眾新聞 Logo
眾新聞 CitizenNews
眾說

港大校友關注組就法律系副教授戴耀廷的判刑發起聯署聲明


因應香港大學法律系副教授戴耀廷先生被判入獄事件,港大校友關注組今天作出以下聯署聲明,同時發起聯署行動。是次發起共同聲明及聯署的31名港大校友,來自不同學系,畢業於不同年代,但有着共同訴求,就是要求香港大學能維護院校自主,及秉持公平的原則,處理戴耀廷教授事件。

關注組現積極呼籲香港大學所有畢業生,以及港大現任教職員和公眾共同參與聯署。港大畢業生的具名聯署將連同本聲明內容在五月上旬於報章上刊登廣告,希望聯署的港大畢業生踴躍捐款,以支付廣告費用。

聯署連結──http://bit.ly/2PDUzWR

戴耀廷本周一(29日)離開茘枝角收柙所登上囚車,轉往石壁監獄服刑。美聯社

以下為港大校友關注組的聯署聲明:

香港大學法律系副教授戴耀廷先生因發動「愛與和平佔領中環運動」,於本年4月24日,被判入獄16個月。我們留意到一些針對戴教授的個別人士和團體窮追猛打,要求香港大學立即革除戴教授的教席。我們認為該等言論對戴教授極不公平,希望校方恪守公平公正的原則處理此事。

港大多年來本著「明德格物」的校訓為香港培育不少關心社會的人才,身為研究憲制發展的學者,戴教授並非安逸地躲在象牙塔內,而是身體力行,推動政制民主化,鼓勵公民理性商討公共事務。他亦明確指出,法治精神,並不是狹隘的「有法必依」,而是廣義的「以法達義」。當真正普及而平等的選舉遙遙無期,而對話的路亦走到盡頭之時,戴教授提出「公民抗命」,激勵公民共同追求公義,而他本人甘願為此付出代價。由始至終,戴教授推動的,是一場和平、呼喚良知的運動。社會上或許有人不認同戴教授的理念和爭取民主的策略,然而,他的品格和犧牲精神,有目共睹。陳仲衡法官在判刑時也指出,戴教授發動佔中,並非基於貪婪、慾望、憤怒或金錢回報等動機。

故此我們懇請校方在處理戴教授事件時,考慮以下各點:

1. 戴教授是因為推動公民抗命而身陷囹圄,與一般因為行為偏差而被判刑的個案,本質上有很大分別,而戴教授多年來在社會上不遺餘力去推動基本法及人權方面的公民教育(2001年因此而獲特區政府頒授榮譽勳章),在校內亦作出不少貢獻(他在2000年至2008年擔任港大的法律學院副院長),若戴教授因此而被辭退,大學將很容易被視為屈服於校外的政治勢力,嚴重影響港大的院校自主。

2. 法院的判決,並不是案件的終結,戴教授已表示將就控罪提出上訴,上述控罪將來亦有被推翻的可能,從程序公義的原則來看,校方在現階段或所有法律程序的終結前根本沒有理據去啟動任何終止戴教授教席程序。

關注組及我們希望校方能本著維護院校自主的基礎去抗衡校外無理的壓力,並按照上述原則去處理戴教授教席的事宜。

發起人/ initiators:
1. 葉建源 BA 1984 (港大校友關注組召集人)
2. 麥東榮 BA 1988 (港大校友關注組副召集人)
3. 林鉅成 MBBS 1962
4. 吳靄儀 BA 1969
5. 吳錦祥 MBBS 1972
6. 程 翔 BSoSc 1973
7. 何俊仁 LLB 1974
8. 楊 森 BSocSc 1974
9. 余若薇 LLB 1975
10. 李卓人 BSc (Eng) 1978
11. 馮可立 MSW 1978
12. 李澤敏 BSc(Eng) 1979
13. 許天福 B.A. 1980
14. 李永達 BSc 1980
15. 梁家傑 LLB 1982
16. 歐耀佳 MBBS 1983
17. 趙潔儀 BSocSc 1984
18. 賴振鴻 BSc (Eng) 1985
19. 廖振華 BSc (Eng) 1985
20. 涂謹申 LLB 1985
21. 郭家麒 MBBS 1985
22. 吳永輝 MSc 1991
23. 張銳輝 BSocSc 1992
24. 王振星 BEng 1998
25. 鄧徐中 BSW 1998
26. 黃瑞紅 LLB 1999
27. 陳敬慈 BBA 2000
28. 陳家健 BA 2001
29. 張韻琪 BSocSc 2001
30. 黃偉國 PhD 2007
31. 袁慧妍 BJ 2010

****************
HKU Alumni Concern Group's Statement

On 24 April 2019, Benny Tai Yiu-ting, an associate professor of law at the University of Hong Kong (HKU), was sentenced to 16 months in jail for his leading role in the "Occupy Central Campaign". It has come to our attention that some individuals and groups have called on HKU to terminate Professor Tai's tenured teaching position immediately. Those allegations made against Professor Tai are grossly unfair and we urge HKU to deal with the matter in a fair and even-handed manner.

Over the past century, so many talents with social awareness have been nurtured with the wisdom and virtue that the HKU motto—"sapientia et virtus" invokes. Professor Tai, who specializes in constitutional law, has never lived in an ivory tower, but practices what he preaches. He has been actively promoting constitutional democracy and engaging citizens in rational discussion on public policies. Rule of Law, as Professor Tai has pointed out clearly, should not be interpreted in a narrow sense as "rule according to law", but "justice through law" in its broadest sense. When the door to genuine universal suffrage and open dialogue was closed, Professor Tai initiated "Civil Disobedience" movement to inspire the public to pursue justice. He is also willing to making self-sacrifice for his conviction. The pro-democracy movement Professor Tai initiated was all the way driven by conscience, with peace and self-sacrificing love emphasized in his manifesto. As Judge Johnny Chan Jong-heng noted, the goal of the protests were not motivated by "greed, lust, anger, or monetary reward".

We therefore urge HKU to consider the following in deliberating Professor Tai's case:

1. Professor Tai was sent to prison as a result of civil disobedience. There is a fundamental difference between its nature and that of ordinary criminal offences. Professor Tai has been a strong advocate of civic education, especially on the Basic Law and human rights (he was awarded the Medal of Honor in 2001), and he has made significant contribution to HKU (he was the Associate Dean of the Faculty of Law from 2000 to 2008). If he is dismissed due to such a controversy, HKU will be seen as bowing to external political pressures and threaten its institutional autonomy.

2. The verdict delivered by the Court does not mark the end of the case. Since Professor Tai would be appealing against both his conviction and sentence, the Court's decision may be overturned. Following the principles of procedural justice, HKU has no ground to trigger a disciplinary inquiry at this stage.

It is HKU alumni's wish that the University would safeguard its autonomy from undue outside pressure, and apply the above principles when handling Professor Tai's case.

【HKU Alumni Concern Group】


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