(http://www.epochtimes.com)
【大紀元12月23日訊】大紀元駐英國記者秦川12月22日電/2002年12月17日﹐新唐人電視臺記者就香港23條立法採訪了英國倫敦政經學院(LSE)國際關係系的著名中國問題專家麥克爾‧雅胡達教授(Professor Michael Yahuda)。雅胡達教授對中國事務的發言在歐洲具有重大影響力。雅胡達也是44名聯署反對23條立法的國際知名學者之一。以下是採訪全文。
問﹕雅胡達教授﹐23條立法的背景是甚麼﹖
答﹕這要從中英關於香港問題的談判說起﹐尤其是天安門事件以後有關制訂基本法的討論。北京說它對英國治下的香港法律中有關安全的規定感到不能滿意﹐所以中英雙方無法達成協議。最終雙方同意由香港政府自行制訂法律以針對叛國﹑煽動等安全問題。香港回歸中國以後﹐因為這條法律爭議很大﹐董建華政府在第一個任期中沒有提出這個問題。但中國政府要求港府在第二個任期內立法。所以這個問題就在現在這個時候被提出來了。
問﹕您認為這條立法針對某些特定團體嗎﹖
答﹕我不認為它是針對特定團體的。我認為23條立法一事實際上是大陸提出來的。他們當時擔心一些團體會以香港為基地﹐而給中國帶來一些北京不喜歡的影響。比如說﹐香港有些團體在1989年天安門事件中支持學生﹐北京對此大為光火。所以我認為他們當時要立法以對此進行制止。除此之外﹐北京還很擔心香港會被外國政府和組織利用來對中國進行間諜或其他活動。結果是﹐他們用了一種非常寬泛的手法﹐最終會威脅香港現行法律中對信息自由和結社自由的保障。
問﹕我注意到您與其他各國學者一起聯署了一封反對23條立法的信件。您為甚麼要反對這個立法呢﹖
答﹕因為我覺得23條會損害香港。首先﹐它會限制信息的自由流動。它還會使人們懮心忡忡﹐不知道他們能說甚麼﹐能做甚麼﹐能與甚麼人交往。因此﹐它會加重香港媒體及學界的自我檢察﹐加深大陸式政治制度對香港的影響﹐而且會逐漸侵蝕香港的現行制度。最終﹐它會使整個「一國兩制」的概念變得沒有甚麼價值。這不儘對香港人民和香港的國際經濟地位造成損害﹐對中國本身也是很有害處的。
問﹕您認為對中國本身的害處是甚麼呢﹖
答﹕國際上將看到﹐中國不能遵守其保持香港現存制度及高度自治的承諾。最終結果將是﹐國際性的公司將認為香港不再是建立地區總部的最理想地點﹐而有可能另尋他處。所以﹐如果香港變成一個普通的中國城市﹐儘管短期內北京會認為有好處﹐但我認為這實際上不僅將損害中國的可信度﹐也會對中國的經濟造成傷害。
問﹕學術界為甚麼對此立法如此擔懮﹖
答﹕因為學術界依賴於思想和信息的自由流動。儘管我們只看到了咨詢文件﹐而沒有看到任何具體條文﹐建議的立法似乎是以一種寬泛﹑不具體的方式處理某些問題。它可以把很多東西訂為國家機密﹐它允許警方或其他安全機構對他們認為有可能持有中央不希望他們擁有的信息的個人或團體進行毫無限制的搜查。其次﹐在決定是否威脅國家安全時﹐該法律只以大陸當局所說為準。大陸當局這樣做只是為了政治上的方便。他們講「依法治國」﹐但在大陸實際上是「以法治國」﹐也就是說領導人們用法律來達到他們自己的政治目的﹐而他們不認為他們自己應該受法律限制。因此﹐在中國﹐法律不像在香港那樣受尊重。最後﹐香港的法律制度和大陸的制度很不同。香港法律是以英美制的普通法為基礎的﹐而大陸是採用歐陸法系。但這次建議的法案好像根本沒有考慮兩種法律制度的區別。這就是為甚麼你會看到香港的主要職業團體關注這一事件﹐並反對立法﹔香港的銀行界﹐包括國際銀行家﹐都反對這一立法。學界人士和新聞界的記者組織等也反對立法。支持立法的那些人回應說﹐這些人都是「不愛國」的﹐並試圖把這個問題說成是一個愛國心的問題。這當然不是﹗這也是一個令人擔懮的因素。
問﹕從國際關係的角度來說﹐23條立法將對香港附近地區的國際關係有甚麼影響﹖
答﹕首先﹐我們還沒有看到法律條文﹐也沒有看到草案。我們看到的只是所謂咨詢文件﹐而這個文件從很多方面來講都是模糊不清的。當局說他們要進行公眾咨詢﹐也會考慮公眾的意見。所以﹐當法律條文出臺時﹐很有可能並不像很多人以咨詢文件為依據而擔心的那樣壞。但是﹐如果人們最害怕的事情成為事實﹐那麼這將意味著﹐亞洲最後一片擁有完全的新聞自由﹐真正的學術自由﹐真正能夠達到信息自由流通的土地將不復存在。那對香港顯然是有害的﹐但同時它對整個地區都會造成不利影響。
問﹕這會對兩岸關係造成甚麼影響呢﹖
答﹕它將意味著﹐台灣人將會覺得他們擯棄「一國兩制」的主張是正確的﹐因為實際上連北京自己都不尊重「一國兩制」的精神。
問﹕您對英國及其他西方國家政府至今為止對此事的反應是否滿意﹖
答﹕有趣的是﹐英國駐香港總領事在英國政府的支持下﹐已經就此問題提出了明確的反對意見。美國政府也對此表示了關注。他們還沒有強烈地表示反對﹐因為目前他們看到的只是咨詢文件。所以到目前為止還沒有甚麼強烈的反應。但是我想﹐這兩個在香港有特殊利益的主要政府已經公開表示關注﹐這本身就說明﹐如果香港繼續這樣走下去﹐香港不僅會一無所得﹐還會大受損失。
問﹕您對香港人民和其他海外華人的反應有何看法﹖
答﹕世界其他地方的華人對此並不能說非常關心。但就香港人而言﹐就像我剛才講的﹐律師工會及其他職業團體紛紛反對﹐還有大規模的遊行﹐上街遊行的人數之多﹐令組織者都感到吃驚。顯然﹐香港人民對此非常關心。有一種觀點認為﹐香港人只關心物質上的東西﹐只關心經濟﹐只關心他們有多少錢。但我認為﹐從他們對23條的反應上來看﹐他們關心的不只是這些。我認為﹐這也反映出民眾對董建華政府影響香港未來的總體施政方向有很深的擔懮。我想﹐正像多次民意調查顯示的那樣﹐董建華及其政府的聲望已經受到了損失。當他們1997年剛上臺的時候﹐支持率是很高的。但他們逐漸地失去了民眾的支持。現在幾乎沒有甚麼人支持他們了。
問﹕您認為香港人民和其他關心香港的人士能否制止港府立法﹖
答﹕我想﹐就目前而言﹐立法會的多數議員不管特首想幹甚麼﹐都會支持他﹐因為一半甚至更多的議員屬于「功能團體」而非地方公民直選﹐所以反映「親中」立場。我認為﹐如果他們繼續這樣下去﹐將會深化香港的問題。實際上﹐香港需要這樣一個政府﹐能夠給人民注入活力﹐能夠給民眾展示一個未來的遠景﹐讓他們知道他們會一直享有高度的自治﹐能夠做自己命運的主人。香港需要的不是漸漸侵蝕現有的民主﹐而是擴展民主的範圍。至今為止﹐董建華政府一直在縮減香港有限的民主權利﹐並把他們的權力建築在一個很小的特權精英階層上。他們所需要做的是擴大香港政府的社會基礎。◇
英文新聞稿
=================
RENOWNED BRITISH SINOLOGIST TALKS ABOUT ARTICLE 23
On 17th December, 2002, New Tang Dynasty TV interviewed Professor Michael Yahuda, a renowned China expert in the London School of Economics and Political Science, on the proposed legislation on Article 23 in Hong Kong. Professor Yahuda is one of the 44 scholars who wrote to the Chinese government in opposition to this legislation.
Below is the whole text of the interview.
Professor Yahuda, what’s the background of this Article 23 legislation?
Well, it goes back to the negotiations between Britain and China, especially in the development of the Basic Law after the Tiananmen events. Beijing said it was not satisfied with the provisions about security that existed in the legislation that the British had had in Hong Kong. The British and the Chinese were unable to reach an agreement about this. So then it was agreed that Hong Kong would enact legislation about treason, sedition, security and so on. Once Hong Kong had become part of China again, because it was so contentious, the Tung Cheehwa administration did not bring this in in their first term of office. But then the Chinese government wanted it brought in in their second term. That is why it has been brought in at this time.
Do you they are targeting any specific groups?
I don’t think it’s targeted at specific groups. I think the initiative of this really comes from the mainland. Their concern used to be about the idea that Hong Kong could be a base for groups operating there that would have an influence on China that Beijing did not like. They were, for example, very upset about the fact that there were organisations in Hong Kong that supported the students during the Tiananmen demonstrations. So I think they wanted the legislation to stop that. In addition to that, Beijing had been very concerned that Hong Kong might be a base from which foreign governments and different organisations could carry out espionage and other activities in China. And the results have been that they used a very broad, brush approach that in the end endangers the existing laws about freedom of information, freedom of association in Hong Kong.
I noticed that you signed a petition addressed to the President of China against the Article 23 legislation. Why are you opposed to this legislation?
Because I think it will damage Hong Kong. Because it will restrict, first of all, the free flow of information. It will also make people feel very concerned about what they can say, what they can write, and with whom they can associate. And therefore it will intensify the issue of self-censorship within Hong Kong. It will also increase the influence of the mainland-style of politics within Hong Kong, and will gradually erode the Hong Kong system. And it will in the end diminish the value of the whole concept of “one country, two systems”. Not only will this be damaging to the people of Hong Kong and the standing of Hong Kong economically in the world, but I think it will also be damaging to China itself.
What do you think will be the negative effects on China?
Because China will be shown to be unable to honour its promise of maintaining a separate system within Hong Kong, allowing it a high degree of autonomy. The result will be that, in the end, international companies will feel there are better places for them to establish their regional headquarters rather than Hong Kong. So, if Hong Kong were to become just another kind of Chinese city, then although in the short term that may be seen as advantageous to Beijing, I think really this will be damaging both to Beijing’s credibility and to its economy.
Why is the academic community so worried about this legislation?
Because academic communities depend on the free flow of ideas, free flow of information. And the proposed legislation, although we have not seen the details of it and we’ve only seen the consultative document, casts certain issues in such a broad, non-specific sort of way that it could define many things as state secrets, it allows police or other security organisations unfettered access to any organisations or any person that they deem has broken or suspected of having access to information that the state authorities feel they shouldn’t have. Secondly, it seeks to use the mainland as a sole source for defining who is or is not subversive. Mainland authorities do so really for political convenience. They talk about rule of law, but in fact in the mainland you have rule by law. That is to say the leaders use the law for their own political purposes. They do not feel that they themselves are limited by law. And so, as a result, the law in China is not as respected as the law in Hong Knog. Finally, Hong Kong has a system of law which is very different form the mainland. It’s based on the common law, as oppposed to the continental system from which the mainland has borrowed. And no account seems to be given to the way in which the two legal systems differ. So that is why you have the main professional bodies concerned with the law in Hong Kong who are objecting to this. That is why you find bankers in Hong Kong, international bankers as well, objecting to this. That is why you also have academics objecting to it, you also have the organisation of journalists objecting to it. The response by those who support this proposed legislation is to call all these people “unpatriotic”, and to argue this is an issue of patriotism. And this is not. So that is a further disturbing element.
From the perspective of international relations, what effect would the proposed legislation have for the international relations in that region?
First of all, we haven’t seen the legislation. We haven’t seen the draft bill. All we’ve seen is what they call a consultative document, which is vague in many respects. The authorities say that they will consult. They will take into account what has been said. So it may very well be that, when the legislation is duly presented, it may not be as bad as some people fear that has come about through the consultative document that has been issued. But if the worst fear should be realised, what it would mean is that the last place where the press in free, the last place where there is true academic freedom, the last place where information can circulate freely in Asia will have gone. That will be obviously to the detriment of Hong Kong, but it will also be to the detriment of the region as a whole.
What will be the prospects of the cross-strait relationship?
What it would mean is that people in Taiwan will feel that they were right to reject the idea of “one country, two systems”, because Beijing is not really willing to respect it.
Are you satisfied with the response from the British government and other Western governments regarding this issue so far?
Well it is very interesting that the Consul General in Hong Kong raised specific objections that were supported by the government here in doing so. And the American government has also raised its concerns. They haven’t raised severe objections, because at the present stage, all they had is the consultative document. So nothing has yet happened. But nevertheless the fact that these two major governments with special interests in Hong Kong have publicly shown their concern, I think, is indicative in itself of the fact that Hong Kong has nothing to gain and a great deal to lose by going down this path.
What do you think of the response from Hong Kong people and the rest of the Chinese people around the world?
The Chinese people around the world are not greatly concerned with this. But as to people in Hong Kong, as I mentioned before, there have been objections from profesional groups, lawyers and others; there have been demonstrations. And the number of people who came out on the demonstrations surprised even the organisers. So people in Hong Kong obviously feel very concerned about this. There is a view that some of our people of Hong Kong only care about mateirals matters, only care about the eoncomy, and only care about how much money they have. But I think this shows that they care more than that. I think it also reflects a deeper concern about the general direction in which the Tung Cheehwa administration has been carrying Hong Kong. I think, as the opinion polls have been showing, that the popularity of Tung Cheehwa and his administration has suffered. When it first came in back in 1997, it had very high ratings. But they gradually lost them. And now it has all timed out.
Do you think the people of Hong Kong and other people who are worried about this situation will be able to prevent the Hong Kong government from legislating on Article 23? What else do you think could be done to do that?
I think, as things stand, there is a majority in the legislature that will support the Chief Executive more or less in anything he wants to do, because half or more than half of the legislators are from functional constituencies, and reflect what is sometimes called pro-China points of view. I think that, if they were to carry on in this way, I think it would deepen the problems of Hong Kong. Hong Kong really needs a government that will be able to energise its people, set out for them some sort of vision for the future in which they can recognise that they will have a high degree of autonomy and that they can be masters of their own fate. This requires not continual erosion of such democracy that exists there, but rather the enlargement of the scope of the democracy. So far the Tung Cheehwa administration has narrowed such limited democrary that exist there, and they have based their rule on a rather small elite. They will need to widen the social base on which the government of Hong Kong rests.
(http://www.dajiyuan.com)
