關於 on second thought意思 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

帶著舊愛遺下的怨氣投入到新歡的懷裏，那種折騰原來比想像中更難熬過去。

新的男朋友對你越好，你就越是在想，以前那個，這分這秒，到底正在幹什麼。

想不到，半年零三天後的一個晚上，當她在浴室準備寬衣的時候，電話震動了一下，竟然是他的短訊。「Hi Monica，最近好嗎？前幾日執屋，你仲有少少嘢喺我度，我應該點畀番你？」

最有型的答法當然是，「唔要㗎喇，擗咗佢啦。」

不，on second thought，那樣回覆好像有點小家，不如說「速遞畀我啦」。

不不不，速遞的話，豈不是少了一個跟他見面的機會。就在這一刻，她心裏的怨氣突然排走了一半；謎團終於解開，內心的折騰，原來是怨氣找不到釋放的缺口；簡單來說，那個缺口，就是一個報仇的機會，而所謂報仇，便是要以前那個他知道她現在活得有多好。

這個大快人心的機會終於來到，爽極。

「星期日下午茶？」她，11:26 pm。

「好，」他，11:37 pm。

「我帶埋男朋友你介唔介意？你拍拖未呀，你可以帶埋女朋友㗎，哈哈。」她當然沒有察覺，滿腔怨氣的自己，打個 message 都是格外低能。

「我 ok，你鍾意。」可惡，他這樣答，即是會帶女朋友還是不會帶女朋友，即是有拍拖還是冇拍拖。剛排走了一半的怨氣，很快又捲回心房。

高級的法式咖啡廳内。

Moses 早到了十五分鐘，Monica 和她的男朋友遲了十五分鐘。

從 Moses 的視覺出發：他看到前度打扮得簡單卻十分漂亮，旁邊那位男士明顯不是常做運動的類型，但總算端莊。

從新男友的視覺出發：他覺得很奇怪，女朋友的雙手緊緊勾在他的肘彎上，小鳥依人得史無前例，臉上卻是橫著一股咬牙切齒的恨意。

從 Monica 的視覺出發：心情太複雜，但一切準備就緒。

大家都點了飲料之後，Moses 從身旁的袋子裏提出一本相薄。「呢本相薄，嗰陣你好鍾意，你應該想要番。」這本牛皮製的相薄來自一個著名的歐洲品牌，而且是全人手造的，轉手賣出去都有一定價值。

那刻盯著相薄的她，有點錯愕，不懂反應過來；她與他的，無論是面書上的 po，還是 dropbox 內的相，已經一滴不漏的刪除了，卻原來還剩下這本相薄。

五年的回憶倖存下來，她心中暗喜，口裏又是另一版本：「相薄周街都有得賣啦，我唔使要番喇，你鍾意咪你 keep 囉。」說這句，意思就是，「我覺得沒有什麼值得留戀的」，她要看他傷心欲絕的反應。

怎料，他只是弱弱一笑，把相薄擱在一旁，拋下一句「ok」。

就在這瞬間，她才意識到，他才是那個不再留戀的人。既然是這樣，那麼她只好，把最後一件值得留戀的信物都還給他好了。她從手袋裏拿出一枚舊裝錶，放在他面前。「呢隻錶，我諗應該畀番你。」

一路都很冷靜的他，看到這枚他與她在東京一家小店買回來的舊裝錶，靜若止水的心靈突然翻了一個巨浪。還記得在那家小店裏，他對她肉麻當有趣：「呢隻錶永遠都唔會停㗎，就好似我對你嘅愛咁囉。」她輕輕打了他一下，再依偎著他說：「咁我一世都戴住㗎喇。」

再也裝不來了，他拿起錶，仔細看清楚，錶竟然真的停了。

她怎會不知道他在想什麼，於是說：「已經停咗好幾個月。」

嘴唇抿成一條直線，良久無語，好半天，他終於呼了一口氣，說：「都差唔多喇，不如埋單。」

「今次我請，」Monica 的男朋友終於有對白了，「你唔好同我爭啦。」他一舉手叫伺應，就不小心打翻了面前的冰咖啡，相薄遭殃了。

「搞錯呀你！」最緊張的，想不到會是 Monica。

這本相薄就好像一部測謊機一樣，勾出了一個騙子的真實反應。

她連忙抽起相薄內的照片，準備用紙巾把咖啡抹掉，誰不知 Moses 一下子喝住她：「唔好抹呀！」

但太遲了，當她抹了一下才發現，原來每張熟悉照片後面，都寫上了字。幸好大部份的照片也安然無恙，只是她手中那張，有一半的字都化開了。

「Sorry，」Monica 代男朋友道歉，「我攞番去幫你清潔，之後先還番本相薄畀你。」

一星期過去，驟變的，除了溫度，還有人。

下班回家，他在屋苑樓下看到一個熟悉的身影。

「Hi，」她那雙精靈的眼睛，在他臉上溜了一圈才停下來，「想還番本相薄畀你。」

「咁......你介唔介意上一上嚟？我都有嘢想畀番你。」

給她倒了一杯蜜糖之後，他走入房間再走出來。「嗱，畀番你。」

「吓？我有話要番咩？」臉上一派天真。

「之前隻錶停咗啫......而......而家行得番，你咪考慮下囉。」

「行得番咩？」她覺得難以置信。

「隻錶笠咗油，即係錶身嘅機油乾咗，令到隻錶停咗。我去東方表行腕表維修服務中心，叫人幫我加番啲潤滑劑咪冇事囉。即係好似......好似愛情咁啫，有番滋潤，咪歷久常新囉。」

「吓？」她呷一口蜜糖，「我完全唔覺有咩滋潤喎。」

「你......咁你想點？」

她靠近他，幾乎貼著他的鼻子，說：「嗰張相後面，化咗嗰幾隻字，係寫乜？」

「喂小姐，」他抗議，「你唔係要我讀出嚟咁 leung 吖。」

「你話滋潤吖嘛，滋潤係咁 leung 㗎喇。」

「我唔記得自己寫乜喇，」其實他調轉來背也可以。

她沒有理會他，讀出她記得的上半部：「時間，每個人都有，但每個人都唔知自己有幾多；可以係一分鐘，可以係五十年，但只要......究竟只要啲乜？」

只要能夠和你在一起，就算再多一百年，也嫌不夠。

===== ===== =====

東方表行全新腕表維修服務中心，提供符合瑞士及德國製表規格的一站式腕表保養及維修服務。維修中心設備齊全，特別從海外購置高科技儀器，而在維修中心的表匠平均更達二十年的工作年資，經驗和實力毋庸置疑。

#尋人啟事
#胡湘荷妳在哪裡

我的母親已八十歲，
疫情期間，
母親常在電話跟我聊一些過去的事情，
母親的記憶力非常好，
從她十歲開始到現在，
她幾乎能記得所有的事情。

當然，
她記的幾乎都是些令人心碎的事。

就像她的妹妹＿
我的小阿姨，
跟她失聯了四十三年的事，
一直讓母親忘不了。

小阿姨屬猴，
64歲、
1956年出生。
大約1977年離開緬甸，
去到泰國投靠大舅，
又輾轉在1978年左右去了加拿大。
之後，
就失去了聯絡。

自從有網路以來，
我就幫忙母親在各種尋人版上刊登過尋人啟事，
但都沒有下文。
可能是刊登的資訊不齊全。

四十三年前，
小阿姨從緬甸到泰國又到加拿大，
可能證件、姓名等都跟原本的不一樣了。

近期，
與我母親通話，
母親又提到失聯的小阿姨。
她叮嚀我們是否能幫忙她再找找看。

母親今年八十歲，
她很想知道她的小妹，
是否還活在這世界上？

附上母親說的話，
她讓我公佈在網路上。

希望有緣，
我的小阿姨能看到。

Midi 於永和
2020 April 12

#胡湘荷
#尋人

胡湘荷，妳在哪裡？

阿湘，
我是妳的二姐胡明珠。
我們分別有好長一段時間了。

妳離開緬甸時，
我二兒子才剛出生，
都還不滿一個月，
妳來看他時，
還說：
「他的臉白白的，
是不是我給他擦粉？」
現在，
我二兒子四十三歲，
我呢，
已經快滿八十二歲，
八十多歲，
是老人了。

人家說，
人愈老記性愈差，
我是相反，
我的記性反倒是愈老愈好。
但是，我能記住的，
都是些傷心的事情。

也許，
我們這代人，
也沒有什麼快樂的事情可以記住。
就像妳的離開，
我們從此失去聯絡，
想起妳，
就讓我難過。

妳還活著嗎？
我想妳會活得好好的。
妳有幾個小娃了？
過得怎麼樣呢？

四十三年前，
妳離開腊戌時，
妳還在腊戌漢人學校唸書。

有天放學，
我去攔住妳，
跟妳說：
「妳以後每天下課後就來我家吃飯，
別去大姐家吃了…」
妳說：「好」。
妳也就跟著我到我家吃飯了。

我還記得，
妳才剛坐下，
我不知怎麼搞的，
就說了那些話。

我說：
「大姐讓妳以後來我這裡吃飯，
別去她家吃了，
讓妳三姐去她家吃，
妳三姐不挑嘴，
妳比較挑嘴…」。

這些話，
是大姐跟我說的，
我當時太懵，
太老實，
我也不曉得，
為什麼要說這些大姐講的話？
為什麼要講給妳聽？

我完全，
沒有擔待不了妳的意思呀。
不管多窮，
姐妹間互相照顧都是應該的，
我轉述大姐說妳的那些話，
是沒有任何理由的，
就是我以為是姐妹之間的聊天，
講出來而已。

我那時候過得很困難，
養著六個小娃，
病死了兩個。
但是，
照顧自己的妹妹是天經地義的。

那天，
我邊說就邊到廚房去炒菜，
難得妳來這裡吃飯，
總要多一樣什麼菜才行。

我炒完菜端著出來，
妳就不見了。

當時，
房東許老嬤嬤還在場，
她說，
「我轉進廚房，
妳就站起來走了…」

我那時才發覺；
我講錯話了。

妳這麼敏感的人呀！

我一路追著妳，
追到大水塘路上＿
到妳跟妳三姐住的地方，
妳正在哭。
妳正在哭著跟妳三姐吵架，
妳跟妳三姐說：
「二哥寄來的錢分來…」
妳三姐不敢應妳，
在旁沉默著。
這筆妳要的錢，
確實是妳二哥寄來給妳們兩姐妹的生活費。

那時，
媽媽剛去世不久，
大哥人去了泰國；
在泰國北部滿堂安了家，
家裡所有的兄弟陸續去了泰國。
而爸爸因為沒身份證在貴概被移民局抓住，
送到仰光坐滿九年牢，
緬甸政府正打算著把他送到台灣去的時候…

那天，
我看著妳哭，
我就明白了妳的心情。

妳三姐在準備跟她愛人私奔，
在腊戌妳也只有大姐、我和妳三姐了。

我和大姐早結婚，
各自已有有家庭。
如今妳三姐又要嫁人，
大哥他們又遠在泰國，
母親去世，
父親坐牢。
妳接下來就要孤苦零丁的一個人生存了。

一個十八歲的女孩。
我知道妳的害怕和難過。

那天，
看著妳哭，
我很後悔把大姐說的話講出來。

妳應該了解我的。
我一直都盡力照顧我的家人，
當時從雲南背著妳逃難到緬甸邊境，
背了一天一夜。
我都是自願的。

妳記得嗎？
妳到腊戌讀書時，
很想要一條件仔褲，
那時許多人都買不起，
我還是費盡力氣買給妳。
妳知道我是心疼妳的。

妳離開腊戌的那天，
妳說妳要去泰國了。
臨走時，
我拿了300塊錢給妳，
妳知道嗎？
那時候我拿出300塊錢緬幣是到處借來的錢呀。

阿湘，
我知道妳一直都在受苦，
去到泰國，
大嫂可能待不得妳，
妳二哥、三哥他們當時也沒能力照顧妳，
妳在泰國又沒有合法的身份；
哪可能有其它去處。

最後妳選擇結婚，
我想也只是為了解脫這些難過的生活罷了。

之後，
就聽說妳嫁了人，
跟著丈夫家去了加拿大。

之後，
我就再也就打聽不到妳的下落了。

我們最後的連繫，
停留在泰國北部滿堂，
或是停留在泰緬邊境美賽，
我都有些記不得了。

那時，
聽說妳從大哥家跑出來了？
又聽說妳去暫住在一對老年夫妻的家裡？
這些，
都是後來傳到腊戌的消息了。

妳去加拿大前，
還寄來給我和大姐和妳三姐每個人一件衣裳布、
一條籠基。
三份禮物裡夾著三張白紙，
寫著：「大姐的、二姐的、三姐的…」。
我還記得，
那是託「義號佛堂」楊前人帶來的禮物。

那條籠基到現在我還留著＿
孔雀花紋的。

阿湘，
我這個作二姐的也羞愧妳了。
當時，
聽到這些關於妳的困難的消息，
只能每天想念著，
想到傷心，
我沒有任何能力。

那時，
我是，
連從緬甸腊戌到泰國邊境的車票都買不起呀。
當時我養著這麼多小娃，
吃一口飯都難。

阿湘，
現在講這些都只是回憶了，
都是我們老人家的回憶，
都不重要了。

那為什麼還要講這些呢？
就是，
為了，
想讓妳看到，
看到這些我說的話，
證實，
我是妳的二姐而已。
想讓妳知道，
我一直在找妳。

我活到八十歲，
夠了，
人活這麼老沒什麼意思，
都盡是傷心的事情。

我不知哪天會死去。
但如果可能的話，
在死去之前，
能讓我知道一下妳的消息。

我想知道，
妳在哪裡？
我想知道，
妳還活著嗎？

阿湘，
爸爸十幾年前已經去世，
大哥六年前去世，
連大姐，
前年也不在世上了。

妳二哥；
他住在泰國山邊荒地裡，
幫人家看田地，
過得不是很好，
但也不用擔心，
我在泰國的二兒子和大姑娘時常會去照顧他。

妳三哥，
講到也是讓我難過呀。

他大前年腦出血，
去醫院醫好了，
但醫好後，
很奇怪，
突然忘記了漢人話，
只會講泰國話。
後來不久，
他就偷偷上吊自殺了。

你說，
我們兄弟姐妹這是什麼樣的命運呢？

阿湘，
我們家沒剩下什麼人了，
妳三姐、妳四哥還在泰國。
還有我，
我還活著。
我還在緬甸，在腊戌。

除了妳，
我們一家人也就剩下這三個人了。

阿湘，
我們已經分別已四十三年，
妳也有六十多歲了吧？
我很想知道，
妳在哪裡？
妳還活著嗎？

如果有緣，
妳看到這信，
就回我一下吧。

妳的二姐胡明珠，
日日夜夜，
在等妳的消息。

二姐胡明珠　於緬甸腊戌
2020 年4月11日
姪Midi代筆

找人信箱：humingju1638@gmail.com

**************
#notice for a missing person

translated by Jane Lin
****************

Where are you, Hu Shine-Ho?

Ah-Shine,
This is your 2nd sister, Hu Ming-Ju. It has been a long time since we last saw each other. When you left Burma, my 2nd son was not even one-month-old. You asked why he was so fair-skinned? Had I put powder on his face? Now, he is 43 and I am almost 82.

Eighty something...I am indeed an old woman! People say that you lose your memory as you age. I am quite the opposite. The older I get, the better I remember! But, what I remember is nothing but sadness. Perhaps, our generation just doesn't have much happiness. Like you leaving home, we losing contact forever…. The thought of you puts me in such despair. Are you still alive? I imagine you living a good life?!! How many children? How are you?

Forty-three years ago, you were still a student at Chinese High School in Lashio. One day after school, I went to intercept you, "From now on, come to my home after school. Don't go to 1st sister's for dinner anymore." You said, "OK" and followed me home.

I still remember clearly that you had just sat down and I said, "The first sister asks that you come to me for dinner. She will take 3rd sister who's easy-going, not like you, a picky eater." I don't know what possessed me that day? Why I had to tell you what 1st sister had to say? Was I too naive? Too honest? Too stupid? I had absolutely no intension not to take care of you - we are sisters!!!! We have to care for each other, no matter how poor we are!!! The first sister's words just came out as a casual chat between sisters. Nothing more!

Life was tough for me at the time. Diseases took away two of my six children. But that didn't mean I would ignore my God-given responsibility as your elder sister. Without realizing the impact of my "casual chat", I went into the kitchen wondering what additional dish I could come up with for your first dinner with us. When I came out with the dishes, you were already gone! According to our landlady, Granny Hsu, you just got up and left as soon as I was out of sight. Only then did I realize my stupid mistake and how sensitive you were! Immediately, I ran after you, all the way to Big Pond Road where you and 3rd sister stayed. You were crying, asking 3rd sister for the money that 2nd brother sent. 3rd sister just kept quiet.

Indeed! The money that you demanded from 3rd sister was to cover living expenses for both of you. At that time, Mother had already passed away. The first brother went to Thailand, had already settled his own family in Pong Ngam. All the brothers followed suit. Father got caught in Kutkai by the immigration for not having an I.D. and had been in prison in Rangoon for 9 years. The Burmese government was just about to send him to Taiwan…. That day, while watching you cry, I understood how you felt. The third sister was getting ready to run away with her lover and both 1st sister and I were married young with our own families to deal with. As an 18-year-old with no mother, a father in prison, you must have felt all alone, sad and very scared.

I was filled with regrets watching you that day. But, please understand that I have always tried my best to take care of my family. When we escaped from Yunnan to Burma as refugees, I carried you on my back all day and all night without any complaints. When you went to Lashio for school, you wanted a pair of jeans so badly, remember? It was such a luxury that most people could not afford. Yet, I gathered all my might to get you a pair. You know I always have a soft spot for you, don't you? The day you were leaving Lashio for Thailand, do you know how many places I had to try to gather 300 Burmese kyats for you???

Ah-Shine, I know it was a huge struggle for you in Thailand. It's impossible that 1st sister-in-law would put you up. Second and 3rd brothers were in no position to help you….. I suppose you were pushed into marriage, just to end this desperate situation. Last I heard, you moved to Canada with your husband. From that point onward, in spite of all the efforts, I just couldn't find any trace of your whereabouts.

Our last contact stopped at Pong Ngam, Thailand. Or, was it MaeSai? I can't quite remember now. The news came to Lashio that you had run away from 1st brother's home. Later, you were temporarily staying with an older couple….

Before leaving for Canada, you sent, via Abbott Yang of the Yi Buddhist Hall, a package for us - each gift had a piece of dress fabric and a longyi, clearly labeled on a piece of white paper: "for 1st sister," "for 2nd sister," "for 3rd sister." I still have that longyi, with a peacock pattern, after all these years!

Ah-Shine, I feel deeply embarrassed to be your elder sister. Upon hearing the challenges that you had to face at the time, I could do nothing but worrying and feeling sad. I couldn't even afford the bus fare from Lashio to the Thai border. I barely managed to feed my own children!
Ah-Shine, What's the use of talking about these old memories? These sad memories of us old people have no importance but to serve to show you that I am indeed your 2nd sister.… that I have been looking for you all these years.

To live in my eighties is more than enough for me. It's not much fun to live this long - just a lifetime of sadness. I have no idea when I will die and I don't really care. I just wish that I could hear from/about you before I leave this world. I want to know where you are. I want to know if you are still alive.

Ah-Shine, Father passed away more than a decade ago. The first brother left us 6 years ago, so did the first sister 3 years ago. The second brother works as a field caretaker in a remote Thai mountainside. It's not a good life, but both my 2nd son and first daughter are also in Thailand; can visit and take care of him often. The saddest is our 3rd brother. He had a stroke 3 years ago. After recovery, he suddenly forgot his Chinese, could only speak in Thai. Not long after, he hanged himself! Please tell me what kind of fate has been bestowed on our siblings??? What is the meaning of life???
Ah-Shine, There aren't that many of us left, only 3rd sister and 4th brother in Thailand and me still in Burma. In Lashio.

Ah-Shine, We have been apart for 43 years. You should be in your 60s by now. I really would like to know if you are still alive and where you live. God willing, you will see this letter and reply!!! (humingju1638@gmail.com)

Waiting to hear from you, day and night!

Second sister, Hu Ming-Ju
Lashio, Myanmar
April 11. 2020

戴耀廷的結案陳詞

公民抗命的精神

首先，這是一宗公民抗命的案子。
我站在這裏，就是為了公民抗命。陳健民教授、朱耀明牧師與我一起發起的「讓愛與和平佔領中環運動」，是一場公民抗命的運動。在以前，少有香港人聽過公民抗命，但現在公民抗命這意念在香港已是家傳戶曉。
終審法院在律政司對黃之鋒案Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35採納了約翰羅爾斯在《正義論》中為公民抗命所下的定義。公民抗命是「一項公開、非暴力、真誠的政治行為，通常是爲了導致法律上或社會上的改變，所作出的違法行爲。」
在律政司對黃之鋒案，賀輔明勳爵是終審法院的非常任法官。在此案，終審法院引述了賀輔明勳爵在R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136的說法：「出於真誠理由的公民抗命在這國家有源遠流長及光榮的歷史。」終審法院認同公民抗命的概念是同樣適用於其他尊重個人權利的法制如香港。但為何公民抗命是光榮和文明呢？終審法院沒有進一步解釋。
約翰羅爾斯的定義大體只能說出公民抗命的行為部分。 在馬丁路德金博士非常有名關於公民抗命的著作《從伯明罕市監獄發出的信》中，他道出更多公民抗命的意圖部分或公民抗命的精神。這信函是他在 1963年4 月16日，因在亞拉巴馬州伯明罕市參與示威爭取民權後被判入獄時寫的。
在信函中他說：「一個人若不遵守不公義的法律，必須要公開，充滿愛心和願意接受懲罰。個人因為其良心指出某法律是不公義的，而且甘心接受懲處，是要喚起社會的良知，關注到那中間的不公義，這樣其實是對法律表達了最大的敬意。」
馬丁路德金博士認為有時法律在表面上是公義的，但實行時卻變得不公義。他說：「我未得准許而遊行，並因而被捕，現在的確有一條法例，要求遊行須得准許，但這條法例如果是用了來…否定公民運用和平集會和抗議的權利，則會變成不公義。」
他還說：「 面對一個經常拒絕談判的社區，非暴力的直接行動正是為了營造一次危機，以及加強一種具創造力的張力，逼使對方面對問題，也使問題戲劇地呈現出來，讓其不能再被忽略。」
馬丁路德金博士對我啟發良多，我們也把這精神栽種在「讓愛與和平佔領中環運動」中。緊隨馬丁路德金博士在公民抗命之路的腳步，我們努力去開啟人心中那份自我犧牲的愛及平靜安穩，而非煽惑憤怒與仇恨。
終審法院在律政司對黃之鋒案進一步引述賀輔明勳爵在R v Jones (Margaret) 的說法：「違法者與執法者都有一些規則要遵守。示威者的行為要合乎比例，並不會導致過量的破壞或不便。以証明他們的真誠信念，他們應接受法律的懲處。」
雖然終審法院在律政司對黃之鋒案沒有引述這部分，賀輔明勳爵在R v Jones (Margaret) 還說：「另一方面，警察與檢控官的行為也要有所節制，並法官在判刑時應考慮示威者的真誠動機。」這些有關公民抗命的規則應也適用，終審法院應不會反對。
公民抗命的目的並不是要妨擾公眾，而是要喚起公眾關注社會的不公義，並贏取人們認同社會運動的目標。若一個人被確立了是在進行公民抗命，那他就不可能會意圖造成不合理的阻礙，因那是與公民抗命背道而馳，即使最後因他的行動造成的阻礙是超出了他所能預見的。
非暴力是「讓愛與和平佔領中環運動」的指導原則。公民抗命的行為，就是佔領中環，是運動的最後一步。進行公民抗命時，示威者會坐在馬路上，手扣手，等候警察拘捕，不作反抗。我們計劃及希望達到的佔領程度是合乎比例的。我們相信所會造成的阻礙是合理的。
我相信我們已做了公民抗命中違法者所當做的，我們期望其他人也會做得到他們所當做的。

追求民主

在一宗公民抗命的案件，公民抗命的方法是否合乎比例，不能抽空地談，必須考慮進行那行動的目的。
這是一宗關乎一群深愛香港的香港人的案件，他們相信只有透過引入真普選，才能開啟化解香港深層次矛盾之門。
我就是他們其中一人。與那些一起追尋同一民主夢的人，為了我們的憲法權利，我們已等了超過三十年。當我還在大學讀法律時，我已參與香港的民主運動。現在，我的兒子也剛大學畢業了，香港還未有民主。
馬丁路德金博士在信函中還說：「壓迫者從不自願施予自由，自由是被壓迫者爭取得來的。…如同我們出色的法學家所說，延誤公義，就是否定公義。」我們在追求公義，但對當權者來說，我們計劃的行動誠然是妨擾。
《基本法》第45 條規定行政長官的產生辦法最終達至由一個有廣泛代表性的提名委員會按民主程序提名後普選產生的目標。《公民及政治權利國際公約》第 25 條規定：「凡屬公民，無分第二條所列之任何區別，不受無理限制，均應有權利及機會：…（乙）在真正、定期之選舉中投票及被選。選舉權必須普及而平等，選舉應以無記名投票法行之，以保證選民意志之自由表現 …」
聯合國人權委員會在《第25號一般性意見》，為《公民及政治權利國際公約》第 25 (乙) 條中的 「普及而平等」，提供了它的理解和要求。第15段說：「有效落實競選擔任經選舉產生的職位的權利和機會有助於確保享有投票權的人自由挑選候選人。」第17段說：「不得以政治見解為由剝奪任何人參加競選的權利。」
全國人民代表大會常務委員會在2004年就《基本法》附件一及附件二作出的解釋，實質改變了修改行政長官選舉辦法的憲法程序。在行政長官向立法會提出修改產生辦法的法案前，額外加了兩步。行政長官就是否需要進行修改，須向全國人民代表大會常務委員會提出報告。全國人民代表大會常務委員會根據香港特別行政區的實際情況和循序漸進的原則作出確定。相關法案須經立法會全體議員三分之二多數 通過，行政長官同意，並報全國人民代表大會常務委員會批准或者備案。
在2014年8月31日，全國人民代表大會常務委員會完成了憲法修改程序的第二步，作出了有關行政長官產生辦法的決定。全國人民代表大會常務委員會除決定行政長官可由普選產生外，就普選行政長官的產生辦法設下了具體及嚴厲的規定。
提名委員會的人數、構成和委員產生辦法都得按照第四任行政長官選舉委員會的人數、構成和委員產生辦法而規定。提名委員會按民主程序只可提名產生二至三名行政長官候選人。每名候選人均須獲得提名委員會全體委員半數以上的支持。
按著全國人民代表大會常務委員會自行設定的程序，全國人民代表大會常務委員會應只有權決定是否批准或不批准行政長官提交的報告，而不能就提名委員會的組成及提名程序，設下詳細的規定。全國人民代表大會常務委員會連自己設定的程序也沒有遵守。
若按著全國人民代表大會常務委員會設下的嚴厲條件去選舉產生行政長官，香港的選民就候選人不會有真正的選擇，因所有不受歡迎的人都會被篩選掉。這與普選的意思是不相符的。
這些香港人進行公民抗命，是要喚起香港社會及世界的關注，中國政府不公義地違背了憲法的承諾，也破壞了它的憲法責任。我們所作的，是為了維護我們及所有香港人的憲法權利，包括了反對我們的行動的人；是為了要我們的主權國履行承諾；是為了爭取香港憲制進行根本改革；及為香港的未來帶來更多公義。

和平示威的權利

這案件是關乎和平示威自由及言論自由的權利。
根據「讓愛與和平佔領中環運動」的原先計劃，舉行公眾集會的地方是遮打道行人專用區、遮打花園及皇后像廣場，時間是由2014年 10月1 日下午三時正開始，最長也不會超過2014年 10月5 日。我們期望會有三類人來到。
第一類人已決定了會參與公民抗命。他們會在過了合法的時限後，繼續坐在遮打道上。他們是那些在「讓愛與和平佔領中環運動」意向書上選了第二或第三個選項的人。第二類人決定不會參與公民抗命，而只是來支援第一類人。過了合法的時限後，他們會離開遮打道，去到遮打花園或皇后像廣場。他們是那些在「讓愛與和平佔領中環運動」意向書上選了第一個選項的人。第三類人還未決定是否參與公民抗命的行動。他們可以到合法時限快要過去的最後一刻，才決定是否留在遮打道上。
我們相信警方會有足夠時間把所有參與佔領中環公民抗命的示威者移走。估計會有數千人參與。我們要求參與者要嚴守非暴力的紀律。我們採用了詳細的方法去確保大部分即使不是所有參與者都會跟從。
我們是在行使受《基本法》第27 條保障的和平示威自由的憲法權利。這也與同受《基本法》第27 條保障的言論自由有緊密關係。透過《基本法》第39條，言論自由、表達自由、和平集會的自由受《香港人權法》第16 及17條的憲法保障，而這些條文與《公民及政治權利國際公約》第19 及21是一樣的，是《公民及政治權利國際公約》適用於香港的部分。
若原訂計劃真的執行，那可能會觸犯《公安條例》一些關於組織未經批准集結的規定，但我們相信那會舉行的公眾集會是不會對公眾構成不合理的阻礙的。會被佔領的空間，包括了馬路，是公眾在公眾假期可自由使用的。計劃佔領的時期，首兩天是公眾假期，最後兩天是周末。
當公眾集會的地方轉到政府總部外的添美路、立法會道及龍匯道的行人路及馬路的範圍（下稱「示威區域」），雖然集會的主題、領導、組織及參加者的組成已改變了，但精神卻沒有。在2014年9 月27 和 28日，人們是被邀請來示威區域參加集會的。這仍然是公民在行使和平示威自由及言論自由的權利。
相類似的公眾集會也曾在2012年9 月3至 8日，在反國民教育運動中在示威區域內舉行。除卻公民在那時候還可以進入公民廣場（政府總部東翼前地），在2012年9月在反國民教育運動的佔領空間，與示威者在2014年9 月27 和 28日在警方封鎖所有通往示威區域通道前所佔領的空間是很相近的。
自2012年的反國民教育運動後，這示威區域已被普遍認同，是可以用來組織有大量公眾參與，反對香港特別行政區政府的大型公眾集會的公共空間。換句話說，公眾都認知示威區域是一個重要場地，讓香港公民聚集去一起行使和平示威自由的權利。
根據此我們也抱有的公眾認知，當我在2014年9 月28日凌晨宣布提前佔領中環的時候，我們只可能意圖叫人來到示威區域而不會是任何其他地方。要佔領示威區域以外的地方，沒可能是當時我們所能想到的。沒有人會如此想的。
在梁國雄對香港特別行政區案Leung Kwok-hung v. HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 229, 終審法院指出： 「和平集會權利涉及一項政府（即行政當局）所須承擔的積極責任，那就是採取合理和適當的措施，使合法的集會能夠和平地進行。然而，這並非一項絕對責任，因為政府不能保證合法的集會定會和平地進行，而政府在選擇採取何等措施方面享有廣泛的酌情權。至於甚麼是合理和適當的措施，則須視乎個別個案中的所有情況而定。」
如控方証人黃基偉高級警司 (PW2) 在作供時所說，當有太多的示威者聚集在鄰接的行人路，警方為了示威者的安全，就會封鎖示威區域內的馬路。能有一個公共空間讓反對政府的人士和平集會以宣洩他們對香港特別行政區政府的不滿，對香港社會來說，那是一項公共利益。即使在示威區域長期舉行集會是違反《公安條例》，但這不會對公眾構成共同傷害。受影響的部分公眾只是很少，而造成的不便相對來說也是輕微。
終審法院常任法官包致金在楊美雲對香港特別行政區案Yeung May-wan v. HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 137中說：「《基本法》第二十七條下的保障，不會純粹因為集會、遊行或示威對公路上的自由通行造成某種干擾而被撤回。本席認為，除非所造成的干擾屬不合理，即超出可合理地預期公眾可容忍的程度，否則集會、遊行或示威不會失去這項保障。關於這一點，本席認為，大型甚或大規模集會、遊行或示威的參加者往往有理由指出，只有如此大規模的活動才能協助有效地表達他們的意見。除此之外，本席認為最明顯的相關考慮因素是干擾的嚴重程度和干擾為時多久。不過，也可能有其他的相關考慮因素，本席認為包括以下一項：在有關的干擾發生之前，是否有人曾一度或數度作出一項或多項干擾行為？可合理地預期公眾能容許甚麼，乃屬事實和程度的問題，但在回答這個問題時，法庭務須謹記，毫無保留地保存相關自由，正是合理性的定義，而非僅是用作決定是否合理的因素之一。」
參與示威區域的公眾集會的示威者並不能構成阻礙，因示威區域的馬路是由警方封鎖的。警方封鎖示威區域的馬路是為了保障示威者的安全 ，讓他們可以安全地及和平地行使和平集會的權利。就算在示威區域是造成了一定程度的阻礙，考慮到示威者是在行使他們的和平示威自由的憲法權利，那阻礙也不能是不合理的。
即使當示威者在2014年9 月28日走到分域碼頭街及夏慤道，人們只是被邀請來到示威區域而不是留在那些道路上。警方被要求開放通向示威區域的通路，好讓人們能去到示威區域與示威者們一起。若非通往示威區域的通路被警方封鎖了，大部份人即使不是所有人，應都會進入示威區域，而那些道路就不會被佔領。催淚彈也就沒有需要發放。
警方應有責任去促使公民能在示威區域舉行公眾集會，但警方卻把示威區域封鎖了，阻礙人們來到示威區域參與公眾集會。示威區域內的示威者不可能意圖或造成任何在示威區域以外所出現的阻礙，因他們只是邀請人們來到示威區域與他們一起。
當警方見到已有大量人群在示威區域外意圖進入示威區域，警方仍不負責任地拒絕開放通向示威區域的通路。警方必須為示威區域外所造成的阻礙及之後發生的所有事負上責任。
在警方發放87催淚彈及使用過度武力後，一切都改變了。如此發放催淚彈是沒有人能預見的，事情再不是我們所能掌控。到了那時候，我們覺得最重要的事，就是帶領參加運動的人平安回家。
在發放催淚彈後的無數個日與夜，我們竭力用不同方法去盡快結束佔領。我們幫助促使學生領袖與政府主要官員對話。我們與各方商討能否接受以變相公投為退場機制。我們籌組了廣場投票。即使我們這些工作的大部分最後都沒有成效，但我們真的是盡了力及用盡能想到的方法去達到這目標。最後，我們在2014年12 月3日向警方自首。金鐘範圍的佔領在2014年12 月11日也結束了。

不恰當檢控

這是關乎不恰當地以公眾妨擾罪作為罪名起訴的案件。
如賀輔明勳爵in R v Jones (Margaret) 所指出，檢控官也有公民抗命的規則要遵守的，他們的行為要有所節制。
在 “Public Nuisance – A Critical Examination,” Cambridge Law Journal 48(1), March 1989, pp. 55-84, 一文，J. R. Spencer 看到：「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。」兵咸勳爵在 R v Rimmington [2006] 1 AC 469 採納了J. R. Spencer 對檢控官在控訴公眾妨擾罪時暗藏的動機的批評。
若有一適當的成文罪行能涵蓋一宗公民抗命案件中的違法行為，我們可以合理地質問為何要以公眾妨擾罪來起訴？即使這不構成濫用程序，但這案件的檢控官一定已違反了賀輔明勳爵在 R v Jones (Margaret) 所指出適用於他的公民抗命的規則，因他並沒有節制行為。
這是關乎不恰當地以串謀及煽惑人煽惑為罪名起訴的案件。
同樣地，在一宗公民抗命的案件及一宗涉及和平示威自由的權利的案件，以串謀及煽惑人煽惑為罪名起訴，那是過度的。在串謀的控罪，控方提出的証據是我們的公開發言。按定義，公民抗命一定是一項公開的行為。若這些公開發言可以用於檢控，那會把所有的公民抗命都扼殺於萌芽階段。那麼說公民抗命是一些光榮之事就變得毫無意義，因公民抗命根本就不可能出現。更惡劣的後果是，社會出現寒蟬效應，很多合理的言論都會被噤聲。對言論自由的限制必然是不合乎比例。
在香港普通法是否有煽惑人煽惑這罪名仍存爭議，但即使真有這罪行，在一宗公民抗命的案件及一宗涉及和平示威自由的權利的案件，以串謀及煽惑人煽惑為罪名起訴，那是過度地、不合理地及不必要地擴展過失責任。
因主罪行是那惹人猜疑的公眾妨擾罪，以煽惑人煽惑去構成公眾妨擾罪來起訴，那更會把過失責任擴展至明顯不合理的程度。若檢控官的行為不是那麼過度和不合理，起訴的罪名是恰當的，我們是不會抗辯的。無論如何，當控罪相信是過度及不合理，我們提出抗辯不應被視為拒絕接受法律的懲處，違反了違法者的公民抗命規則。
有些問題是我這位置難以解答的。若檢控官違反了賀輔明勳爵在 R v Jones (Margaret) 所指出的公民抗命的規則，那會有甚麼後果呢？由誰來糾正這錯誤呢？

守護法治

歸根究底，這是一宗關乎香港法治與高度自治的案件。
作為香港法治及憲法的學者，我相信單純依靠司法獨立是不足以維護香港的法治。 缺乏一個真正的民主制度，政府權力會被濫用，公民的基利不會得到充分的保障。沒有民主，要抵抗越來越厲害對「一國兩制」下香港的高度自由的侵害，會是困難的。在「雨傘運動」後，還有很長的路才能到達香港民主之旅的終點。
終審法院常任法官鄧國楨在退休前法庭儀式上致辭說：「雖然法官決意維護法治，讓其在香港的價值及運用恒久不變，但關鍵在於社會對法官予以由衷的支持。那應是何等形式的支持？我認為，應是全面而徹底的支持。如果法官受到不公的抨擊，請緊守立場並支持他們。可是，不要只因爲某些事件才對他們表示支持。那並不足夠，也可能已經太遲。大家應致力在社會上培養有利於法治的氛圍。我們在香港擁有新聞自由及選舉自由，必須努力發聲，讓你的選票發揮作用。請相信我，自由的代價是要時刻保持警覺。更重要的是，永遠不要放棄或低估自己的力量。如果我們整體社會堅持維護法治，無人可以輕易把它奪走。千萬不要讓此事變得輕而易舉。」
我們都有責任去守護香港的法治和高度自治。我在這裹，是因我用了生命中很多的年月，直至此時此刻，去守護香港的法治，那亦是香港的高度自治不可或缺的部份。我永不會放棄，也必會繼續爭取香港的民主。
我相信法治能為公民抗命提供理據。公民抗命與法治有共同的目標，就是追求公義。公民抗命是有效的方法去確保這共同目標能達成，至少從長遠來說，公民抗命能創造一個氛圍，讓其他方法可被用來達成那目標。
若我們真是有罪，那麼我們的罪名就是在香港這艱難的時刻仍敢於去散播希望。入獄，我不懼怕，也不羞愧。若這苦杯是不能挪開，我會無悔地飲下。

DCCC 480/2017

Closing Submission of Tai Yiu-ting (D1)

1. First, this is a case of civil disobedience.

2. Here, I am standing up for civil disobedience.

3. The Occupy Central with Love and Peace Movement, initiated by Professor Chan Kin-man, Reverend Chu Yiu-ming and I, was a movement of civil disobedience.

4. Civil disobedience, known little by Hong Kong people in the past, is now a household idea in Hong Kong.

5. The Court of Final Appeal in Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35 at paragraph 70 endorsed the definition of civil disobedience put forward by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice (Revised Edition, 1999) at p. 320.

6. Civil disobedience is “a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government.”

7. In Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung, the Court of Final Appeal with Lord Hoffmann as the non-permanent judge repeated at paragraph 72 what Lord Hoffmann had said in R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136 at paragraph 89, “civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country.” The Court of Final Appeal accepted that the concept of civil disobedience is equally recognisable in a jurisdiction respecting individual rights, like Hong Kong.

8. However, it was not explained why civil disobedience is honourable and civilised.

9. John Rawls’ definition spells out more the actus reus of civil disobedience.

10. In his very famous work on civil disobedience, Letter from a Birmingham Jail reproduced in The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 71, No. 1/4 (Winter - Autumn, 1986), pp. 38-44, Dr Martin Luther King Jr. provided more the mens rea of civil disobedience or the spirit of civil disobedience. The Letter was written by him on 16 April 1963 while in jail serving a sentence for participating in civil rights demonstration in Birmingham, Alabama.

11. He said (p. 41), “One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.”

12. To Dr King, a law could be just on its face but unjust in its application. He said in the Letter (p. 40-41), “I was arrested…on a charge of parading without a permit. Now there is nothing wrong with an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade, but when the ordinance is used to …deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and peaceful protest, then it becomes unjust.”

13. He also said (p. 39), “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatise the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”

14. I was inspired very much by Dr King, and this is the same spirit we have implanted in the Occupy Central with Love and Peace Movement. Following Dr King’s steps closely in the path of civil disobedience, we strive to inspire self-sacrificing love and peacefulness but not to incite anger and hatred.

15. The Court of Final Appeal in Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung further cited what Lord Hoffmann had said in R v Jones (Margaret), “[T]here are conventions which are generally accepted by the law-breakers on one side and the law-enforcers on the other. The protesters behave with a sense of proportion and do not cause excessive damage or inconvenience. And they vouch the sincerity of their beliefs by accepting the penalties imposed by the law.”

16. Though the Court of Final Appeal did not quote this part of the judgment in Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung, Lord Hoffmann in R v Jones (Margaret) also said, “The police and prosecutors, on the other hand, behave with restraint and the magistrates impose sentences which take the conscientious motives of the protesters into account.” These other conventions of civil disobedience should also apply, and it is not likely that the Court of Final Appeal would object.

17. The purpose of civil disobedience is not to obstruct the public but to arouse public concern to the injustice in society and to win sympathy from the public on the cause of the social movement.

18. If it is found that a person is committing an act of civil disobedience, he could not have intended to cause unreasonable obstruction as it will defeat the whole purpose of civil disobedience itself even if his action might at the end have caused a degree of obstruction more than he could have known.

19. Non-violence was the overarching principle of the Occupy Central with Love and Peace Movement. The act of civil disobedience, i.e. occupy Central, was the last resort of the movement. The manner of civil disobedience by the protesters was to sit down together on the street with arms locked and wait to be arrested by the police without struggling. The scale of occupation was planned and intended to be proportionate. We believe that the obstruction must be reasonable.

20. I believe we have done our part as the law-breaker in civil disobedience. We expect the others will do their parts.

21. In a case of civil disobedience, whether the means of civil disobedience is proportionate; contextually, the end must be considered.

22. This is a case about some Hong Kong people who love Hong Kong very much and believe that only through the introduction of genuine universal suffrage could a door be opened to resolving the deep-seated conflicts in Hong Kong.

23. I am one of those Hong Kong people. With all people who share the same democratic dream, we have waited for more than thirty years for our constitutional rights. Since the time I was a law student at the University, I had been involved in Hong Kong’s Democratic Movement. Now, my son has just graduated from the University, democracy is still nowhere in Hong Kong.

24. Also said by Dr King in the Letter (p. 292), “…freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed…We must come to see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that ‘justice too long delayed is justice denied.’”

25. In seeking for justice, our planned action in the eyes of the powerholders may indeed be a nuisance.

26. According to Article 45 of the Basic Law the ultimate aim of the selection of the Chief Executive (“CE”) is by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.

27. Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) provides that, “Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: … (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors…”

28. The United Nations Human Rights Committee gave its understanding and requirements of universal and equal suffrage under Article 25 of the ICCPR in its General Comment No. 25 adopted on 12 July 1996. (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7).

29. Paragraph 15 provides that, “The effective implementation of the right and the opportunity to stand for elective office ensures that persons entitled to vote have a free choice of candidates.”

30. Paragraph 17 provides that, “political opinion may not be used as a ground to deprive any person of the right to stand for election.”

31. Through its Interpretation of Annex I and Annex II of the Basic Law in 2004, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (“NPCSC”) in effect changed the constitutional procedures to amend the election methods of the CE.

32. Before the CE can put forward bills on the amendments to the election methods to the Legislative Council (“LegCo”), two more steps are added. The CE is required to make a report to the NPCSC as regards whether there is a need to make an amendment and the NPCSC must make a determination in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“HKSAR”) and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. Such bills need to have the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the members of the LegCo and the consent of the CE, and they shall be reported to the NPCSC.

33. On 31 August 2014, the NPCSC completed the second step of the constitutional reform process by issuing a decision on the election method of the CE. The NPCSC laid down specific and stringent requirements on the election method of the CE by universal suffrage in addition to the determination that starting from 2017 the selection of the CE may be implemented by the method of universal suffrage.

34. The number of members, composition and formation of the Nomination Committee (“NC”) have to be made in accordance with the number of members, composition and formation method of the Election Committee for the 4th CE. The NC can only nominate two to three candidates for the office of CE in accordance with democratic procedures. Each candidate must have the endorsement of more than half of all the members of the nominating committee.

35. In accordance with the procedure added by itself, the NPCSC should only have the power to make a determination of approving or not approving the CE’s report but not providing detailed requirements on the composition and nomination procedures of the NC. The NPCSC has failed to follow the procedures set by itself.

36. If the requirements set by the NPCSC on the election method of the CE were to be followed, electors in Hong Kong would not have a genuine choice of candidates in the election as all unwelcome candidates would be screened out. This is not compatible with the meaning of universal suffrage.

37. These Hong Kong people resorted to civil disobedience to arouse more concern in the community and the world that the Chinese Government had unjustly broken its constitutional promise and breached its constitutional obligation.

38. We did all we had done to protect our constitutional rights and the constitutional rights of all Hong Kong people including those who disagreed with our action, to demand a constitutional promise to be honored by our sovereign, to strive for a fundamental reform in the constitutional system of Hong Kong, and to bring more justice to the future of Hong Kong.

39. This is also a case of the right to freedom of peaceful demonstration and the right to freedom of speech.

40. According to the original plan of the Occupy Central with Love and Peace Movement, the public meeting to be organised was to be held at the Chater Road Pedestrian Precinct, the Chater Garden, and the Statue Square, from 3:00 pm on 1 October 2014 to the latest on 5 October 2014.

41. We expected that there would be three groups of people coming. The first group of people decided to commit the act of civil disobedience. They would continue to sit on the Chater Road after the notified time expired. They would be the people who had chosen the second or the third option in the letter of intent of the Occupy Central with Love and Peace Movement.

42. The second group of people decided not to commit the act of civil disobedience but just came to support the first group of people. They would leave the Chater Road after the notified time expired and move to the Chater Garden or the Statue Square. They would be the people who had chosen the first option in the letter of intent of the Occupy Central with Love and Peace Movement.

43. The third group of people might not have made up their mind yet on whether they would join the action of civil disobedience. They could decide at the very last moment when the notified time expired by choosing where to stay.

44. We believed that the police would have sufficient time to remove all the protesters joining the act of civil disobedience of occupy Central; estimated to be a few thousands.

45. We asked all participants to observe the discipline of non-violence strictly. We adopted specific measures to ensure most if not all participants would follow.

46. We were exercising our constitutional right to the freedom of peaceful demonstration protected by Article 27 of the Basic Law. It is also closely associated with the right to freedom of speech also protected by Article 27 of the Basic Law. By Article 39 of the Basic Law, constitutional protection is also given to freedom of opinion, of expression and of peaceful assembly as provided for in Articles 16 and 17 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, those articles being the equivalents of Articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR and representing part of the ICCPR as applied to Hong Kong.

47. If the original plan were to be carried out, it might breach some requirements under the Public Order Ordinance concerning the organisation of unauthorised assembly. However, we believed that the public meeting to be held would not cause unreasonable obstruction to the public.

48. The space to be occupied, including the carriageway, can be freely used by every citizen on public holidays.

49. The first two days of the planned occupation were public holidays and the last two days were the weekend.

50. When the venue of the public meeting was moved to the area outside the Central Government Offices including the pavements and carriageways at Tim Mei Avenue, Legislative Council Road and Lung Hui Road (“the Demonstration Area”), though the public meeting’s themes, leadership, organization and composition of participants had changed, the spirit had not.

51. People were asked to join the public meeting in the Demonstration Area on 27 and 28 September 2014. It was still an exercise of their constitutional right to freedom of peaceful demonstration and freedom of speech by Hong Kong citizens.

52. Similar public meetings had been held in the Demonstration Area during the Anti-national Curriculum Campaign from 3-9 September 2012. Citizens at that time could have access to the Civic Square, i.e. the East Wing Forecourt of the Central Government Offices. Other than that, the space being occupied by protesters during the Anti-national Curriculum Campaign in September 2012 was very similar to the space that was being occupied by protesters on 27 and 28 September 2014 before the police cordoned all access to the Demonstration Area.

53. Since the Anti-national Curriculum Campaign in 2012, the Demonstration Area has been generally recognised to be the public space that can be used for organising big public meetings with a large number of people participating to protest against the Government of the HKSAR. In another word, the Demonstration Area is known to the public to be an important venue for citizens of Hong Kong to gather and to exercise their right to peaceful demonstration together.

54. On the basis of this public knowledge that we share, at the time when I announced the early beginning of the Occupy Central in the small hours on 28 September 2014, we could only be intending to ask people to come to the Demonstration Area but no other place. Occupying places outside the Demonstration Area could not have been in the thought of us at that time. No one could have intended that.

55. The Court of Final Appeal in Leung Kwok-hung v. HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 229 at paragraph 22 pointed out that, “…the right of peaceful assembly involves a positive duty on the part of the Government, that is the executive authorities, to take reasonable and appropriate measures to enable lawful assemblies to take place peacefully.”

56. As senior superintendent Wong Key-wai (PW2) said in his evidence, the police closed the carriageways in the Demonstration Area for the safety of the protesters when there were too many protesters on the adjacent pavements.

57. Having a public space for the public opposing the Government of the HKSAR to gather and vent their dissatisfaction against the Government peacefully is a public benefit to the society of Hong Kong. No common injury to the public can be caused even if a public meeting is being held in the Demonstration Area in contravention with the Public Order Ordinance for a prolonged period. The section of the public that will be affected is very small and the inconvenience caused is comparatively insignificant.

58. Mr Justice Bokhary PJ said in Yeung May-wan v. HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 137 at paragraph 144, “The mere fact that an assembly, a procession or a demonstration causes some interference with free passage along a highway does not take away its protection under art. 27 of the Basic Law. In my view, it would not lose such protection unless the interference caused is unreasonable in the sense of exceeding what the public can reasonably be expected to tolerate. As to that, I think that the participants in a large or even massive assembly, procession or demonstration will often be able to say with justification that their point could not be nearly as effectively made by anything on a smaller scale. Subject to this, the most obviously relevant considerations are, I think, how substantial the interference is and how long it lasts. But other considerations can be relevant, too. These include, I think, whether the interference concerned had been recently preceded by another act or other acts of interference on another occasion or other occasions. What the public can reasonably be expected to tolerate is a question of fact and degree. But when answering this question, a court must always remember that preservation of the freedom in full measure defines reasonableness and is not merely a factor in deciding what is reasonable.”

59. No obstruction can be caused by the protesters participating in a public meeting in the Demonstration Area as all carriageways in the Demonstration Area were closed by the police. The police closed the carriageways in the Demonstration Area to ensure the protesters there can exercise their right to freedom of peaceful assembly safely and peacefully. Even if there were to be some degree of obstruction in the Demonstration Area, the obstruction could not be unreasonable in light of the constitutional right to freedom of peaceful demonstration of the protesters.

60. Even after protesters walked into the carriageways of Fenwick Pier Street and Harcourt Road on 28 September 2014, people were continuing to be asked to come to the Demonstration Area but not to stay on those roads. The police were demanded to reopen the access to the Demonstration Area so that people could come and join the protesters in the Demonstration Area. If the access to the Demonstration Area were not blocked by the police, most if not all of the people out there would have entered the Demonstration Area and those roads would not have been occupied. No tear gas would need to be fired.

61. It should be the duty of the police to facilitate the holding of a public meeting in the Demonstration Area by citizens. However, the police had cordoned the Demonstration Area and prevented people from joining the public meeting in the Demonstration Area. Any obstruction outside the Demonstration Area could not be intended or caused by the protesters gathering in the Demonstration Area who were just inviting other people to join them in the Demonstration Area.

62. The police irresponsibly refused to reopen the access to the Demonstration Area even after the police saw that a large number of people were gathering outside the Demonstration Area intending to enter the Demonstration Area. The police must be responsible for the obstruction outside the Demonstration Area and what happened afterwards.

63. Everything changed after the firing of the 87 canisters of tear gas and excessive force had been used by the police.

64. The firing of tear gas in such a way was something that no one could have known. Matters were no longer in our control. By then, the most important thing we wanted to do was to bring everyone home safe.

65. In the many days and nights following the firing of the tear gas, we had tried to use different methods to bring an earlier end of the occupation. We helped arrange a dialogue between the student leaders and senior government officials. We tried to convince others to accept an arrangement of de facto referendum as a mechanism to retreat. We organised a plaza voting. Even though most of the things we had done came to be futile, we did work very hard and exhausted all methods we could think of to achieve this goal. In the end, we surrendered to the police on 3 December 2014. The occupation at the Admiralty area ended on 11 December 2014.

66. This is a case about the improperness of laying charges relating to public nuisance.

67. As asserted by Lord Hoffmann in R v Jones (Margaret), prosecutors also have conventions to follow in a case of civil disobedience. They should behave with restraint.

68. In “Public Nuisance – A Critical Examination,” Cambridge Law Journal 48(1), March 1989, pp. 55-84, at p. 77, J. R. Spencer observed that, “...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.”

69. Lord Bingham in R v Rimmington [2006] 1 AC 469 at paragraph 37 endorsed the criticisms of J. R. Spencer concerning the ulterior motive of a prosecutor laying a charge of public nuisance.

70. If there is an appropriate statutory offence to cover the unlawful act in a case of civil disobedience, one would rightly ask why laying the charges of public nuisance? Even though it might not be an abuse of process, the prosecutor in this case must have breached the convention of civil disobedience applicable to him as asserted by Lord Hoffmann in R v Jones (Margaret) for failing to behave with restraint.

71. This is a case about the improperness of laying charges of conspiracy and incitement to incite.

72. Similarly, laying charges of conspiracy and incitement to incite is excessive in a case of civil disobedience and a case of the right to freedom of peaceful demonstration.

73. Pieces of evidence relied upon by the prosecution in the conspiracy charge were public statements made by us. Civil disobedience by definition must be a public act. If these public statements can be used to support the prosecution, all civil disobedience at its formation stage will be suppressed. It is meaningless to talk about civil disobedience as something honourable as no civil disobedience would have happened. Even worse, a chilling effect will be generated in society, and many legitimate speeches will be silenced. The restriction on the right to freedom of speech must be disproportionate.

74. Whether there can be an offence of incitement to incite under the Hong Kong common law is still disputable. Even if there is such an offence, laying charges of incitement to incite in a case of civil disobedience and a case of the right to freedom of peaceful demonstration must have extended culpability excessively, unreasonably and unnecessarily.

75. Since the substantial offence is the questionable offence of public nuisance, laying a charge of incitement to incite public nuisance must have extended culpability to even a manifestly unreasonable degree.

76. If the prosecutor has not acted in such an excessive and unreasonable manner and proper charges were laid, we would not have filed a defence.

77. Nonetheless, filing a defence against charges believed to be excessive and unreasonable should not be considered to be failing to comply with the conventions of civil disobedience on the part of the law-breakers as not accepting the penalties imposed by the law.

78. There are some questions that I am not in the position to answer. If the prosecutor fails to comply with the convention of civil disobedience asserted by Lord Hoffmann in R v Jones (Margaret), what will be the consequence? Who is responsible for rectifying the wrongs?

79. At the end, this is a case about Hong Kong’s rule of law and high degree of autonomy.

80. As a scholar of the rule of law and the constitutional law of Hong Kong, I believe that merely having judicial independence is not sufficient to maintain the rule of law in Hong Kong.

81. Without a genuinely democratic system, powers of the government can still be exercised arbitrarily, and the fundamental rights of citizens will not be adequately protected. Also, without democracy, it will be difficult to withstand the more and more severe encroachment on Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy under the policy of “One Country Two Systems”. After the Umbrella Movement, there is still a long way before we can reach the destination of Hong Kong’s journey to democracy.

82. Mr Justice Tang, PJ at his Farewell Sitting (2018) 21 HKCFAR 530 at paragraphs 17-19 said, “…although judges are prepared to uphold the rule of law as it has always been understood and applied in Hong Kong, the community must be willing to support them. In what form the support should take? I think the support should be all-embracing. If the judiciary is unfairly attacked, you should hold firm and stand up for them. But, support should not only be events driven. That is not enough. It may be too late. You should endeavour to nurture an atmosphere friendly to the rule of law. We have a free press and free elections in Hong Kong. Make your voice heard and your vote count. Believe me, the price of freedom is indeed eternal vigilance. Above all else, do not give up or underestimate your strength. If we as a community insist on the rule of law, it cannot be taken from us easily. Do not make it easy.”

83. We all have our duty to defend the rule of law and the high degree of autonomy in Hong Kong.

84. I am here because I have used many years of my life and up to this very moment to defend the rule of law of Hong Kong, an integral part of Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy. I will also never give up on striving for Hong Kong’s democracy.

85. I believe that civil disobedience can be justified by the rule of law. Civil disobedience and the rule of law share the same goal in pursuing justice. Civil disobedience is an effective way of securing the attainment of this common goal at least in the long run by creating the climate within which other means can be used to achieve that goal. (See Benny Yiu-ting Tai, “Civil Disobedience and the Rule of Law,” in Ng, M. H. (Ed.), Wong, J. D. (Ed.). (2017). Civil Unrest and Governance in Hong Kong. London: Routledge. At pp. 141-162.)

86. If we were to be guilty, we will be guilty for daring to share hope at this difficult time in Hong Kong.

87. I am not afraid or ashamed of going to prison. If this is the cup I must take, I will drink with no regret.


List of Authorities

1. Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35, paragraphs 70 and 72.
2. John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Revised Edition, 1999), p. 320.
3. Martin Luther King Jr. “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 71, No. 1/4 (Winter - Autumn, 1986), pp. 38-44.
4. R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136, paragraph 89.
5. UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No 25 adopted on 12 July 1996 (on Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7, paragraph 15 and 17.
6. Leung Kwok-hung v HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 229, paragraph 22.
7. Yeung May-wan v HKSAR (2005) 8 HKCFAR 137, paragraph 144.
8. J. R. Spencer, “Public Nuisance – A Critical Examination,” Cambridge Law Journal 48(1), March 1989, pp. 55-84, p. 77.
9. R v Rimmington [2006] 1 AC 469, paragraph 37.
10. Farewell Sitting for the Honourable Mr Justice Tang PJ (2018) 21 HKCFAR 530, Tang PJ, paragraphs 17-19.
11. Benny Yiu-ting Tai, “Civil Disobedience and the Rule of Law” in Ng, M. H. (Ed.), Wong, J. D. (Ed.). (2017). Civil Unrest and Governance in Hong Kong. London: Routledge. At pp. 141-162.