余震宇

余震宇

「香港舊照片」負責人,中學教師。

2019/6/13 - 20:48

反《逃犯條例》修訂懶人包

【文:余震宇;英譯:Anthony Kong】

(English version below)

近來有好多叔伯兄弟,不清楚《逃犯條例》有乜問題。二次佔領之後,又埋怨廢青襲擊警察,破壞社會安寧,又出嚟阻住人哋搵食云云。如果讀者身邊有呢類朋友,歡迎將呢篇文「腥」比佢睇。

廣告

問:點解要反修例?

答:因為修例要將中國納入司法體系,但中國司法制度不可信。

問:點解中國司法制度不可信?

答:王全璋身為維權律師,只是履行法律權利,無故被監禁三年,家屬不得探視。「銅鑼灣書店」店長林榮基被綁架返回內地,反映中國踐踏人權,絕不可信。

問:我「行得正、企得正」,點解要驚政府修例?

答:你看劉曉波,起草《零八憲章》,居然被監禁至死,太太劉霞被軟禁,差不多精神崩潰,證明你講錯一句,你都有機會出事。

問:我討厭政治、我從不談政治,關我咩事?

答:你不談政治,都有可能中伏㗎。修例規定被囚七年或以上可引渡中國受審,中國某小說作者寫了 BL 小說,只是意識不良,就監禁十年。

問:我不寫小說,關我咩事?

答:傻豬,即使修例講明不會引渡政治犯,但會用其他罪名引渡香港人。你看,艾未未被控逃稅,桂民海被控交通肇事罪。隨便安插罪名,就可以「送你中」了。

問:其他國家都有引渡條例啦,點解香港唔可以有啊?

答:哎,香港係冇主權㗎,對中國唯命是從。中國話要引渡一個人,香港係唔可以 say no 㗎。

問:香港人要反對,咁咪上街遊行示威要求檢討法例囉,改到啱為止,係咪先?

答:咪傻啦,呢個修例只係由特首決定引渡與否,唔係由立法會去決定。就算泛民贏哂所有議席,只要特首唔係普選,你點抗議都係冇用。

問:喂,咁個女仔去台灣比人殺咗,香港人又唔支持修例,咁好唔公道噃,係咪?

答:你有冇睇新聞㗎?台灣講咗香港咁樣修例,佢哋唔會收呢個犯,如果唔修例只係單次引渡就冇問題,台灣知道港府借呢單案過橋,一早講咗唔收呢個犯啦。

問:好,咁依家啲後生仔衝擊警方防線,我覺得好似六七既暴徒囉,係咪?

答:咁你真係中哂計。尋日四萬人喺金鐘,衝擊嘅有冇四千人先?仲有啊,你見到咁多段警察毫無警示就動武傷人既片段,係咪示威者錯哂呢?其實如果唔係港府強行修例嘅話,警察同市民又點會打起上嚟呢?

問:咁如果修例係中國要求嘅,咁港府冇得唔跟㗎噃?

答:今日駐英大使都講咗,中國政府從來冇要求港府修例,係港府自己搞出嚟,所有問題都係林鄭造成。你既然知道中國要求嘅嘢,港府冇得 say no,咁你明白呢條條例嘅問題啦!

Extradition Law Amendment Bill FAQ

Despite having several wall-to-wall coverages on the extradition law amendment bill (ELAB) by various medias in recent weeks, perhaps there are still some of you out there who are not entirely familiar with why exactly there is such an enormous movement dedicated to objecting this amendment. Hopefully this FAQ can explain to you some of the problems with the ELAB, and why so many of us are against it.

Q: Why should we oppose this amendment?

A: Because with this amendment, China would be included within the judicial system, but the Chinese judicial system cannot be trusted.

Q: Why can’t the Chinese judicial system be trusted?

A: In 2015, Wang QuanZhang, a Chinese human rights lawyer who was simply exercising his legal rights, was imprisoned for no reason for three years, where even his family and friends were not allowed to visit him.   In 2016, the manager and one of three shareholders of a bookstore called the “Causeway Bay Bookstore” in Hong Kong which sells mostly political books that are deemed sensitive and banned in mainland China, was abducted into mainland China.  Both examples illustrate how little respect the Chinese authorities has for human rights, and why they cannot be trusted.

Q: I am a law-abiding citizen.  I have no interest in challenging the law. Why should I be afraid of the amendment?

A: Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese human rights activist, 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner, was imprisoned until death for writing Chapter 08, a manifesto that calls for more freedom of expression, human rights etc in China.  His wife, Liu Xia, was forced to the brink of mental collapse.  This is a prime example of how simply expressing one’s opinion could mean life-long imprisonment and torture for any unfortunate individuals.

Q: I hate politics, I don’t want to be involved in any politics, why should I care?

A: Even if you alienate yourself from politics, it will always find a way to you.  According to the amendment, if a person is sentenced to seven or more years of imprisonment, you could be extradited to China.  A Chinese author who wrote a novel about homosexuals was prosecuted for indecency and was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment.  

Q: I don’t write novels.  Why should I be concerned?

A: Even though the amendment states that political prisoners would not be extradited, you could still be prosecuted by other charges.  See, Ai Weiwei (a Chinese contemporary artist and activist) was charged with tax evasion; Gui Minhai (a Chinese-born Swedish scholar and book publisher who publishes books about Chinese politics and political figures) was charged with culpable driving causing serious damage or injury.  It really is not that difficult to crown you with a non-political crime to then extradite you.  

Q: The thing is, murder was conducted on Taiwanese grounds by a Hong Kong citizen.  If this amendment doesn’t pass, the murderer would never receive the punishment he deserves.  How is that even fair?

A: Taiwanese agencies have stated multiple times that they will not accept the murderer if he were to be extradited under this amendment.  Even without this amendment, a single-time extradition could be arranged between two governments to solve this particular problem.  If Taiwan knew that the HKSAR government would use this incident as an excuse to push ELAB, they probably wouldn’t have requested for his transfer at the first place.

Q: Okay, fine.  Politics aside, can’t you see how the teenagers are assaulting the police lines?  It is as if the second coming of the 1967 leftist riots, don’t you think?

A: If you honestly think so then you are seriously deluded my friend.  There were almost forty thousand protesters in Admiralty yesterday (12th June), with perhaps less than four thousand people assaulting police lines.  Besides, after seeing countless videos and photos of police using excessive force against protesters without proper warning, do you still think it is all the protesters’ fault?  If the Hong Kong government was not trying to forcefully push this amendment, this confrontation could have been avoided entirely in the first place.  

Q: If pushing the amendment is a direct order from Beijing, the HKSAR government can’t really say no, can they?

A: See, here’s the problem. Today (13th June) the Chinese ambassador in UK stated that Beijing never gave the order to force this amendment.  All this turmoil is basically caused by Carrie Lam (HKSAR Chief Executive).  Besides, if you are aware that the HKSAR government cannot disobey any orders given by Beijing, then it is not that hard to figure out how detrimental this amendment would be to our judicial system, is it?