「香港明天更美好」視頻宣介會在日內瓦成功舉行

李浩然博士於6月28日出席中國常駐日內瓦代表團在聯合國人權理事會第50屆會議期間，舉辦的「香港明天更美好」視頻宣介會，當天除了李浩然博士，還有香港特別行政區政府官員、立法會議員和青年代表擔任發言嘉賓，介紹香港特區最新情況。30多個國家的常駐代表和高級外交官、聯合國人權高專辦官員和記者等60余人參加。

在宣介會上，李浩然博士表示特區選舉制度修改完善符合香港實際情況。世界上沒有放之四海而皆准的民主模式，任何人都不能將西式民主奉為圭臬盲目套用。西方國家將發生在自己國家的騷亂貼上「暴亂」標籤，卻將香港黑暴分子美化為「民主鬥士」，這暴露了他們的雙重標準和干涉中國內政、遏制中國復興的圖謀。

以下是李浩然博士在宣介會的發言講稿 :

The Facts

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) resumed sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997. Under the “One Country Two Systems” Policy, the only thing being changed was the ruling role under the British regime. The system under practice has not changed; the degree of democracy has not declined; the extent of civil liberties being enjoyed has not been curtailed. Most importantly, the Rule of Law is still being strenuously upheld by an independent judiciary consisting of reputable judges with exceptionally high caliber coming from a wide range of common law countries.

In answering the question whether democracy has been decayed after the return to the Motherland, objective figures can give a more telling truth :-

1. GDP increased with low unemployment rate.

2. Living standard of HK people improved both in term of increased community facilities and social protection.

3. People here are wealthier than ever and can even afford luxurious travel all over the world throughout the year.

4. There is freedom of movement.

Anyone who feels fear or being oppressed can simply leave the place without any restriction. However, Hong Kong is still being populated by more than 7 million of inhabitants. There is no significant out-flux of inhabitants either before or after the return of sovereignty of Hong Kong. Those facts speak for themselves.

Citizen of Hong Kong may ask what is the ultimate goal of democracy? Shall freedom under the guise of democracy be a permit to commit crime? Shall democracy serve the well-being of the people as a whole or only a small section of them? Can a place governed by Rule of Law be an undemocratic place? Those criticizing do owe a duty to explain.

Democracy : a tight jacket?

Undeniably, the principles of democracy are generally well recognized and received. So are those provisions safe-guarding the fundamental rights of citizens contained in the Constitution of PRC which are in line with such concept of democracy of the western countries.

But when dealing with the issue of implementing such concept in a realistic world, different situation demands different treatment. No one shall blindly apply the western democracy as a template to all other countries without paying attention to the societal differences. There is no modal democracy fits all sorts of circumstances.

After returning to China, Hong Kong becomes an integral part of it. The concept of federation or union of the west does not apply to Hong Kong. Furthermore, it shall not, and in fact cannot, be managed without paying special consideration to the situation in China, in particular the following factors :-

China has :-

1. Long cultural heritage and custom;

2. Large population;

3. Diverged cultures in view of the number of ethnic minorities or tribes;

4. Complex geographic compositions leading to different degree of development in different region;

5. Significant differences of GDP in areas across the country.

Managing China is therefore a great challenge. Invariable application of the western standard of democracy may cause a disruption of the delicate balance already struck. No one can afford turmoil and no Chinese should be risked of being caught in another political disaster.

The Unrest starting in 2019 and abated in 2020

It is common sense that no place in the world shall serve as a breeding ground to sabotage its mother country. The western countries in particular the USA and the European Union, instead of condemning the violence happened in Hong Kong during the period of 2019 to 2020, to some extent even endorsed the vandalism of those rioters by praising their criminal behaviors.

Such endorsement is a de facto double standard. In August 2011, there were series of riots in London. Thousands of protesters expressing their anger over the injustice caused by long-term racial and class tension and economic stress committed serious crimes like arson, vandalism and assaults, with a total of 3,500 crimes across London that were linked to this disorder. But, at that time, the UK government responded with mass deployment of riot police and labelled such disorder as a riot.

The Capitol incident happened in the USA serves as another example. Perceiving their freedoms were under threat because of the alleged voter fraud and with a view to protecting the U.S. Constitution, Trump’s supporters assembled at and attacked on the Capitol. Even Capitol police officers were seriously assaulted and beaten, while the Capitol was severely damaged by the angry crowds who claimed themselves as the defender of U.S. constitution. Instead of summoning police officers elsewhere to deal with the situation, the National Guard, U.S. State-based military force, was deployed to control the riot.

During the 2019 social unrest in Hong Kong, dressing up those rioters as fighters for democracy was utterly irresponsible. It inevitably added fuel to the fire. Their motives were simple and straightforward. By meddling with the internal affairs of China, they try to isolate China and suppress its resurgence.

Against this background and answering the urge of society to restore peace and stability, the National Security Law was enacted by the Central Authorities and promulgated for implementation in Hong Kong in accordance with the Basic Law. In fact, enacting legislation to protect national security has been stipulated in Basic Law and therefore is a constitutional obligation of Hong Kong. It is plainly wrong to accuse the passing of the National Security Law while Hong Kong has failed to discharge such duty for more than 20 years.

The actual implementation of the National Security Law has been subject to the strictest scrutiny of the judiciary and it is no doubt that our judiciary would keep a close eye on its application through the handling of actual court proceedings. So far there is no criticism by any judge that the law has ever been misused.

Turning to the reform of Chief Executive and Legislative Counselors elections, it has also been expressly stated in the Basic Law that the selection method of both the Chief Executive and Legislative Counselors shall be subject to the principle of gradual and orderly progress. Hence, it is reasonable to anticipate that the respective election process may be revised in accordance with the actual situation in Hong Kong before the ultimate goal of universal suffrage can be attained.

Given the chaos happened in 2019 and 2020, it is again more than reasonable that the methods of selecting both the Chief Executive and Legislative Counselors have to be overhauled so that Hong Kong would not serve as a perverting base of national security and would not become a place that was haunted by internal political turmoil and insecurity. Hong Kong shall only be managed by patriotic persons.

All the changes are made with the good-will of maintaining the stability of Hong Kong and ensuring the people here would keep enjoying prosperity in future by minimizing potential threats caused by political chaos.