(http://www.epochtimes.com)
【大纪元12月23日讯】大纪元驻英国记者秦川12月22日电/2002年12月17日﹐新唐人电视台记者就香港23条立法采访了英国伦敦政经学院(LSE)国际关系系的著名中国问题专家麦克尔‧雅胡达教授(Professor Michael Yahuda)。雅胡达教授对中国事务的发言在欧洲具有重大影响力。雅胡达也是44名联署反对23条立法的国际知名学者之一。以下是采访全文。
问﹕雅胡达教授﹐23条立法的背景是什么﹖
答﹕这要从中英关于香港问题的谈判说起﹐尤其是天安门事件以后有关制订基本法的讨论。北京说它对英国治下的香港法律中有关安全的规定感到不能满意﹐所以中英双方无法达成协议。最终双方同意由香港政府自行制订法律以针对叛国﹑煽动等安全问题。香港回归中国以后﹐因为这条法律争议很大﹐董建华政府在第一个任期中没有提出这个问题。但中国政府要求港府在第二个任期内立法。所以这个问题就在现在这个时候被提出来了。
问﹕您认为这条立法针对某些特定团体吗﹖
答﹕我不认为它是针对特定团体的。我认为23条立法一事实际上是大陆提出来的。他们当时担心一些团体会以香港为基地﹐而给中国带来一些北京不喜欢的影响。比如说﹐香港有些团体在1989年天安门事件中支持学生﹐北京对此大为光火。所以我认为他们当时要立法以对此进行制止。除此之外﹐北京还很担心香港会被外国政府和组织利用来对中国进行间谍或其他活动。结果是﹐他们用了一种非常宽泛的手法﹐最终会威胁香港现行法律中对信息自由和结社自由的保障。
问﹕我注意到您与其他各国学者一起联署了一封反对23条立法的信件。您为什么要反对这个立法呢﹖
答﹕因为我觉得23条会损害香港。首先﹐它会限制信息的自由流动。它还会使人们懮心忡忡﹐不知道他们能说什么﹐能做什么﹐能与什么人交往。因此﹐它会加重香港媒体及学界的自我检察﹐加深大陆式政治制度对香港的影响﹐而且会逐渐侵蚀香港的现行制度。最终﹐它会使整个“一国两制”的概念变得没有什么价值。这不尽对香港人民和香港的国际经济地位造成损害﹐对中国本身也是很有害处的。
问﹕您认为对中国本身的害处是什么呢﹖
答﹕国际上将看到﹐中国不能遵守其保持香港现存制度及高度自治的承诺。最终结果将是﹐国际性的公司将认为香港不再是建立地区总部的最理想地点﹐而有可能另寻他处。所以﹐如果香港变成一个普通的中国城市﹐尽管短期内北京会认为有好处﹐但我认为这实际上不仅将损害中国的可信度﹐也会对中国的经济造成伤害。
问﹕学术界为什么对此立法如此担懮﹖
答﹕因为学术界依赖于思想和信息的自由流动。尽管我们只看到了咨询文件﹐而没有看到任何具体条文﹐建议的立法似乎是以一种宽泛﹑不具体的方式处理某些问题。它可以把很多东西订为国家机密﹐它允许警方或其他安全机构对他们认为有可能持有中央不希望他们拥有的信息的个人或团体进行毫无限制的搜查。其次﹐在决定是否威胁国家安全时﹐该法律只以大陆当局所说为准。大陆当局这样做只是为了政治上的方便。他们讲“依法治国”﹐但在大陆实际上是“以法治国”﹐也就是说领导人们用法律来达到他们自己的政治目的﹐而他们不认为他们自己应该受法律限制。因此﹐在中国﹐法律不像在香港那样受尊重。最后﹐香港的法律制度和大陆的制度很不同。香港法律是以英美制的普通法为基础的﹐而大陆是采用欧陆法系。但这次建议的法案好像根本没有考虑两种法律制度的区别。这就是为什么你会看到香港的主要职业团体关注这一事件﹐并反对立法﹔香港的银行界﹐包括国际银行家﹐都反对这一立法。学界人士和新闻界的记者组织等也反对立法。支持立法的那些人回应说﹐这些人都是“不爱国”的﹐并试图把这个问题说成是一个爱国心的问题。这当然不是﹗这也是一个令人担懮的因素。
问﹕从国际关系的角度来说﹐23条立法将对香港附近地区的国际关系有什么影响﹖
答﹕首先﹐我们还没有看到法律条文﹐也没有看到草案。我们看到的只是所谓咨询文件﹐而这个文件从很多方面来讲都是模糊不清的。当局说他们要进行公众咨询﹐也会考虑公众的意见。所以﹐当法律条文出台时﹐很有可能并不像很多人以咨询文件为依据而担心的那样坏。但是﹐如果人们最害怕的事情成为事实﹐那么这将意味着﹐亚洲最后一片拥有完全的新闻自由﹐真正的学术自由﹐真正能够达到信息自由流通的土地将不复存在。那对香港显然是有害的﹐但同时它对整个地区都会造成不利影响。
问﹕这会对两岸关系造成什么影响呢﹖
答﹕它将意味着﹐台湾人将会觉得他们摈弃“一国两制”的主张是正确的﹐因为实际上连北京自己都不尊重“一国两制”的精神。
问﹕您对英国及其他西方国家政府至今为止对此事的反应是否满意﹖
答﹕有趣的是﹐英国驻香港总领事在英国政府的支持下﹐已经就此问题提出了明确的反对意见。美国政府也对此表示了关注。他们还没有强烈地表示反对﹐因为目前他们看到的只是咨询文件。所以到目前为止还没有什么强烈的反应。但是我想﹐这两个在香港有特殊利益的主要政府已经公开表示关注﹐这本身就说明﹐如果香港继续这样走下去﹐香港不仅会一无所得﹐还会大受损失。
问﹕您对香港人民和其他海外华人的反应有何看法﹖
答﹕世界其他地方的华人对此并不能说非常关心。但就香港人而言﹐就像我刚才讲的﹐律师工会及其他职业团体纷纷反对﹐还有大规模的游行﹐上街游行的人数之多﹐令组织者都感到吃惊。显然﹐香港人民对此非常关心。有一种观点认为﹐香港人只关心物质上的东西﹐只关心经济﹐只关心他们有多少钱。但我认为﹐从他们对23条的反应上来看﹐他们关心的不只是这些。我认为﹐这也反映出民众对董建华政府影响香港未来的总体施政方向有很深的担懮。我想﹐正像多次民意调查显示的那样﹐董建华及其政府的声望已经受到了损失。当他们1997年刚上台的时候﹐支持率是很高的。但他们逐渐地失去了民众的支持。现在几乎没有什么人支持他们了。
问﹕您认为香港人民和其他关心香港的人士能否制止港府立法﹖
答﹕我想﹐就目前而言﹐立法会的多数议员不管特首想干什么﹐都会支持他﹐因为一半甚至更多的议员属于“功能团体”而非地方公民直选﹐所以反映“亲中”立场。我认为﹐如果他们继续这样下去﹐将会深化香港的问题。实际上﹐香港需要这样一个政府﹐能够给人民注入活力﹐能够给民众展示一个未来的远景﹐让他们知道他们会一直享有高度的自治﹐能够做自己命运的主人。香港需要的不是渐渐侵蚀现有的民主﹐而是扩展民主的范围。至今为止﹐董建华政府一直在缩减香港有限的民主权利﹐并把他们的权力建筑在一个很小的特权精英阶层上。他们所需要做的是扩大香港政府的社会基础。◇
英文新闻稿
=================
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)
