眾新聞 Logo
眾新聞 CitizenNews
眾聞

彭定康:梁天琦案引《公安條例》違反國際公約


前港督彭定康談《公安條例》。資料圖片

Public Order Legislation

《公安條例》

I suppose that attacking people for what they have not said 、rather than for their real arguments could be taken as a sign of both sharp rhetorical practice and of a very weak case.

我認為,因他人沒有講過的話而攻擊人而非其真正論點,這是言辭尖刻又是非常難以服人的事例。

A few months ago, it was suggested, mendaciously, that I had attacked judges in a case involving Joshua Wong and his colleagues.  Now I am accused of attacking the judges in the case of Edward Leung and his sentencing for riot.

幾個月前,有人誑稱我在黃之鋒和他同伴的案件中攻擊法官。現在,我被指控在梁天琦暴動案件的判刑中攻擊法官。

On the first occasion, I criticised an unwise political decision made, for whatever reason, by the Secretary for Justice to review sentences handed down by a magistrate.  After an Appeal Court Ruling, the case was eventually heard by the Court of Final Appeal. The Court reduced the sentence imposed by the Appeal Court.

在第一個情況,我批評律政司司長的不明智政治決定,不知是什麼原因,律政司司長申請覆核裁判官的刑期裁決。上訴法院裁決後,此案最終交終審法院審理。法院減少了上訴法院所判的刑期。

More recently, I criticised not the sentences imposed on Edward Leung (though many have understandably done so), but the existence and use in this case of a Public Order Ordinance which is a direct contravention of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Hong Kong government is allegedly committed under the Basic Law.

到了最近,我所批評的不是判處梁天琦的刑期(儘管許多人是可以理解地這樣做),而是現存及在該案引用的《公安條例》。這是直接違反《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》,這亦是香港政府聲稱在《基本法》之下所實施。

The history is instructive.  In 1967, the so-called Cultural Revolution riots led to over fifty deaths (including children, journalists and police officers) and several bombings.  The then government pursued emergency public order legislation to cope with the violence which was encouraged by the PRC government and local United Front Communist activists.  There was of course an official enquiry.

歷史是具啟發性的。1967年,所謂的文化大革命暴動導致超過50人死亡(包括兒童,新聞工作者和警察)以及數次炸彈爆炸。 當時的政府推行緊急公安條例立法,以應付中國政府和本地的共產陣營鼓勵的暴力。 這當然有官方諮詢。

I am not aware of cases where this legislation was used later than this by the colonial government, but the law was amended several times (for example in 1980, 1986 and 1991.  In the mid 1990s, as I wrote in a book in 1998 ‘East and West’ – “after months of attempting fruitlessly to get their agreement to our major legislative proposals for bringing Hong Kong’s civil liberties legislation into line with the International Covenant and the Bill of Rights, we went ahead unilaterally with our bills. We had promised to do this, and I did not want Britain to be in the position of having to stand by after 1997 while old and unsatisfactory colonial legislation was used by the government to restrict the civil liberties of Hong Kongers”.  The incoming government, egged on by Beijing, scrapped these changes drawing widespread criticism for what they proposed instead and denying that their new rules would be used in contravention of the UN Convenant.  We see what is now happening.

我不知道殖民地政府之後有關此一法例的使用情況,但法律數次修改(如:1980年、1986年和1991年)。1990年代中期,正如我在1998年的書《東方與西方-彭定康治港經驗》所說的-「經過幾個月嘗試爭取他們同意我們提出、讓香港公民自由法例符合《國際公約與人權法案》的主要建議徒勞無功後,我們單方面推行了我們的法案。我們之前承諾要做到這一點,我不想英國在1997年後,當政府用老舊欠佳的殖民地立法限制港人的公民自由時,英國到時處於一個有所準備的情況」。下一任政府,在北京慫恿下廢除這些改變,導致他們提出的建議遭到狠批,否認其新法例是違反《聯合國公約》。 我們正看着這些事在發生。

My position is exactly the same as that of the UN Human Rights Committee which said in its report on Hong Kong in 2013 – “The Committee is concerned about (a) the application in practice of certain terms contained in the Public Order Ordinance, inter alia, ‘disorder in public places’ or ‘unlawful assembly’, which may facilitate excessive restrictions to the Covenant rights, (b) increasing numbers of arrests of and prosecutions against demonstrators; and (c) the use of camera and video-recording by police during demonstrations”.

我的立場與聯合國人權理事會於2013年有關香港的報告所說的完全相同 -「委員會關注(一)在實踐應用公安條例某些條款,特別是 「公眾地方內擾亂秩序」或「非法集會」,這可能會促使過度限制《公約》權利。(二)對示威者的逮捕和起訴數量的增加;和(三)示威期間警察使用攝影機和錄像。

My own views are identical to these.  The Hong Kong government should explain why it does not abide by the UN Convention. It is no wonder that many fear that the next step will be to introduce legislation on subversion.

我的看法與這幾點相同。香港政府應該解釋為甚麼不遵守《聯合國公約》。對許多人來說,對香港政府下一步將會引入顛覆罪的擔心並不為奇。

Three final thoughts.

最後三個想法。

First, I would take lectures on the Rule of Law more seriously if they came from someone who had criticised the abduction of people in Hong Kong by Beijing security officials in flagrant breach of the law and of Hong Kong’s autonomy.

首先,如果有人批評北京公安人員在香港綁架人質的行為是公然違反法律和香港自治,我會認真地上這些人的法治課。

Secondly, who was it who – like the ‘People’s Daily’ – condemned the impartiality of the judicial system (and the presence in Hong Kong’s courts of non-Chinese judges) after the sentencing of seven police officers who assaulted a campaigner for democracy. This was not done by human rights groups or Hong Kong’s millions of friends around the world.

其次,就像《人民日報》那樣,誰在七名警察毆打民主運動參與者的案件審理後,譴責司法系統的公正性(以及現時在香港法院的非中國籍法官)。這不是人權團體或香港在全球各地數以百萬朋友做的。

Third, if there is no nervousness in Hong Kong about the squeeze on local autonomy and the undermining of basic freedoms, why do so many of Hong Kong’s most respected older and younger citizens tell a different story, and what accounts for current views on emigration from Hong Kong.

第三,如果香港沒有對收緊地方自治和削弱基本自由感到擔憂,為甚麼這麼多香港最受尊敬的老人和年輕人講的是另一回事?以及最近對於移民的看法?

I still believe in Hong Kong and its future under the Rule of Law.  Presumably the government wishes to demonstrate that it shares my view.  If so, it should act and speak to make this clear.  This would help secure its often avowed intention of securing Hong Kong as a hub for the Rule of Law in Asia.

我仍然相信香港以及她在法治之下的未來。 也許,政府希望顯示贊同我的看法。 如是,政府應該採取行動並表態澄清。這將有助香港保證它經常信誓旦旦指香港是亞洲法治中心的說法。


請加入成為眾新聞的月費訂戶,長期支持我們的工作。所有訂戶都可以收到我們的「每周時事」通訊 。

月費訂戶網址:hkcnews.com/aboutus/#subscribe