http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20141016/18901733
涉濫用私刑 七警身份曝光
七名警務人員公然涉嫌毆打示威者，令全城譁然，警方稱會成立專責嚴重投訴個案委員會跟進。據悉，涉事的七名人員主要來自觀塘警區反黑組，及俗稱「O記」的有組織罪案及三合會調查科。消息指，警方已下令這七名涉案人員轉做後勤工作，以便協助調查。有法律界人士認為，警方有足夠證據展開今次涉嫌毆打案，應立即拘捕涉案的七名警務人員。
記者：謝明明 李家傑 謝志輝 鄭啟源
警察公共關係科總警司許鎮德昨表示，被投訴涉嫌毆打示威者的七名警務人員，包括兩名督察級及五名初級警員，警方會成立專責嚴重投訴個案委員會跟進，並向拍攝到相關涉嫌毆打片段的傳媒了解以協助調查，同時向投訴人錄取口供。他表示，該七名警員會被調離工作崗位，但許不肯交代他們被調職到甚麼崗位。據了解，警方已下令涉事的七名警務人員退下前線，轉為內勤工作，以便協助調查。
包括兩督察五初級警員
消息指，警方為應付佔中行動，除出動全體機動部隊及全港一半衝鋒隊人員外，各警區刑偵部門包括反黑組、O記、商業罪案調查科及毒品調查科等亦需抽調合共1,000人參與應對佔中行動，其中O記負責統領反黑探員。
今次涉事的兩名督察級人員分別為O記A1組總督察黃祖成，以及觀塘警區反黑組主管高級督察劉卓毅，其餘五名初級警員隸屬觀塘警區反黑組。其中劉卓毅被網民起底，畢業於英國華威大學法律系；黃祖成去年代表警隊出席打擊販運人口國際論壇。
曾與黃祖成共事的警員形容黃情緒智商（EQ）高，「並非易衝動嘅人」，有警隊中人承認，今次事件打擊警隊聲譽，但認為導致今次事件原因是前線人員的情緒已瀕爆發邊緣，「前線人員已經谷到爆，忍無可忍，先至做出呢啲愚蠢行為，係一件不幸事件」。據知警隊內部普遍情緒低落，部份人更出現厭戰情緒，「既然公眾對警隊咁不滿，警隊索性唔制止示威者，任由佢哋堵塞道路」。
投訴警察科截至昨日中午為止，共接獲471宗涉及佔中的投訴個案，涉521項指控，涉龍和道則有56宗。監警會委員黃碧雲及梁繼昌要求監警會主席郭琳廣召開特別會議，討論有警員涉嫌毆打示威者事件，並邀請投訴警察課派員出席，向委員解釋會如何跟進調查。
另一監警會委員、港大法律學院首席講師張達明表示，從傳媒拍攝片段所見，表面上已有證據相關警員涉嫌違法，涉刑事成份，等於一般市民違法，也要先啟動刑事調查。監警會主席郭琳廣昨晚發聲明表示，考慮到公眾對事件非常關注，決定將有關投訴個案交由嚴重投訴個案委員會跟進，由於目前掌握的資料有限，現階段不適宜評論事件。監警會會密切與警方跟進調查進度，務求事件得到徹底調查。
議員轟警方應立即拉人
立會議員涂謹申指，當時曾已被制服，事件是徹頭徹尾的刑事毆打，要求立即拘捕涉案警察，「條片清楚拍攝到毆打經過，警方有足夠證展開刑事調查，應該立即拘捕涉案嘅七名警員，否則就係包庇！」
據了解，按照一般程序，若投訴警方個案涉及刑事調查，投訴警察課會暫停調查，待刑事調查及相關司法程序完結後，才重開檔案調查。警察員佐級協會主席陳祖光昨發聲明，指警隊正面臨前所未有挑戰，明白同袍長時間在艱困環境下工作，身心不易支持，呼籲同袍堅守崗位，迎難而上。
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20141016/53025035
7名涉打人警員停職 警循刑事方向調查
警察公共關係科高級警司江敏強表示，投訴警察科進一步調查後，已將涉及昨凌晨在龍和道清場行動中疑毆打示威者的7名警員停職，但指出事件中的示威者曾向警員淋潑「不明液體」，警員制服他時遭到反抗，事後警方以非法集結、襲警等罪名將他拘捕。江敏強稱會警方就事件作全面調查，負責的專責調查隊已循刑事方向調查，監警會亦有跟進。
江敏強拒絕證實所指的「不明液體」是否尿液，只強調警方絕不會偏私，會作出公平調查。他又表示，昨晚再有示威者欲堵塞龍和道，令車輛需緊急煞車，影響港島交通，期間有激進示威者不斷在場叫囂及指駡警員，曾勸告不獲理會故採取行動。他表示，警方留意到有人在網上呼籲以「打游撃」方式堵塞中環等道路，以反撃日前警方清路障行動，又有人以「快閃」方式，扮跌錢在馬路、扮執錢，目的其實是挑釁警方，令警員疲於奔命，製造交通擠塞，並影響他人安全，他形容這是缺乏公德的自私行為，非法及浪費警力，呼籲激進示威者不要再罔顧公眾安全，堵塞道路。
江敏強強調網上呼籲他人作出此等行為是違法的，行為不負責任，在現實及網絡上都要受法律制裁，警方不排除作出行動。另外，旺角多條道路仍被堵塞，他重申該處仍屬高危地區，並留意昨晚有人欲在佔領區搭棚架，認為此做法是置當區居民安全於不顧，希望集會人士盡快移除路障並撤離。
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1617448/live-night-anger-scuffles-and-pepper-spray-hong-kong-after-alleged
8.30 pm on Thursday October 16, 2014: A High Court judge has advised Civic Party member Ken Tsang Kin-chiu to write to Police Commissioner about a request to disclose the identities of the officers who allegedly beat him.
Tsang filed a writ the High Court at 4pm and called for an urgent hearing. One of his requests is that an interim mandatory injunction be issued, imposing an interdiction from duty. Police have already announced the suspension of seven officers.
The court also heard that Tsang needed the names of the officers to lodge private legal action against each of them. Outside the court, Tsang's lawyer, Michael Vidler, said they would give the police until Monday morning to reply to their request for the disclosure of names.
2014年10月16日 星期四
2014年10月13日 星期一
Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue (本身係大律師嘅暫委特委裁判官喻競天) Criticized by the High Court
http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=95200&currpage=T
1. 上訴人被裁定一項「沒有遵照交通燈指示」罪成立[1]，控罪指他在去年11月6日下午12時許，在紅棉道與夏慤道交匯處，無合理辯解，違反紅色交通燈號。暫委特委裁判官喻競天 (Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue) 判罰款1,700 元，他提出定罪上訴...
10. 開始審訊時，暫委特委裁判官喻競天 (Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue) 詢問上訴人的辯護理據，當上訴人指控方證據不足，暫委特委裁判官喻競天 (Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue) 當庭恥笑，令他覺得本身係大律師嘅暫委特委裁判官喻競天 (Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue) 有先入為主，偏信控方的意向。上訴人邀請本席詳細翻聽審訊錄音，答辯人沒有反對。
11. 當上訴人表示控方證據不足時，錄音紀錄清楚聽到裁判官竊笑的聲音，雖然裁判官立即解釋並非恥笑上訴人，他明白本案不是用器材偵測，而是爭議警員觀察是否可靠，所以理解上訴人的辯護理由。單單這段對話本席認為不足以令人覺得裁判官的態度有問題，但接著有以下事情發生：
(a) 裁判官叫上訴人坐在前面，上訴人答OK。裁判官立即厲聲說唔好講OK，又叫上訴人企起身。
(b) 當上訴人表示相信爭議是肉眼觀察是否準確，錄音無聲約兩秒後，裁判官立即質疑何為「相信」。
(c) 當上訴人表示有一名辯方證人，裁判官又大聲指出紀錄顯示上訴人以前沒提及這事，又說可聽錄音，更命令主控翻查紀錄，當上訴人答稱之前曾向法庭表示過，裁判官又嚴厲地反問「我問你咩」。
(d) 裁判官問有相片否，上訴人欲澄清，裁判官立即大聲指不知上訴人有甚麼相片，只問有沒有相片。上訴人指預備了相片，裁判官追問幾多份，上訴人說兩份，裁判官指不夠，上訴人答可有三份，裁判官又指上訴人答非所問。
12. 期間，裁判官的語氣時而挖苦，時而嚴厲，但又會突然轉回溫和。只憑錄音，本席已覺無所適從，何況一個普通市民如上訴人。
13. 不但如此，在整個審訊過程，暫委特委裁判官喻競天 (Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue) 對上訴人多次挖苦，又質疑上訴人的發問技巧，令人覺得是矯枉過正。對於一般人而言，何須執著一些困難的法律原則和審訊技巧，裁判官的態度有故意刁難上訴人之嫌。雖然裁判官在批評之後，又嘗試解釋原因，但語氣既不莊重，也欠誠意。
14. 雖然裁判官也曾質疑控方的技巧，但綜觀整個審訊，他的態度明顯針對上訴人。
15. 暫委特委裁判官喻競天 (Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue) 開審前雖曾詳細解釋程序，審訊時卻對上訴人批評多於協助，也多次挖苦上訴人，本席認為沒有必要。
16. 裁判官的行為是否導致不公平審訊，本席應考慮一個了解情況的聽審者會否覺得審訊不公平。
17. 本案是單對單的案件，裁判官公平衡量雙方證供至為重要。本席再三聽過審訊錄音，暫委特委裁判官喻競天 (Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue) 對上訴人的態度，並不持平。綜上所述，本席認為審訊不公平，定罪不穩妥。現判上訴人得直，推翻定罪。
HCMA 348/2014
香港特別行政區
訴
余炳新
----------------------------
主審法官：高等法院原訟法庭法官李瀚良
聆訊日期：2014年8月26日
判案日期：2014年10月10日
判案書
1. 上訴人被裁定一項「沒有遵照交通燈指示」罪成立[1]，控罪指他在去年11月6日下午12時許，在紅棉道與夏慤道交匯處，無合理辯解，違反紅色交通燈號。暫委特委裁判官喻競天 (Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue) 判罰款1,700 元，他提出定罪上訴...
10. 開始審訊時，暫委特委裁判官喻競天 (Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue) 詢問上訴人的辯護理據，當上訴人指控方證據不足，暫委特委裁判官喻競天 (Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue) 當庭恥笑，令他覺得本身係大律師嘅暫委特委裁判官喻競天 (Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue) 有先入為主，偏信控方的意向。上訴人邀請本席詳細翻聽審訊錄音，答辯人沒有反對。
11. 當上訴人表示控方證據不足時，錄音紀錄清楚聽到裁判官竊笑的聲音，雖然裁判官立即解釋並非恥笑上訴人，他明白本案不是用器材偵測，而是爭議警員觀察是否可靠，所以理解上訴人的辯護理由。單單這段對話本席認為不足以令人覺得裁判官的態度有問題，但接著有以下事情發生：
(a) 裁判官叫上訴人坐在前面，上訴人答OK。裁判官立即厲聲說唔好講OK，又叫上訴人企起身。
(b) 當上訴人表示相信爭議是肉眼觀察是否準確，錄音無聲約兩秒後，裁判官立即質疑何為「相信」。
(c) 當上訴人表示有一名辯方證人，裁判官又大聲指出紀錄顯示上訴人以前沒提及這事，又說可聽錄音，更命令主控翻查紀錄，當上訴人答稱之前曾向法庭表示過，裁判官又嚴厲地反問「我問你咩」。
(d) 裁判官問有相片否，上訴人欲澄清，裁判官立即大聲指不知上訴人有甚麼相片，只問有沒有相片。上訴人指預備了相片，裁判官追問幾多份，上訴人說兩份，裁判官指不夠，上訴人答可有三份，裁判官又指上訴人答非所問。
12. 期間，裁判官的語氣時而挖苦，時而嚴厲，但又會突然轉回溫和。只憑錄音，本席已覺無所適從，何況一個普通市民如上訴人。
13. 不但如此，在整個審訊過程，暫委特委裁判官喻競天 (Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue) 對上訴人多次挖苦，又質疑上訴人的發問技巧，令人覺得是矯枉過正。對於一般人而言，何須執著一些困難的法律原則和審訊技巧，裁判官的態度有故意刁難上訴人之嫌。雖然裁判官在批評之後，又嘗試解釋原因，但語氣既不莊重，也欠誠意。
14. 雖然裁判官也曾質疑控方的技巧，但綜觀整個審訊，他的態度明顯針對上訴人。
15. 暫委特委裁判官喻競天 (Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue) 開審前雖曾詳細解釋程序，審訊時卻對上訴人批評多於協助，也多次挖苦上訴人，本席認為沒有必要。
16. 裁判官的行為是否導致不公平審訊，本席應考慮一個了解情況的聽審者會否覺得審訊不公平。
17. 本案是單對單的案件，裁判官公平衡量雙方證供至為重要。本席再三聽過審訊錄音，暫委特委裁判官喻競天 (Deputy Special Magistrate Robin K T Yue) 對上訴人的態度，並不持平。綜上所述，本席認為審訊不公平，定罪不穩妥。現判上訴人得直，推翻定罪。
2014年10月3日 星期五
"My Responses To The 10 Things They Say About Occupy Students"
http://www.scmp.com/comment/blogs/article/1606761/my-responses-ten-things-they-say-about-occupy-students
South China Morning Post (Friday, 03 October 2014, by Wong Sze Wai)
I am not blindly supporting the students. I am simply supporting anyone who fights for justice. I have heard of a number of sayings about the protesters and the students, and I would like to respond to them one by one.
1. "One person one vote is already an improvement. Why don’t we take it?"
Let’s say your parents are so liberal and merciful that they allow you to enjoy the freedom to choose your own bride. The pre-requisite is that they limit your options to just two women chosen by them. In the event you like neither of them, sorry, tough luck. Do you see this as "freedom to choose"? Would you take it?
2. "It’s OK even though there is no real democracy. It has nothing to do with my life."
Many people think that even though there is no real democracy, it doesn’t impact them personally. That is not true. Without the right to elect your own leaders, it means however notorious the people in power are, they can remain in power as long as they like. They do not need to care about the needs of ordinary people. They would continue to collude with the business tycoons, and do their best to defend their interests. They would come up with every possible policy to facilitate the migration of mainlanders to Hong Kong so that they could "dilute" the Hong Kong population, despite the fact that intense conflicts have grown between the two peoples.
They could continue to erode Hong Kong’s judicial independence by ordering the judges to be patriotic to China. They could continue say things like, the CCP is the largest democratic force in Hong Kong. They continue to stifle the freedom of speech, turning almost all the newspapers and TV channels into government mouthpieces.
Perhaps you would still think all these do not bother you. But they are important to people who pursue justice. Please, at least do not pour cold water on them.
3. "Students vs the CCP? Students are bound to lose. What can students do? All will be fruitless!"
It has never been easy to fight for what you want in front of those in power. Back then, how many people had said to Martin Luther King and Gandhi respectively, that "civil disobedience will not work out"? If they had given up, what kind of life would African-Americans and Indians be living today?
If everyone obeys the authorities because they think they would in no way achieve anything by fighting against the government, there will be no human rights, justice or democracy in the world. Ordinary people would be slaves for the rich and powerful for ever and ever.
4. "They are making Hong Kong chaotic, undermining our economy, damaging HK’s international image."
Whenever people fight for their political rights they displease those in power. Are you really calling them trouble-makers for that?
Those who said that Occupy Central would severely damage Hong Kong’s economy have always been the government, its allies and the rich and powerful. How exactly would protesters affect the economy? No one could really tell. Even if it may have an impact, is the economic growth or justice more important?
Freedom, judicial independence and a clean government have always been the qualities which uphold Hong Kong’s international image. It is the authorities who more and more blatantly undermine these qualities, while the people are defending them in their own ways. Who are the ones who are actually undermining Hong Kong’s international image?
There are a lot more demonstrations, protests and marches in London than in Hong Kong. These protests have not seemed to cause any damage to London’s economy or its international image.
5. "They broke the rules. It’s not right."
For decades these pro-democracy campaigners have abided by the rules, hoping they would reach a solution through dialogue. Only after it has long proven fruitless, they have finally resorted to civil disobedience.
Is it always right to abide by the laws and rules? The reasons behind having laws and rules are to uphold fairness and justice in the society. However, under an unjust system and totalitarian rule, it is sometimes necessary to reach a bigger goal by breaking some rules.
Needless to say, not all the rules in the world are worth being followed. Let’s use the same example. What would you think if your parents say to you, "I’ve chosen two women for you and you can opt for one as your wife. This is my house rule. If you don’t do as I say, if you want to meet another girl of your choice, I will punish you as you broke my rule!"
The meaning behind civil disobedience is to break some so-called rules in a non-violent way. The participants are clearly aware that they may be arrested, which may have tremendous impact on their future. And yet they are still willing to take the risks. This is the kind of sacrifice not anyone is ready to make.
6. "They are violent. It’s not right."
If you have not been to the scene, please do not trust the media reports. People who have been there could all see how violent the police force was, and how restrained the students were.
Yes, the students climbed through an open fence to reach Civic Square, and pushed down the barriers under the flags so that they could sit down in the square. If you see these actions as violence, let me ask you this: "A woman, while being molested by a man, screamed and pushed him away. Would you call her violent and disobedient?" When injustice is around us, it is our duty to resist.
7. "The students were either manipulated, having fun, or playing heroes. They don’t know what they are doing."
Have you been to the scene to meet the students and communicate with them before saying this?
For days, they have lived outdoors under the baking sun, lacking sleep. They have not eaten properly and it has even been inconvenient to find a loo. Many of them face a lot of pressure from their parents and schools. Some were trapped by the police for more than ten hours. They are taking the risks of being arrested and having a criminal record. What they’ve been doing is admirable. Not many people could do as much.
If you cannot do what they have been doing, please at least keep quiet and don’t show disrespect.
8. "They are just making noise. Why can’t they negotiate rationally or do something more constructive?"
Before saying that, please spend some time to research what the campaigners have done in trying to "negotiate rationally". Please research how many proposals on political reform they have submitted in the hope that the government will consider. Any negotiation is two-way. If one side has already shut the door, how could the other side continue to "negotiate rationally"? After doing the research, please ask yourself: "If I were them, is there anything I could do to continue the rational negotiation?"
Please also do some research on what they have done all the way through to be constructive. Only then, ask yourself: "On top of all these, is there anything I could do to be constructive?"
If you cannot come up with a proper answer, please don’t criticise these people as "unconstructive".
9. "The Occupy Central people are so irresponsible and hypocritical!" "After all this, the students will just go back to school as usual. What could they achieve?" "What’s the point of striving for democracy under the Chinese Communist Party’s rule. Why don’t they simply launch a coup d’état against the CCP?"
Some people are opposed to the government and the CCP rule and yet have disdained those fighting for justice. They’ve blamed the pan-democratic legislators for having betrayed Hong Kong people. They’ve blamed the Occupy Central leaders for not being forward enough. They called the students’ actions impulsive and useless.
There is not much use in discussing anything with these people. I just want to ask them:
After criticising almost everyone else, do you have a better solution?
After blaming everyone else, aren’t you going back to work and living your life as usual? Or are you planning to launch a coup d’état in Tiananmen Square instead?
Even if I could do more than the protesters, I would never criticise them for not doing enough, as everyone has his own limitations. And, in any case, the fact is that I would never be able to do more than what they have done. I will never criticise them for not doing enough, not being determined enough, or not having sacrificed enough. When others do what they can, I must at least appreciate and admire.
10. "I am not interested in politics. What are they actually fighting for?" "I know nothing about politics. I don’t have a stand."
Believe it or not. A good number of people still choose to live in their own bubbles, burying their heads in the sand. They do not bother to ask any questions or make any statements. They are survivors who just want to live their lives.
The problem is that Hong Kong is a building on fire. The alarm is on. And yet you who live on the 30th floor say to yourself, "I will be fine. The fire won’t spread to the 30th floor."
It is no longer a situation where you can simply say "just leave me alone". The CCP is boiling a frog. They are bit by bit breaking the promise of "one country, two systems" to Hong Kong people. If everyone chooses to bury their head in the sand, the CCP would gladly speed up totalitarian rule in Hong Kong. Very soon, Hong Kong would then be no different to the rest of China.
If, one day, your loved one was imprisoned, tortured and killed only because he had criticised the government, would you still be able to say, "I am not interested in politics. I have no stand."
Today, you may still think that politics is abstract. Tomorrow, when you finally realise that politics is affecting your everyday life, it may be too late.
South China Morning Post (Friday, 03 October 2014, by Wong Sze Wai)
I am not blindly supporting the students. I am simply supporting anyone who fights for justice. I have heard of a number of sayings about the protesters and the students, and I would like to respond to them one by one.
1. "One person one vote is already an improvement. Why don’t we take it?"
Let’s say your parents are so liberal and merciful that they allow you to enjoy the freedom to choose your own bride. The pre-requisite is that they limit your options to just two women chosen by them. In the event you like neither of them, sorry, tough luck. Do you see this as "freedom to choose"? Would you take it?
2. "It’s OK even though there is no real democracy. It has nothing to do with my life."
Many people think that even though there is no real democracy, it doesn’t impact them personally. That is not true. Without the right to elect your own leaders, it means however notorious the people in power are, they can remain in power as long as they like. They do not need to care about the needs of ordinary people. They would continue to collude with the business tycoons, and do their best to defend their interests. They would come up with every possible policy to facilitate the migration of mainlanders to Hong Kong so that they could "dilute" the Hong Kong population, despite the fact that intense conflicts have grown between the two peoples.
They could continue to erode Hong Kong’s judicial independence by ordering the judges to be patriotic to China. They could continue say things like, the CCP is the largest democratic force in Hong Kong. They continue to stifle the freedom of speech, turning almost all the newspapers and TV channels into government mouthpieces.
Perhaps you would still think all these do not bother you. But they are important to people who pursue justice. Please, at least do not pour cold water on them.
3. "Students vs the CCP? Students are bound to lose. What can students do? All will be fruitless!"
It has never been easy to fight for what you want in front of those in power. Back then, how many people had said to Martin Luther King and Gandhi respectively, that "civil disobedience will not work out"? If they had given up, what kind of life would African-Americans and Indians be living today?
If everyone obeys the authorities because they think they would in no way achieve anything by fighting against the government, there will be no human rights, justice or democracy in the world. Ordinary people would be slaves for the rich and powerful for ever and ever.
4. "They are making Hong Kong chaotic, undermining our economy, damaging HK’s international image."
Whenever people fight for their political rights they displease those in power. Are you really calling them trouble-makers for that?
Those who said that Occupy Central would severely damage Hong Kong’s economy have always been the government, its allies and the rich and powerful. How exactly would protesters affect the economy? No one could really tell. Even if it may have an impact, is the economic growth or justice more important?
Freedom, judicial independence and a clean government have always been the qualities which uphold Hong Kong’s international image. It is the authorities who more and more blatantly undermine these qualities, while the people are defending them in their own ways. Who are the ones who are actually undermining Hong Kong’s international image?
There are a lot more demonstrations, protests and marches in London than in Hong Kong. These protests have not seemed to cause any damage to London’s economy or its international image.
5. "They broke the rules. It’s not right."
For decades these pro-democracy campaigners have abided by the rules, hoping they would reach a solution through dialogue. Only after it has long proven fruitless, they have finally resorted to civil disobedience.
Is it always right to abide by the laws and rules? The reasons behind having laws and rules are to uphold fairness and justice in the society. However, under an unjust system and totalitarian rule, it is sometimes necessary to reach a bigger goal by breaking some rules.
Needless to say, not all the rules in the world are worth being followed. Let’s use the same example. What would you think if your parents say to you, "I’ve chosen two women for you and you can opt for one as your wife. This is my house rule. If you don’t do as I say, if you want to meet another girl of your choice, I will punish you as you broke my rule!"
The meaning behind civil disobedience is to break some so-called rules in a non-violent way. The participants are clearly aware that they may be arrested, which may have tremendous impact on their future. And yet they are still willing to take the risks. This is the kind of sacrifice not anyone is ready to make.
6. "They are violent. It’s not right."
If you have not been to the scene, please do not trust the media reports. People who have been there could all see how violent the police force was, and how restrained the students were.
Yes, the students climbed through an open fence to reach Civic Square, and pushed down the barriers under the flags so that they could sit down in the square. If you see these actions as violence, let me ask you this: "A woman, while being molested by a man, screamed and pushed him away. Would you call her violent and disobedient?" When injustice is around us, it is our duty to resist.
7. "The students were either manipulated, having fun, or playing heroes. They don’t know what they are doing."
Have you been to the scene to meet the students and communicate with them before saying this?
For days, they have lived outdoors under the baking sun, lacking sleep. They have not eaten properly and it has even been inconvenient to find a loo. Many of them face a lot of pressure from their parents and schools. Some were trapped by the police for more than ten hours. They are taking the risks of being arrested and having a criminal record. What they’ve been doing is admirable. Not many people could do as much.
If you cannot do what they have been doing, please at least keep quiet and don’t show disrespect.
8. "They are just making noise. Why can’t they negotiate rationally or do something more constructive?"
Before saying that, please spend some time to research what the campaigners have done in trying to "negotiate rationally". Please research how many proposals on political reform they have submitted in the hope that the government will consider. Any negotiation is two-way. If one side has already shut the door, how could the other side continue to "negotiate rationally"? After doing the research, please ask yourself: "If I were them, is there anything I could do to continue the rational negotiation?"
Please also do some research on what they have done all the way through to be constructive. Only then, ask yourself: "On top of all these, is there anything I could do to be constructive?"
If you cannot come up with a proper answer, please don’t criticise these people as "unconstructive".
9. "The Occupy Central people are so irresponsible and hypocritical!" "After all this, the students will just go back to school as usual. What could they achieve?" "What’s the point of striving for democracy under the Chinese Communist Party’s rule. Why don’t they simply launch a coup d’état against the CCP?"
Some people are opposed to the government and the CCP rule and yet have disdained those fighting for justice. They’ve blamed the pan-democratic legislators for having betrayed Hong Kong people. They’ve blamed the Occupy Central leaders for not being forward enough. They called the students’ actions impulsive and useless.
There is not much use in discussing anything with these people. I just want to ask them:
After criticising almost everyone else, do you have a better solution?
After blaming everyone else, aren’t you going back to work and living your life as usual? Or are you planning to launch a coup d’état in Tiananmen Square instead?
Even if I could do more than the protesters, I would never criticise them for not doing enough, as everyone has his own limitations. And, in any case, the fact is that I would never be able to do more than what they have done. I will never criticise them for not doing enough, not being determined enough, or not having sacrificed enough. When others do what they can, I must at least appreciate and admire.
10. "I am not interested in politics. What are they actually fighting for?" "I know nothing about politics. I don’t have a stand."
Believe it or not. A good number of people still choose to live in their own bubbles, burying their heads in the sand. They do not bother to ask any questions or make any statements. They are survivors who just want to live their lives.
The problem is that Hong Kong is a building on fire. The alarm is on. And yet you who live on the 30th floor say to yourself, "I will be fine. The fire won’t spread to the 30th floor."
It is no longer a situation where you can simply say "just leave me alone". The CCP is boiling a frog. They are bit by bit breaking the promise of "one country, two systems" to Hong Kong people. If everyone chooses to bury their head in the sand, the CCP would gladly speed up totalitarian rule in Hong Kong. Very soon, Hong Kong would then be no different to the rest of China.
If, one day, your loved one was imprisoned, tortured and killed only because he had criticised the government, would you still be able to say, "I am not interested in politics. I have no stand."
Today, you may still think that politics is abstract. Tomorrow, when you finally realise that politics is affecting your everyday life, it may be too late.
Chris Patten: The Hong Kong SAR Government Must Listen To Its People
http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1608726/hong-kong-government-must-listen-its-people
South China Morning Post (Friday, 03 October, 2014)
Chris Patten calls on the Hong Kong government to rectify its error of misjudging public sentiment by ensuring that the second round of consultation on political reform is, above all, open and honest.
It is not wholly true to say that the eyes of the entire world are on Hong Kong. They would be, of course, if people in mainland China were allowed to know what is happening in their country's most successful city. But China's government has tried to block any news about the Hong Kong democracy demonstrations from reaching the rest of the country - not exactly a sign of confidence on the part of China's rulers in their system of authoritarian government.
Before suggesting a way forward for Hong Kong's ham-fisted authorities, three things need to be made clear. First, it is a slur on the integrity and principles of Hong Kong's citizens to assert, as the Chinese government's propaganda machine does, that they are being manipulated by outside forces. What motivates Hong Kong's tens of thousands of demonstrators is a passionate belief that they should be able to run their affairs as they were promised, choosing those who govern them in free and fair elections.
Second, others outside Hong Kong have a legitimate interest in what happens in the city. Hong Kong is a great international centre, whose freedoms and autonomy were guaranteed in a treaty registered at the United Nations. In particular, the United Kingdom, the other party to this Sino-British Joint Declaration, sought and received guarantees that the survival of Hong Kong's autonomy and liberties would be guaranteed for 50 years.
So it is ridiculous to suggest that British ministers and parliamentarians should keep their noses out of Hong Kong's affairs. In fact, they have a right and a moral obligation to continue to check on whether China is keeping its side of the bargain - as, to be fair, it has mostly done so far.
But, third, the biggest problems have arisen because of a dispute about where Hong Kong's promised path to democracy should take it, and when. No one told Hongkongers when they were assured of universal suffrage that it would not mean being able to choose for whom they could vote.
No one said that Iran was the democratic model that China's communist bureaucracy had in mind, with the Chinese government authorised to exercise an effective veto over candidates.
In fact, that is not what China had in mind. As early as 1993, China's chief negotiator on Hong Kong, Lu Ping , told the People's Daily: "The [method of universal suffrage] should be reported to [China's parliament] for the record, whereas the central government's agreement is not necessary. How Hong Kong develops its democracy in the future is completely within the sphere of the autonomy of Hong Kong. The central government will not interfere." The following year, China's foreign ministry confirmed this.
The British parliament summarised what had been said and promised in a report on Hong Kong in 2000: "The Chinese government has therefore formally accepted that it is for the Hong Kong government to determine the extent and nature of democracy in Hong Kong."
So, what next?
The peaceful demonstrators in Hong Kong, with their umbrellas and refuse-collection bags, will not themselves be swept off the streets like garbage or bullied into submission by tear gas and pepper spray. Any attempt to do so would present a terrible and damaging picture of Hong Kong and China to the world, and would be an affront to all that China should aspire to be.
The Hong Kong authorities have gravely miscalculated the views of their citizens. Like the bad courtiers against whom Confucius warned, they went to Beijing and told the emperor what they thought he wanted to hear, not what the situation really was in the city. They must think again.
Under the existing plans, there is supposed to be a second phase of consultations on democratic development to follow what turned out to be a counterfeit start to the process. Hong Kong's government should now offer its people a proper second round of consultation, one that is open and honest. Dialogue is the only sensible way forward. Hong Kong's citizens are not irresponsible or unreasonable. A decent compromise that allows for elections that people can recognise as fair, not fixed, is surely available.
The demonstrators in Hong Kong, young and old, represent the city's future. Their hopes are for a peaceful and prosperous life in which they can enjoy the freedoms and rule of law that they were promised. That is not only in the interest of their city; it is in China's interest, too. Hong Kong's future is the main issue; but so, too, is China's honour and its standing in the world.
South China Morning Post (Friday, 03 October, 2014)
Chris Patten calls on the Hong Kong government to rectify its error of misjudging public sentiment by ensuring that the second round of consultation on political reform is, above all, open and honest.
It is not wholly true to say that the eyes of the entire world are on Hong Kong. They would be, of course, if people in mainland China were allowed to know what is happening in their country's most successful city. But China's government has tried to block any news about the Hong Kong democracy demonstrations from reaching the rest of the country - not exactly a sign of confidence on the part of China's rulers in their system of authoritarian government.
Before suggesting a way forward for Hong Kong's ham-fisted authorities, three things need to be made clear. First, it is a slur on the integrity and principles of Hong Kong's citizens to assert, as the Chinese government's propaganda machine does, that they are being manipulated by outside forces. What motivates Hong Kong's tens of thousands of demonstrators is a passionate belief that they should be able to run their affairs as they were promised, choosing those who govern them in free and fair elections.
Second, others outside Hong Kong have a legitimate interest in what happens in the city. Hong Kong is a great international centre, whose freedoms and autonomy were guaranteed in a treaty registered at the United Nations. In particular, the United Kingdom, the other party to this Sino-British Joint Declaration, sought and received guarantees that the survival of Hong Kong's autonomy and liberties would be guaranteed for 50 years.
So it is ridiculous to suggest that British ministers and parliamentarians should keep their noses out of Hong Kong's affairs. In fact, they have a right and a moral obligation to continue to check on whether China is keeping its side of the bargain - as, to be fair, it has mostly done so far.
But, third, the biggest problems have arisen because of a dispute about where Hong Kong's promised path to democracy should take it, and when. No one told Hongkongers when they were assured of universal suffrage that it would not mean being able to choose for whom they could vote.
No one said that Iran was the democratic model that China's communist bureaucracy had in mind, with the Chinese government authorised to exercise an effective veto over candidates.
In fact, that is not what China had in mind. As early as 1993, China's chief negotiator on Hong Kong, Lu Ping , told the People's Daily: "The [method of universal suffrage] should be reported to [China's parliament] for the record, whereas the central government's agreement is not necessary. How Hong Kong develops its democracy in the future is completely within the sphere of the autonomy of Hong Kong. The central government will not interfere." The following year, China's foreign ministry confirmed this.
The British parliament summarised what had been said and promised in a report on Hong Kong in 2000: "The Chinese government has therefore formally accepted that it is for the Hong Kong government to determine the extent and nature of democracy in Hong Kong."
So, what next?
The peaceful demonstrators in Hong Kong, with their umbrellas and refuse-collection bags, will not themselves be swept off the streets like garbage or bullied into submission by tear gas and pepper spray. Any attempt to do so would present a terrible and damaging picture of Hong Kong and China to the world, and would be an affront to all that China should aspire to be.
The Hong Kong authorities have gravely miscalculated the views of their citizens. Like the bad courtiers against whom Confucius warned, they went to Beijing and told the emperor what they thought he wanted to hear, not what the situation really was in the city. They must think again.
Under the existing plans, there is supposed to be a second phase of consultations on democratic development to follow what turned out to be a counterfeit start to the process. Hong Kong's government should now offer its people a proper second round of consultation, one that is open and honest. Dialogue is the only sensible way forward. Hong Kong's citizens are not irresponsible or unreasonable. A decent compromise that allows for elections that people can recognise as fair, not fixed, is surely available.
The demonstrators in Hong Kong, young and old, represent the city's future. Their hopes are for a peaceful and prosperous life in which they can enjoy the freedoms and rule of law that they were promised. That is not only in the interest of their city; it is in China's interest, too. Hong Kong's future is the main issue; but so, too, is China's honour and its standing in the world.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)