關於 陳情令china ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

1125新加坡聯合早報

*【美國總務署批准啟動政權移交程式 過渡期間拜登團隊可用聯邦資源】
對於交接程式終於啟動，拜登過渡團隊表示歡迎。拜登團隊發表聲明說，這項決定將允許他們開始著手應對國家面對的重大挑戰，包括控制冠病疫情和促使經濟早日復甦。聯邦總務署署長墨菲（Emily Murphy）當天致信候任總統拜登，表示政權移交程式可以正式啟動。有關程式啟動後，拜登團隊接下來將可以在過渡期間使用聯邦資源和服務。拜登要到明年1月20日才正式就任總統。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/world/story20201125-1103649

*【拜登與歐盟北約領袖通電話 承諾重振美與跨大西洋關係】
美國當選總統拜登同歐盟和北約領袖通電話，試圖修復支離破碎的跨大西洋關係。他強調了重振跨大西洋關係的承諾，以及和歐洲夥伴合作的重要性，一改現任總統川普對歐盟的敵視態度。此舉獲得正面回應，歐洲理事會主席米歇爾呼籲“重建強大的歐盟與美國聯盟”，並邀請拜登出席明年的歐盟峰會。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/world/story20201125-1103653

*【拜登：美國準備重返世界領導地位】
美國候任總統拜登說，美國“準備重返世界舞臺領導地位”，並誓言與美國盟友攜手合作。拜登正式公佈他的新外交和國家安全團隊時明確指出，他在1月20日上任之後，美國絕不會奉行“美國優先”民族主義。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/world/story20201125-1103727

*【拜登將提名首位拉美裔國安部長 並委任首位女性國家情報總監】
美國候任總統拜登的過渡團隊宣佈，拜登計畫提名首位拉美裔國土安全部長和首位女性國家情報總監，以及任命首位專責負責氣候的官員。另有金融消息人士說，拜登將提名美聯準會前主席葉倫成為美國首位女財長。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/world/story20201125-1103652

*【兩國外長會談商定 中日商務泡泡本月內啟動】
中國外長王毅昨天與日本外長茂木敏充商定本月內啟動“中日商務泡泡”，攜手應對冠病疫情，推動區域經濟發展。兩人認同，中日關係的穩定是亞太和國際和平之要，必須在推動亞太自貿框架和環境保護工作上加強合作。王毅與茂木敏充會談以經濟合作為主軸。借王毅這次訪日本，日本做出重大宣佈，中國是緊接韓國、新加坡，以及越南之後，與日本達成重啟商務入境協定的國家。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/world/story20201125-1103657

*【分析：受美制裁失去軟體供應 華為市場占比明年或驟降至4％】
華為智慧手機市場份額明年可能驟降至4％，這對今夏出貨量排名領先的華為是斷崖式下降。綜合彭博社和網媒IT之家報導，國際高科技產業研究機構集邦諮詢（TrendForce）的研究人員昨日分析說，華為手機今年會佔據市場的14％，然後降至不到今年份額的三分之一。報導說，美國政府持續對華為採取制裁行動，導致華為失去關鍵軟體、晶片設計和製造夥伴的供應，從而剝奪其技術優勢。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/china/story20201125-1103637

*【美國農業部：中國將再成 美最大農產品出口市場】
美國農業部預計，中國將再度成為美國最大的農產品出口市場，但要兌現中美貿易協定，還需在明年最後三個月進行大量採購。美國農業部發佈報告說，中國從美國購買的農業相關商品預計在明年9月30日達到創紀錄的270億美元，這比8月份的預測多出85億美元，使中國在2018年貿易戰開戰以來，首次再度成為美國最大的農業市場。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/finance/china/story20201125-1103707

*【高盛前銀行家黃宗華要求美國 撤銷涉一馬案受賄洗錢控罪】
美國投資銀行高盛集團（Goldman Sachs）前銀行家黃宗華喊冤，否認跟一個馬來西亞發展有限公司（1MDB）通緝犯劉特佐勾結，並稱自己警告過高盛集團，劉特佐“不值得信任”，勿跟對方做生意。黃宗華（Roger Ng）提呈了一份陳情書，要求美國政府撤銷針對他的受賄洗錢控罪。他坦承，是他首先把劉特佐介紹給銀行，但他說當時“在2009年初，沒有人有理由會知道劉特佐試圖欺詐”。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/world/story20201125-1103650

*【中國批評奧布萊恩 訪越菲言論為製造混亂】
美國國家安全顧問奧布萊恩近日出訪越南及菲律賓期間，呼籲中國停止在南中國海的霸淩行為，並承諾美國將爭取保持印太地區的自由與開放。中國官方則批評奧布萊恩此次到訪，是為在本地區製造混亂。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/china/story20201125-1103639

*【將實現中國航太史四個“首次” 嫦娥五號月球探測器成功發射開展採樣任務】
嫦娥五號是中國嫦娥無人探月工程“繞、落、回”三步規劃的最後一步，將實現中國航太史上的四個“首次”：首次在月球表面自動採樣、首次從月面起飛、首次實現月球軌道無人交會對接，以及首次帶月壤高速再入返回地球。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/china/story20201125-1103636

*【發表《施政報告》 林鄭將提額外200新措施】
香港特首林鄭月娥說，今天將發表的2020年《施政報告》將額外提出200項新措施，並強調報告完全由自己撰寫，而非北京。林鄭月娥說，由於香港公共財政緊絀，因此很多新措施都會透過改革、精簡、協同效應，希望在不耗用更多資源下提供更好的服務。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/china/story20201125-1103641

*【昆達士航空未來只讓已接種冠病疫苗乘客上機】
澳洲昆達士航空公司說，一旦冠病疫苗面世後，它會只讓接種了冠病疫苗的國際航班乘客上機，並稱這將成為航空業常態。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/world/story20201125-1103655

*【澳總理敦促中美給予他國 更大行動空間而非選邊站】
澳洲總理莫里森說，中美之間日益激烈的競爭正在迫使其他國家選邊站，他敦促這兩個超級大國給予其他國家的政府“更大的行動空間”。莫里森向英國智庫“政策交流”發表演講時也說，澳洲在世界舞臺上謀求自身國家利益的舉動被誤解為站在美國一邊對抗中國，事實是他領導的政府將不會在這兩個大國之間做出選擇。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/world/story20201125-1103656

*【反對派今大示威要泰王交出“財權” 6000警力嚴陣以待】
泰國首都曼谷今天預料有大規模反王室示威，保王派也放話要抗衡，當局部署6000名員警嚴陣以待；不過首相巴育表明，不會實施軍法管制來應付眼前示威不斷的局面。泰國反體制團體號召人們今天到曼谷參與示威，要求國王哇集拉隆功交出王室資產管理權。巴育政府三年前頒佈新法，讓泰王得以全權掌控總值數百億美元的王室財富，幾乎全不受民主機制約束。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/sea/story20201125-1103630

*【菲受冠病疫情重創 今年經濟展望下調15個百分點】
冠病疫情重創全球經濟之際，經濟師下調了菲律賓今年的經濟展望。菲國是東南亞冠病疫情最嚴重的國家之一，也是經濟領域遭冠病衝擊最嚴重的東南亞國家。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/sea/story20201125-1103632

*【中德首腦通話 願推動中歐投資協定談判如期完成】
習近平說，當前包括歐洲在內的全球一些地區正面臨第二波冠病疫情考驗，中方願同德方加強疫苗交流合作，推動疫苗作為全球公共產品得到公平分配，特別是讓發展中國家獲益”。 習近平表示，中國正在積極構建新發展格局，堅持擴大內需、擴大開放，這將給德方帶來新機遇；也希望德方和歐方對中國企業保持開放。雙方要堅持相互尊重，把握好對話合作的主導面和互利共贏的主基調。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/china/story20201125-1103754

*【印度禁43款手機應用 多款屬中國阿里系】
中印邊境緊張局勢僵持不下之際，印度新聞局發聲明稱，印度電子和資訊技術部發佈命令禁止43款移動應用程式，其中多款為中國阿里巴巴公司的應用。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/china/story20201125-1103748

*【香港明起將再關閉酒吧夜總會等場所】
香港政府收緊社交距離措施。星期四淩晨起，酒吧及夜總會等要再關閉；餐飲處所宴會人數上限40人，不可多於10台。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/china/story20201125-1103730

*【美疾控中心或很快會縮短隔離天數】
美國疾病控制與傳染病中心（CDC）可能很快宣佈縮短冠病病毒接觸者的隔離天數。目前衛生當局建議冠病接觸者須隔離14天，以遏制病毒傳播。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/world/story20201125-1103750

*【歐盟訂購1.6億劑莫德納冠病疫苗】
在美國製藥商莫德納公司通報其冠病疫苗效能達到94.5%後，歐盟宣佈與莫德納達成協議，訂購1.6億劑莫德納冠病疫苗。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/world/story20201125-1103745

*【法國週末開始鬆綁 餐廳酒吧關至1月20日】
法國總統馬克洪宣佈，法國將在這個週末開始放寬封鎖措施，商店、劇院和電影院將可以在耶誕節前重新開放，人們也將可以同親人一起歡度節日。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/world/story20201125-1103744

*【美初步將向全國發放640萬劑冠病疫苗】
美國食品與藥物管理局（FDA）的“極速行動”冠病疫苗計畫負責人向記者表示，各州和其他司法管轄區已在本月20日獲知疫苗數量，以方便它們開始計畫如何最好地把首批疫苗分配給高風險群體。FDA官員也重申，在今年年底之前，全國預計將取得4000萬劑冠病疫苗。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/world/story20201125-1103729

*【美股週二收高 道指首次突破3萬點】
美股週二（24日）收高，道瓊工業指數漲逾450點，史上首次突破3萬點大關。冠病疫苗上市指日可待的樂觀預期和美國政權過渡進程將正式開始等消息提振了市場情緒，推動美股攀升。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/world/story20201125-1103728

*【牛津團隊“給錯疫苗劑量” 保護力竟激增至90％】
英國牛津大學與藥廠阿斯特捷利康宣佈，其合作開發的冠病疫苗總體藥效為70％，但如果調整接種的疫苗劑量，疫苗有效率則可升高至90％，且不會出現嚴重副作用。阿斯特捷利康透露，研究人員因為疏忽而搞錯疫苗劑量，結果竟誤打誤撞讓保護力大幅上升。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/world/story20201124-1103598

*【俄羅斯冠病疫苗有效率據稱超過95% 價格低於10美元】
俄羅斯冠病疫苗“衛星-V”官方推特24日發佈消息稱，該疫苗的有效率在第一劑接種後的28天達到91.4%，42天超過95%，該結果是基於三期臨床試驗資料的第二次中期結果分析。
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/world/story20201124-1103595

澳洲總理莫里森下令徹查中共滲透政界一事，打蛇隨棍上，麻煩大家再推一次，致函澳洲議員促請國會通過人權法International Human Rights and Corruption (Magnitsky Sanctions) Bill制裁中共。今次鬧大的主要原因，是證據指明中共在澳洲殺叛諜：

//根據澳洲世紀報（The Age）報導，中國情報單位透過陳姓墨爾本商人（Brian Chen），給予澳洲自由黨黨員、墨爾本豪車經銷商趙博（音譯，Bo “Nick” Zhao）100萬澳幣，要他投入議會選舉，趙波1年前向「澳洲安全情報組織」（ASIO）坦承此事。然而，趙波今年3月在墨爾本一間旅店內離奇死亡，目前警方仍未查出趙波的死因。//

這個陳春生野心不小，他的任務是替中共入侵澳洲的藥業竊取機密。初創公司Imunexus在深圳的生物技術比賽中獲得亞軍後，陳春生及其香港公司Prospect Time就在2017年6月接觸這間公司，覬覦它正研發抗體，揭示中國所舉辦的創科大賽就是共諜揀蟀的實驗場。

陳春生先擲1000萬澳元收購股份，再答應提供幾億元研究資金，一間初創怎能不心動？但原來中共的目標不是Imunexus，而是看中這間公司在墨爾本Parkville的生物技術中心的CSIRO大樓設有實驗室，計劃借Imunexus的名義租用側翼整層，以便共諜暢行CSIRO的每一間公司予取予竊。

CSIRO在2013年曾被中國黑客竊取大批機密，花費數千萬澳元升級網絡安全系統，大大增加了中共再入侵的難度，因此陳春生的任務可謂「任重道遠」。然而，他一見澳洲的國安審查官員便露了底，英文爛透，要靠兩個翻譯幫手，而且講不出為甚麼要浪費那麼多錢收購，結果計劃告吹。

澳媒亦踢爆他曾在G20和APEC等政治峰會冒充國際媒體記者，傳媒亦是中共的主要滲透基地，新華社香港分部就是中聯辦的前身，而那些國安人員大多都報稱自己是記者和編輯，進行「聯絡」工作。在匪語，聯絡即是諜務。總部位於香港的中華報業集團官網顯示，陳春生是該公司的「14號新聞工作者」。陳春生之後收買澳洲華裔自由黨人李博，慫恿他競選墨爾本Chisholm區的國會議員。哪知李博年初向ASIO告發，踏上了死路，3月離奇倒斃在汽車旅館。

張曉明曾說：「你們能活着，已顯出中央的包容。」

《悉尼晨鋒報》指陳春生利用一帶一路作掩飾進行間諜工作，他的香港公司Prospect Time International Investments（德鴻國際投資有限公司）與中國兵器工業集團有來往，並做極多國際生意：

//2017年5月，陳春生與泰國前總理英祿、泰國前首相頌猜會面，並與多名政商人士討論合作。隨後，他又前往馬爾代夫，與該國副總統Abdulla Jihad討論一帶一路計劃。2017年7月底，陳春生帶領著一支精英團隊訪問了太平洋島國帕勞，商討價值1.5億澳元的酒店開發項目。2018年5月，他也在菲律賓宣傳基建項目。//

Prospect Time的聯席董事王振海，被指與中共統戰部有關聯，還大打高球外交：

//2018年，王振海被拍到在一場活動當中，向維州州長Daniel Andrews的高級顧問Marty Mei，授予中國商人高爾夫球協會會員資格。在那場活動當中，王振海還被墨爾本華商Tommy Jiang任命為澳洲國際高爾夫球協會主席。《悉尼晨鋒報》報導稱，Tommy Jiang被認為有中國共產黨的支持。//

我還查到這間德鴻國際，在去年12月5日新疆開設分部搞招聘，未知是否涉及關押維人的集中營，僅稱發展一帶一路。現在，澳洲政府已加入剿共，民間亦需要大家造勢，還請大家繼續出手，以香港合縱國際。

作者

以下為寄送澳洲議員陳情書範本：

Date

Your Name
Your Address
Your Suburb State Postcode

Name of MP
Office Address
Office Suburb State Postcode

Dear Sir/Madam

I am a constituent of your electorate. As an Australian and Hong Konger, I am writing to you as I hold grave concerns over the rapidly deteriorating conditions in Hong Kong.

Since the start of June, millions of Hong Konger have marched on the street and conducted largely peaceful demonstrations on many occasions to voice their opposition to the proposed The Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 (known simply as the Extradition Bill) by the Hong Kong Government, which would establish an official extradition mechanism between Hong Kong and China for the first time in history.

The bill has been criticized by the Hong Kong Bar Association as “a step backward” and failing to offer sufficient protections for the accused. The majority of Hong Kong people are in uproar as they harbor deep mistrust towards the Chinese judicial system known for its corruption, disregard for procedural justice, and towing of the official party line.

Oblivious to the depth of animosity, Carrie Lam, the Chief Executive, and the Hong Kong Government ignored the protestors’ demands and ordered the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) to violently crackdown on the protestors. This is what led to the stunning and horrifying footages of police brutality — indiscriminate use of tear gas in crowded residential areas, aiming rubber bullets at the protestors’ face, violently shoving journalists who are just doing their jobs, and arresting seemingly innocent bystanders based on the colour of their clothing or age. To date, over 1200 people have been arrested with many denied the right to be accompanied by their lawyer for unreasonable period of time and subjected to questionable negotiation tactics during their detention.

As the legislative and executive arm of the Hong Kong government show its true allegiance to China and its willingness to sacrifice human rights over economic growth, the people of Hong Kong desperately need assistance from the international community.

What is happening in Hong Kong is of critical importance to Australia. There are currently 100,000 Australian dual citizens currently living in the city. Regardless of their political opinion on the ongoing situation, their safety is at risk due to the disproportionately excessive force and indiscriminate arrests that are being deployed by the HKPF to suppress the protest.

Hong Kong’s instability will negatively impact on Australia’s economy. Hong Kong is one of Australia’s most important trading partner and home to many Australian companies’ regional headquarter in Asia. It also acts as the middleman for many transactions between Chinese and Australian businesses.

The relationship between Hong Kong and Australia are intricate and mutually beneficial. Given the dire situation in Hong Kong, I would like you to consider to following measures to protect the people of Hong Kong, which would ultimately benefit Australia:

1.Introduce the International Human Rights and Corruption (Magnitsky Sanctions) Bill to the parliament. The previous attempt lapsed at the dissolution of parliament at April 11, 2019. The bill is based on precedents from the United States and the United Kingdom and it would give powers to relevant ministers to make Australia a safer place that values universal liberal values.

2.Include human rights protection clauses in the final ratified version of the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and Hong Kong.

3.Consider offering special permanent protection for people from Hong Kong who currently resides or studies in Australia. Many Hong Kongers are highly educated and value western liberal values. This group would be a fine addition to Australia.

4.Vet all visa and immigration applications from Hong Kong and China more thoroughly for the necessity of protecting the integrity of Australia’s national security as some applicants could have active contributed or complicit in the violation of human rights as part of the police force, HKSAR Government, or private companies (for example, Cathay Pacific’s management, which is terminating the contract of staffs whom have expressed sympathy or support towards the protest movement). Recent clashes on university campuses over the Hong Kong protests have also demonstrated that some foreign students neither understand nor value some basic rights we Australians cherish.

I appreciate your time and I look forward to hearing back from you about your position on my proposals.

Yours sincerely,

Your name

黃浩銘：

//法官閣下，我能夠參與雨傘運動，爭取民主，實是毫無悔意，畢生榮幸。我已花了最青春的10年在社會運動上，假若我有80歲，我仍有50年可以與港人同行，繼續奮鬥。要是法官不信，且即管以刑罰來考驗我的意志，試煉我的決心，希望我的戰友們在我囚禁的時候，可以激發愛心，勉勵行善，更加有勇氣和力量作個真誠的人對抗謊言治國的中共政權。

　　「希望在於人民，改變始於抗爭」，唯有透過群眾力量，直接行動，才能改變社會。8年前如是，今日亦如是。但願港人堅定不移，爭取民主，打倒特權，彰顯公義。自由萬歲！民主社會主義萬歲！願公義和慈愛的　主耶穌基督與我同在，與法官先生同在，與香港人同在！//

希望在於人民　改變始於抗爭
—雨傘運動公眾妨擾案陳情書

陳法官仲衡閣下：

　　自2011年你審理只有23歲的我，追問時任特首曾蔭權知否米貴涉擾亂公眾秩序的案件距今已有8年。在命運的安排下，我再次站在你面前，只是當你讀到這封陳情書的時候，我已經不是當年被你宣判無罪釋放的年青人，而是一個準備迎接第三次入獄的積犯。然而，今天我不是尋求你的憐憫，而是希望道明我參與雨傘運動，公民抗命的緣由，讓法官閣下可以從我的動機及行為來給予合理判刑。

　　8年以來，我們的崗位稍有轉變，但香港的變化更大，充滿爭議的各個大白象基建均已落成，更多旅客走訪社區，似是一片繁華景象，但同時，更多窮人住在劏房，更多群眾走上街頭，亦有更多我們愛惜的年青人進入監牢。從前我們認為香港不會發生的事，都一一在這8年間發生了。當我8年前站在你面前那一刻，我們都不會想像得到香港人可被挾持返大陸，亦想像不到原來有一天大陸的執法人員可在香港某地方正當執法，更想像不到中共政府除了透過人大釋法外，還可藉著「一言九鼎」的人大決定，甚至中央公函來決定香港人的前途命運和收緊憲制權利。

爭取民主的本意

　　民主只是口號嗎？當年，我痛罵無視100萬窮人及30萬貧窮長者利益，卻慶祝不知辛亥革命本意的前行政長官曾蔭權，並要求設立全民退休保障，廢除強積金，因此首次被捕被控。但時至今日，香港仍然有過百萬貧窮人口，超過30萬貧窮長者，貧富懸殊及房屋短缺的問題愈加嚴重。2014年，我見過一位75歲的伯伯跪在立法會公聽會向時任勞工及福利局局長張建宗下跪，懇求政府不要拆遷古洞石仔嶺安老院。2019年，我又見到一位67歲執紙皮維生的婆婆在立法會公聽會哭訴難以找工作，現任勞工及福利局局長羅致光竟然叫她找勞工處。為何官員如此冷酷無情？為何我們的意見均未能影響政府施政？歸根結柢，就是因為香港人沒有真正的選擇，喪失本來應有制訂政策及監督的權力！

　　所謂民主，就是人民當家作主。任何施政，應當由人民倡議監督，公義分配，改善公共服務，使得貧者脫貧，富者節約。今日香港，顧全大陸，官商勾結，貧富懸殊，耗資千億的大白象跨境基建接踵而來，但當遇見護士猝死，教師自殺，老人下跪，政府政策就只有小修小補，小恩小惠，試問如何服眾？由1966年蘇守忠、盧麒公民抗命反對天星小輪加價，乃至1967年暴動及1989年中國愛國民主運動，甚至2003年反廿三條大遊行，無不是因政權專政，政策傾斜，分配不公，引致大規模民眾反抗。2014年雨傘運動的起點，亦是如此。

　　多年來，港人爭取民主，為求有公義分配，有尊嚴生活，有自主空間，但我們得到的是甚麼？1984年，中英兩國簽署《聯合聲明》前夕，前中共總書記趙紫陽曾回覆香港大學學生會要求「民主治港，普選特首」的訴求，清楚承諾「你們所說的『民主治港』是理所當然的」。當時，不少港人信以為真，誤以為回歸之後可得民主，但自1989年六四血腥鎮壓及2003年50萬人反對《廿三條》立法大遊行後，中共圖窮匕現，在2004年透過人大釋法收緊政制改革程序，並粗暴地決定2007及2008不會普選行政長官及立法會。自此，完全不民主的中國立法機關－全國人民代表大會常務委員會掌控香港人的命運福祉，人大釋法及人大決定可以隨時隨地配合極權政府的主張，命令香港法庭跟從，打壓香港的民主和法治。

　　2014年8月31日，是歷史的轉捩點。儘管多少溫和學者苦苦規勸，中共仍以6月的＜一國兩制白皮書＞為基礎，展示全面管治權的氣派，包括法官閣下在內，都要屈從愛國之說。在《8‧31人大決定》之後，中共完全暴露其假民主假普選的面目，其時，我們認為對抗方法就只有公民抗命。

公民抗命的起點

　　違法就是罪惡嗎？我們違法，稱之為「公民抗命」，就是公民憑良心為公眾利益，以非暴力形式不服從法律命令，以求改變不義制度或法律。終審法院非常任法官賀輔明（Leonard Hoffmann）勳爵曾在英國著名案例 R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136 案提出：「發自良知的公民抗命，有着悠久及光榮的傳統。那些因着信念認為法律及政府行為是不義而違法的人，歷史很多時候都證明他們是正確的……能包容這種抗爭或示威，是文明社會的印記。」

　　終審法院在最近的公民廣場案（Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35）亦道明「公民抗命」的概念可獲肯定（該案判詞第70至72段）。因此，亦印證我等9人及其他公民抗命者並非可以一般「違法犯事」來解釋及施刑。港人以一般遊行示威爭取民主30年，無論從殖民年代乃至特區年代，皆無顯著改進，今日以更進步主張，公民抗命爭取民主，正如印度、南非、波蘭等對抗強權，實在無可厚非。誠然，堵塞主要幹道，影響民眾上班下課，實非我所願，但回想過來，中共及特區政府多年來豈不更堵塞香港民主之路，妨擾公眾獲得真正的發聲機會？

　　如果我是公民抗命，又何以不認罪承擔刑責？2014年12月，警方以成文法「出席未經批准集結」及「煽動參與未經批准集結」在村口將我逮捕。2017年3月，警方改以普通法「煽惑他人作出公眾妨擾」及「煽惑他人煽惑公眾妨擾」提控。正如戴耀廷先生在其結案陳詞引述英國劍橋大學法學教授 John R. Spencer 提及以普通法提訴的問題：「近年差不多所有以『公眾妨擾罪』來起訴的案件，都出現以下兩種情況的其中一個：一、當被告人的行為是觸犯了成文法律，通常懲罰是輕微的，檢控官想要以一支更大或額外的棒子去打他；二、當被告人的行為看來是明顯完全不涉及刑事責任的，檢控官找不到其他罪名可控訴他」，無獨有偶，前終審法院常任法官鄧楨在其2018年退休致詞提及：「普通法同樣可被用作欺壓的工具。它是一種變化多端的權力，除非妥善地運用人權法加以適當控制，否則可被不當使用。」如今看來，所言非虛。

　　今我遭控二罪，必定據理力爭，冀借助法官閣下明智判決推翻檢控不義，但法庭定讞，我自當承擔刑責，絕無怨言，以成全公民抗命之道。

試問誰還未覺醒

　　我是刻意求刑標榜自己，讓年青人跟從走進監獄大門嗎？我反覆推敲這個問題。然而，我的答案是，正正是希望後輩不用像我此般走進牢獄，我更要無懼怕地爭取人們所當得的。縱使今日面對強權，惡法將至，烏雲密佈，我依然一如既往，毋忘初衷地認為真普選才是港人獲得真正自由之路。任何一個聲稱為下一代福祉者，理應為後輩爭取自由平等的選擇權利，讓他們能自立成長，辨明是非，而非家長式管控思想，讓下一代淪為生財工具，朝廷鷹犬。

　　主耶穌基督說：「我確確實實地告訴你們：一粒麥子如果不落在地裡死去，它仍然是一粒；如果死了，就結出很多子粒來。（《約翰福音》第12章24節）」沒有犧牲，沒有收穫。故然，我不希望年青人跟我一樣要踏上公民抗命之路，承受牢獄之苦，但我請教所有智慧之士，既然舉牌示威遊行均已無顯其效，公民抗命和平抗爭為何不是能令政權受壓求變之策？若非偌大群眾運動，梁振英豈不仍安坐其位？

　　刑罰於我而言，無情可求，唯一我心中所想，就是希望法庭能顧念75歲的朱耀明牧師年事已高，望以非監禁方式處之，讓港人瞥見法庭對良心公民抗命者寬容一面。美國法哲學家羅納德‧德沃金（Ronald Dworkin）在1968年論及公民抗命時（On Not Prosecuting Civil Disobedience），不但認為法庭應給予公民抗命者寬鬆刑罰，甚至應不予起訴。事實上，終審法院非常任法官賀輔明在2014年12月4日，即雨傘運動尾聲（已發生大規模堵路多日），佔中三子自首之後一日，接受《蘋果日報》及《南華早報》訪問時提到「抗爭者及掌權者均未有逾越公民抗命的『遊戲規則』，抗爭活動並沒有損害香港法治」，更進一步提到「一旦他們被判有罪，應該從輕發落，認為這是傳統，因為自首的公民不是邪惡的人」，由此，我期盼法庭將有人道的判刑。

　　法官閣下，我能夠參與雨傘運動，爭取民主，實是毫無悔意，畢生榮幸。我已花了最青春的10年在社會運動上，假若我有80歲，我仍有50年可以與港人同行，繼續奮鬥。要是法官不信，且即管以刑罰來考驗我的意志，試煉我的決心，希望我的戰友們在我囚禁的時候，可以激發愛心，勉勵行善，更加有勇氣和力量作個真誠的人對抗謊言治國的中共政權。

　　「希望在於人民，改變始於抗爭」，唯有透過群眾力量，直接行動，才能改變社會。8年前如是，今日亦如是。但願港人堅定不移，爭取民主，打倒特權，彰顯公義。自由萬歲！民主社會主義萬歲！

　　願公義和慈愛的　主耶穌基督與我同在，與法官先生同在，與香港人同在！

社會民主連線副主席、雨傘運動案第八被告
黃浩銘
二零一九年四月九日

Hope lies in the people
Changes come from resistance
- Umbrella Movement Public Nuisance Case Statement

Your Honour Judge Johnny Chan,

It has been 8 years since I have met you in court. You were the judge to my case on disorder in public places. It was in 2011 and I was only 23 years old. I chased after the then Chief Executive Mr. Donald Tsang and asked if he knew the price of rice and whether he understood the struggles of the poor. Fate has brought us here again, I am before you once again, but I am no longer the young man who was acquitted. When you are reading this statement, I am a “recidivist”, ready to be sent to prison for the third time. However, I do not seek your mercy today, but wish to explain the reasons for my participation in the Umbrella Movement and civil disobedience, so that your honour can give a reasonable sentence through understanding my motives and actions.

Our positions have slightly altered in the past 8 years, but not as great as the changes that took place in Hong Kong. The controversial big white elephant infrastructures were completed. More tourists are visiting, making Hong Kong a bustling city. At the same time, however, more poor people are living in sub-divided flats, more people are forced to the street to protest, more young people are sent to jail. Things we wouldn’t have imagined 8 years are now happening in Hong Kong. When I was before you 8 years ago, we would not have imagined Hong Kong people could be kidnapped by the Chinese authority to Mainland China. We wouldn’t have imagined that one day, the Mainland law enforcement officers could perform their duties in Hong Kong. We wouldn’t have imagined, not only could the Community Chinese government interpret our law, but they could decide on our future and tightened the rule on constitutional rights through the National People’s Congress Decision.

The Original Intention

Is democracy just a slogan? 8 years ago, I criticised the then Chief Executive Mr. Donald Tsang for ignoring the interests of 1 million poor people and 300,000 elderly. I scolded him for celebrating the 1911 Revolution without understanding its preliminary belief. I called for the establishment of universal retirement protection and the abolition of MPF, and was arrested for the first time. Yet, there are still over a million poor people in Hong Kong today, with more than 300,000 of poor elderly. The disparity between the rich and the poor and housing problem have only become worsen.

In 2014, I witnessed a 75-year-old man kneeling before the Secretary for Labour and Welfare Mr. Matthew Cheung Kin-Chung at a public hearing in the Legislative Council. The old man begged the government not to demolish the elderly home in Kwu Tung Dills Corner. In 2019, a 67-year-old woman, who scavenges for cardboards to make a living, cried during the Legislative Council public hearing. She cried because it was impossible for her to get a job. The Secretary for Labour and Welfare Mr. Law Chi-Kwong simply told her to ask for help in the Labour Department. Why are the government officials so callous? Why have our opinions failed to affect the government’s administration? The root of the problem is that Hong Kong people do not have real choices, we have been deprived of the power to supervise the government and to formulate policies.

What is democracy? Democracy means people are the masters. Any policies should be supervised by the people, the society’s resources should be justly distributed to improve the public services, so that the poor is no longer in poverty. However, in today’s Hong Kong, the focus is on the Mainland China, there is collusion between the government and the businesses, there is a great disparity between the rich and the poor, and multi-billion-dollar big white elephant cross-border infrastructure are built one after another. Nurses die from overexertion at work, teachers commit suicide and old man kneels to beg for what he deserves. Yet, the government policies were only minor repairs here and there, giving small treats and favours to the people. How can you win the support of the people? From the civil disobedience movement in 1966 by So Sau-chung and Lo Kei against the increase of Star Ferry fare, until the 1967 riots and 1989 China Patriotic Democratic Movement, even the 2003 march against the purported legistlation of Article 23, they were all due to the political dictatorship, imbalance policies as well as unfair distribution of public resources. It is for these reasons that led to large scale protests. It is for the same reason that the 2014 Umbrella Movement started.

For so many years, Hong Kong people have been fighting for democracy. We demand a just allocation, a life with dignity and space of freedom. However, what do we get in return? On the eve of the signing of the Joint Declaration in 1984, the then premier of the Communist Chinese government Zhao Ziyang in his reply to the demand for democracy and universal suffrage by the University of Hong Kong Student Council clearly promised that ‘what you referred to, namely “rule Hong Kong by democracy” is a matter that goes without saying.’ At the time, a lot of Hong Kong people believed it. They thought they would have democracy after the handover. However, since the bloody suppression on 4th June 1989 and the 500,000 people demonstration against Article 23 in 2003, the plot of the Chinese communist revealed itself. They decided by force through the NPC interpretation in 2004 that there would be no universal suffrage of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council in 2007 and 2008. Since then, the undemocratic authority of NPC kept a tight grip on the destiny of Hong Kong people. NPC’s interpretation and decisions can be deployed anytime when convenient to assist the propaganda of the authoritative government, forcing the hands of the Hong Kong court and suppressing Hong Kong democracy and the rule of law.

31st August 2014 was a turning point in history. No matter how the moderate scholars tried to persuade it from happening, the Community Chinese government has used the One Country Two System White Paper in June as the foundation and forced its way down onto the people. Even your honour was among them, succumbed to the so called patriotism. After the 8.31 Decision of the National People’s Congress, the plot of the Communist Chinese government has revealed itself, the Chinese government has been lying to the Hong Kong people, they never intended to give Hong Kong genuine universal suffrage. At that time, we believed that civil disobedience was inevitable and was the only way out.

The Starting Point of Civil Disobedience

Is breaking the law sinful? We broke the law with a cause, as “civil disobedience” is the refusal to comply with certain laws considered unjust, as a peaceful form of political protest in the interest of the public to change the unjust system or law. Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal Honourable Leonard Hoffman stated in the well-known R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136 case that, “civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country. People who break the law to affirm their belief in the injustice of a law or government action are sometime vindicated by history. It is the mark of a civilised community that it can accommodate protests and demonstrations of this kind.”

The recent decision by the Court of Appeal concerning the Civic Square outside the government headquarter（Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35) also confirmed the idea of civil disobedience(paragraphs 70-72 of the judgment refer). This , therefore, confirmed that myself and the other 8 defendants as well as other civil disobedience protestors, should not be understood as “breaking the law” in its general circumstances, nor should our sentencing be weighted against the usual standard. Hong Kong people have been fighting for democracy through protest for 30 years already, whether it was during the times of colonial British rule or during the special administrative region, there has been no improvement. Today, we fought for democracy, just as the fights for freedom and democracy in India, South Africa and Poland, and civil disobedience is inevitable. It is true that we did not want to block the roads or affect Hong Kong citizens attending to work or school. But on reflection, didn’t the Communist Chinese and Special Administrative governments block our road to democracy and interfere with our rights to speak up?

If what I did was in the name of civil disobedience, why should I defend my case and not bear the criminal responsibility? In December 2014, the police made use of the statutory offences of “attending unauthorised assembly and inciting participation in unauthorised assembly” and arrested me at the village I live in. In March 2017, the police amended their charges to common law offences of “incitement to commit public nuisance and incitement to incite public nuisance”. As Mr. Benny Tai said in his closing submissions, quoting law professor of Cambridge University John R. Spencer on common law charges, “...almost all the prosecutions for public nuisance in recent years seem to have taken place in one of two situations: first, where the defendant’s behaviour amounted to a statutory offence, typically punishable with a small penalty, and the prosecutor wanted a bigger or extra stick to beat him with, and secondly, where the defendant’s behaviour was not obviously criminal at all and the prosecutor could think of nothing else to charge him with.” Coincidentally, the then Court of Appeal Honourable Mr Justice Robert Tang Kwok-ching stated in his retirement speech in 2018 that, “Common law can be used oppressively. It is protean power, unless adequately controlled by the proper application of human rights law, can be misused.” What he said has become true today.

Faced with 2 charges, I am going to stand by reasons and my principles, in order to assist the Court to overturn an unjust prosecution. However, should the court find me guilty, I shall bear the criminal responsibility. I have no qualm or regrets, in fulfilment of my chosen path of civil disobedience.

Who has not yet awoken?

I do reflect as to whether I am simply seeking a criminal sentence in order to make a point, or to encourage other young men to follow my footsteps into the gates of the prison. I have reflected upon this repeatedly. However, my answer is that, I am doing this precisely because I do not wish to see other young men following my suit into the prison. Because of this, I need to fight for what is ours fearlessly. Although today we are confronted by an oppressive authority, the looming legislation of unjust laws and a clouded future, I shall be as I always am: relentless maintaining my stance that a real election is the path to freedom for Hong Kong people. Anyone who claims to be acting in the interest of the next generation should fight for a free and equal choice for their youths. This is in order for them to learn to be independent, to be able to tell rights from wrongs. There should be no paternal thinking, simply teaching the next generation to be slaves of money and accessories to the oppressor.

My Lord Jesus Christ has said: ‘Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. (Book of John 12:24.) Without sacrifice, there is no reward. I don’t wish to see any more young men having to join the path of civil disobedience as I did, and to pay the price as I did. However, I ask this of all men and women of wisdom: if peaceful demonstration in the old fashioned way has lost its effectiveness and was simply ignored, why is peaceful civil disobedience not a good way to bring about change whilst one is being oppressed? If not for this crowd movement, C Y Leung would still be sitting comfortably on the throne.

I have no mitigation to submit. I only wish that the Court would spare Reverend Chu, who is an elderly of 75 years of age. I pray that a non-custodial sentence may be passed for Reverend Chu. I hope that the Court will have leniency and mercy for Reverend Chu. I refer to the work of the American legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin in 1968, namely: ‘On Not Prosecuting Civil Disobedience’. He opined that, not only should the Court allow leniency to civil disobedience participants, but also should they not be prosecuted. In fact, Lord Hoffmann NPJ of the CFA stated the following in an interview with Apple Daily and South China Morning Post on 4th December 2014 (which was at the end of the Umbrella Movement, a day before the surrender of the 3 initiators of the Occupy Central Movement): ‘In any civilised society, there is room for people making political points by civil disobedience.’ ‘These are not wicked people.’ Civil disobedience had ‘an old tradition’ in the common law world. ‘When it comes to punishment, the court should take into account their personal convictions.’ In light of this, I hope the Court shall pass a humane sentence.

Your honour, I have no regret for participating in the Umbrella Movement and the fight for democracy. It was an honour of a lifetime. I have spent the best 10 years of my youth in social movements. If I can live up to 80-year-old, I would still have 50 years to walk alongside the people of Hong Kong, to continue the fight. If this is in doubt, please test my will against the whips of criminal punishment. I shall take this as a trial of my determination. I only hope that my brothers and sisters-in-arms can be inspired whilst I am imprisoned, to do goods and encourage others. I hope they shall have further courage and strength to be honest men and women, to fight against the lies of the ruling Chinese Communist authority.

“Hope lies in the hands of the people, change starts from resistance.’ It’s only through the power of the people and direct action that the society can be changed. This was so 8 years ago. This is still the case today. May the will of the people of Hong Kong be firm and determined, to fight for democracy, overthrow the privileged, and let justice be done. All hail for freedom! All hail for democratic socialism!

May justice and peace of my Lord Jesus Christ be with me, with your Honour and with the People of Hong Kong!

Vice President of the League of Social Democrats,
the 8th Defendant of the Umbrella Movement Case

Raphael Wong Ho Ming
10th April 2019