出預告,以在本屆立法會任期內恢復該草案的二讀辯論。草案因此會根據《議事規則》第 11(4)條及《立法會條例》(第 542 章)第 9(4)條,在本屆立法會任期完結時失效。」即是和現在特區政府的說法一樣,繼續開放式的諮詢去解釋這條條例,沒有時間表,不發出預告恢復二讀,任由這條例「自然死亡」,實質上等同不會再推動修例,等同撤回。
為什麼當時沒有要求撤回的爭論呢?我認為今天有人強烈要求撤回,根本別有用心!為了找理由不斷衝擊政府部門,除了衝擊警察總部之外,又衝擊入境事務大樓、稅務大樓,今天亦有超過100人衝擊律政中心。他們的目的到底與這條條例有什麼關係呢?其實只不過是用「撤回」作一個藉口,不斷擾亂香港秩序,甚至令香港在國際社會失色,令許多希望到香港做生意或旅遊的人,感到香港是一個不安全的城市,他們的用心實在非常惡毒!「撤回」是一個要求律政司下台的藉口,假如律政司下台,他們就會要求整個特區政府領導班子總辭,所有支持過修訂條例的行政會議成員、立法會議員,全部都應該總辭,不如讓泛民和黃之鋒接手特區政府,這就是他們的最終目的。代理主席,所以我一定要藉這個休會辯論的機會,向市民講清楚這背後的陰謀。
當然,我要強烈譴責近日這些示威人士衝擊警察總部。過去兩星期有大部分市民和平遊行,充分彰顯香港擁有高度自由,以及人權得到高度保障,這是我們香港人皆引以為榮的核心價值。不過,在這些和平的示威遊行之後,有些不法之徒聚眾衝擊政府部門,特別是衝擊警隊,他們的用心非常惡毒!他們知道警隊是維護香港治安和秩序最重要的支柱,他們就故意不斷打擊警隊的士氣,甚至侵犯他們的私隱,包括網上「起底」和 網上欺凌。昨晚市民在愛丁堡廣場和平集會後,有眾多穿黑衣的人士走入地鐵站,他們最後走到軍器廠街再次包圍警察總部。我見到一名正在上班的警員,他沒有戴口罩,光明正大地上班,但竟然被人追打!不過,他無畏無懼,直視這些示威者。其實這些人已經觸犯多項刑事罪行,包括襲警、非法集會、刑事毀壞,警方應該將他們繩之於法,不可以因為你「聲大」你「人多」就可以獲得特赦。
代理主席,就此我感到特別震驚,為何一位前政務司司長能夠說出特赦及釋放違法人士,此等嚴重衝擊法治的言論呢?我們一位前同事余黎青萍女士,她以英語寫了一篇非常感人的聲明,在我們前政務官的圈子裏流傳。她表示 disappointed by 這位前同事陳方安生的所作所為!我亦 disappointed by 民主黨的變臉與謊言!李柱銘到美國告狀,有否告知美國人,他是第一人支持與內地簽訂移交逃犯協議,和達至司法互助?這些真相應該告知市民。
代理主席,這些近日的示威者已經成為一股流寇,不斷去衝擊各個政府部門。我懷疑他們真正目的就是要拖垮政府,傷害我們整體市民的利益。因此,我懇請各位善良的市民,看清楚真相,不要支持這些破壞香港繁榮安定的壞分子,不要參加他們的集會,亦希望各位父母約束您們的子女,並解說給他們知道,和平示威沒有問題,但一遇到出現亂象,應該帶他們離開現場,以免他們身陷險境。
lack of confidence中文 在 缺乏自信英文a lack of confidence | 英文口說學習| 英文聽力練習 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>