在英殖民政府執政的最後幾年，以及1997年回歸後的頭四年，陳方安生(Anson Chan)一直是香港政府的第二號人物。任職期間，常有人稱她為香港的「鐵娘子」，是亞洲最具權勢的女性之一。
如今她最關心的是確保香港回歸中國時的約定能得以履行，按照現行的《基本法》規定，香港人到2017年將可以自行選擇該地區的行政長官。
Victor Fraile/Reuters
前香港政務司司長陳方安生。
對香港的現任領導人以及北京政府的干涉，現年74歲的陳方安生表達了越來越多的不滿，她認為北京的干涉越來越強橫了。幾個月前，她聽聞英國的滙豐銀行(HSBC)和渣打銀行(Standard Chartered)
抽撤了在《蘋果日報》的廣告，而那是香港最受歡迎的報紙之一。該報稱，銀行是在北京的施壓下做出這個決定的，報紙的批判性報道激怒了北京政府。
在一次採訪中，陳方安生談到了她和銀行高層的信件往來，以及北京政府對香港的控制。在她看來，這種控制在收緊，而在「一國兩制」的原則下，北京本來承諾香港可以保持高度自治，直到2047年。以下是經過編輯的訪談節選：
問：關於企業撤廣告的事，此前中國國有企業以及和中國有業務往來的本地公司不是一直在這麼做嗎？
答：某種程度上講，我不能容忍這種行為，但是能理解本地華人企業，尤其是想在中國做生意的，會被迫去接受。但像滙豐、渣打這樣的國際銀行若如此行事，就是在步入歧途了。下次他們再來說我們不想讓你們和某些客戶做生意怎麼辦？你也屈服嗎？
一個在全世界多數地方都有強勢存在的國際銀行，如果要有了這樣的舉動，是在向香港人傳達什麼樣的訊息呢？這些人正在拚死抗爭，希望能如實依照「一國兩制」對我們的核心價值觀加以保護，維持我們當前所享有的法治以及所有的權利和自由。那些香港的普通百姓還有什麼希望呢？你們這樣做，其他和你們有業務往來的國家看到，又會怎麼想呢？
問：銀行說這些決定都是出於商業上的考量，他們在信中給出的回答，你能接受嗎？
答：它們沒有否認它們已經從《蘋果日報》撤出廣告，對不對？它們肯定沒有給出我想得到的保證。
像滙豐這樣的銀行，你一定要問它：『為什麼要從這座城市銷量最好的報紙之一撤下廣告？是什麼促使你們這麼做的？』
我認為這很能說明問題。首先，你沒有否認存在此事。我要求你給出一個明確的保證。你沒有給。這樣一來我還能得出什麼結論？
問：為什麼中國政府要針對《蘋果日報》？
答：《蘋果日報》大概是僅存的一個還能保持相當獨立性的報紙，敢於表達自己對北京的不滿，敢於批評特區政府。現在有這個膽量的報紙已經不多了。在平面媒體甚至電視上，自我審查的情況越來越多。
在過去，他們至少是暗地裡悄悄做的。現在有一個狀況讓我們很擔心，他們可以公然干涉，甚至都不打算掩飾了。
問：為什麼會這樣？
答：因為他們想要讓你明白誰是主子。他們認為我們是無可奈何的，因為你可以看到，他們不只是對香港這樣，其他很多問題也是這樣處理的。他們越來越強勢，因為所有人都表現出我們很需要跟你做生意、投資的樣子。很不幸，有錢能使鬼推磨。
如果你這時候選擇退縮，沉默不語，你就是在慫恿他們下次給出更過分的要求。要到什麼時候才會說受夠了呢？
如果銀行真是做過周全的考慮，那從銀行的角度，你當然需要的是一個不受約束的媒體。要做出有見地的商業決策，你需要最及時、精準的信息。一個媒體的言論可以輕易被壓制，是不符合滙豐的利益的，當然也不符合股東的利益。
中國的經濟更強了，它感到自己的經濟力量越來越大，他們認為可以通過這種經濟力量來達到目的，那麼他們就會這麼做。
問：此事會怎樣發展，是否和「佔中」運動有關？這個運動威脅說，如果下一任行政長官選舉的新規則無法達到國際標準，就會在香港市中心商業區進行靜坐抗議。
答：無關的，這件事已經持續了相當一段時間，而佔中是他們最近新添的一個煩心事。[北京方面本周發佈的《白皮書》]清楚地表明，他們打算收緊對香港的控制，他們在重新定義什麼叫高度自治、港人治港。要是可以的話，他們還會重寫《基本法》。
問：但民調顯示北京政府正在失去香港民眾的支持，尤其是年輕人。他們不擔心嗎？
答：目前看還沒有太多擔心。說到底他們就是覺得，我們指望他們的經濟施捨和其他幫助，我們還是會和往常一樣說，『有什麼辦法呢，我們只能接受。』但如果他們真這麼想，那就是打錯算盤了，因為正如你所說，年輕一代遠沒有那麼能忍。他們對前景非常擔憂，一國兩制被一點點地削弱，我們的核心價值觀被侵蝕。這樣下去，連法治和司法獨立都會受到破壞，到了那一天，香港還有什麼？在大陸經濟的可持續發展中，香港還能發揮怎樣的作用，我們又該如何幫助我們的國家走向現代化？我們的這種角色，只有在一國兩制的基礎上才可以實現。
問：你是否認為佔中運動加劇了緊張局勢？
答：佔中無疑觸到了痛處。由於這邊有人在挑撥，北京方面開始認為這是在公然挑戰他們對香港的權威。自佔中的想法提出後，他們在竭盡所能地把它妖魔化，部署反對力量，並誇大所謂的經濟後果。
問：你會去支持佔中嗎？
答：佔中的策劃者已經說得很明白。這是最後的手段，只有當政府要迫使我們接受一套顯然並非真普選的方案——即是說，最終結果是預先決定的，人們才會發起行動。只有那樣，才會有佔中。
如果政府說他們對佔中十分關切，那麼是很容易避免的。你只需要做你該做的事，也就是實施真正的普選，那是北京政府向香港人民鄭重承諾過的，也是寫在我們的《基本法》里的。不多不少，就這一個要求。
看到香港回歸僅17年就出現如此多的狀況，我個人是極為失望的，在很多方面感到痛心。50年的期限，還剩下30多年。如果繼續這樣下去，我看用不着等到2047年，一國兩制早早就會消失。
我們一定要考慮那些別無選擇的人。他們不像有的香港人那麼富有，一旦情況不妙可以到別處去。對很多人來講，他們是沒得選擇的。我認為，我們每個人都有責任去做點什麼，至少要遏制住這種惡化的趨勢，要繼續盡我們的所能。
問：你會參加佔中嗎？
答：我衷心希望不要發展到需要佔中的地步。我的態度是：如果特區政府和北京要強迫香港人民接受一套明顯虛假的普選方案，令大陸方面可以對人選有百分之百的把握，那就別怪香港人民全面動員起來。
傅才德( MICHAEL FORSYTHE)是《紐約時報》記者。
翻譯：經雷
Q. and A.: Anson Chan on Beijing’s Pressure Tactics in Hong Kong
By MICHAEL FORSYTHE June 13, 2014
Anson Chan served as the No. 2 official in Hong Kong in the last years of the British colonial administration as well as in the first four years of the government following the territory’s return to China in 1997. During her time in office she was often referred to as Hong Kong’s “Iron Lady” and regarded as one of Asia’s most powerful women.
Now her focus is on ensuring that the terms of Hong Kong’s return to Chinese rule are honored, and that the people of Hong Kong will be able to freely choose the region’s chief executive by 2017 under the terms of the governing “Basic Law.”
In an interview, Ms. Chan talked about letters she exchanged with top executives of the banks, and what she sees as increasing control from Beijing, which had guaranteed Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy until 2047 under the “One Country, Two Systems” formula. Edited excerpts follow:
Q. On the pulling of advertisements, hasn’t this been going on before with Chinese state-owned enterprises and local companies that do business with China?
A. In a way I don’t condone it, but I understand that local Chinese enterprises, particularly those that want to do business in China, feel they have to acquiesce. But an international bank like HSBC and Standard Chartered, if you act this way, it is the first step down a very slippery slope. What happens the next time they call up and say we don’t like you doing business with certain clients? Are you also going to cave in?
If an international bank with a huge presence in most parts of the world behaves like this, what sort of message are you giving to people in Hong Kong, who are desperately fighting for faithful implementation of “One Country, Two Systems” protection of our core values, maintenance of the rule of law and all the rights and freedoms that we currently enjoy? What chance is there for the average man on the street in Hong Kong? And what sort of message are you sending to other countries where you operate?
Q. The banks are saying that these are based on commercial considerations, are you satisfied with their answers to your letter?
A. They did not deny that they had withdrawn advertisements from Apple Daily, did they? And they certainly did not provide the assurances that I was seeking.
You have to ask a bank like HSBC, ‘Why do you withdraw advertisements from one of the most popular newspapers in town? What would prompt you to do that?’
I think it’s very telling. You have not, first of all, denied that this has happened. I asked you to provide an absolute assurance. You did not. What conclusion am I to draw from this?
Q. Why is the Chinese government focusing on Apple Daily?
A. Apple Daily is about the only still fairly independent newspaper that dares to speak its mind in criticizing Beijing, in criticizing the S.A.R. government. There are not all that many newspapers now that dare to do this. You see increasing self-censorship on the part of the printed media, even television.
In the past at least they did it behind the scene and very quietly. Now, one of the things that worries us is that they so blatantly interfere and they don’t even bother to disguise the fact that they are interfering.
Q. Why is this?
A. That is because they are intent on showing who is the master. And they don’t think that there is very much we can do about it because you can see this not only in the way they deal with Hong Kong, but in the way that they deal with a lot of other issues. They are becoming more and more assertive because everybody gives them the impression we badly want to trade with you and have investments with you. Unfortunately, money talks.
If you roll over and you pull your punches, you’re just going to encourage them to demand more the next time around. At what point are you going to say, enough and enough?
If the bank really thought this through, surely from the bank’s point of view, you need an unfettered press. You need up-to-the-minute accurate information to make informed business decisions. But if you have a press that can be easily gagged, it doesn’t serve HSBC’s interest, and it certainly doesn’t serve shareholders’ interests.
As China grows economically stronger and it feels increasing economic muscle, and they think they can get away with flexing this economic muscle, then that is what they will do.
Q. Where does this go, does it have something to do with the Occupy Central movement, which has threatened a sit-in protest in Hong Kong’s central business district should new rules for the election of the next chief executive fail to meet international standards?
A. No, it has been going on for a while, and Occupy Central is just the latest thorn in their side. [The White Paper
issued by Beijing this week] is the clearest sign yet that they intend to tighten their grip over Hong Kong, that they are redefining what is meant by a high degree of autonomy and Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong. If they can, they will rewrite the Basic Law.
Q. But polls show the Beijing government is losing support of the populace in Hong Kong, especially among young people. Aren’t they concerned?
A. They don’t seem particularly concerned as yet. They think that, in the end, because we look to them for economic largesse and whatnot, that we will just as usual say, ‘Well, what can we do, we’ll just have to accept it.’ But if they do this, they have badly miscalculated, because, as you say, the younger generation are not nearly so tolerant. They are very worried about what they see going on now, this chipping away at Two Systems, eroding our core values. Because if this continues, even the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary will be compromised and, when that goes, what else remains for Hong Kong? How can we continue to play a role in sustainable economic growth in mainland China and in helping our country modernize? We’re only able to perform this role because there is this concept of One Country, Two Systems.
Q. Do you think Occupy Central movement is exacerbating the tensions?
A. Occupy Central undoubtedly has touched a raw nerve. Some in Beijing, egged on by people here, see that as a direct challenge to their absolute authority over Hong Kong. Ever since the Occupy Central idea was mooted, they have done everything they possibly can to demonize Occupy Central, to roll out opposing forces, to exaggerate the so-called economic consequences.
Q. Are you going to be out there supporting Occupy Central?
A. The architects of Occupy Central have made it quite clear. It is a last resort, only to be invoked if the government forces us to accept a set of proposals that are clearly not genuine universal suffrage — in other words, the outcome is preordained. Only and only if that happens, will there be Occupy Central.
If the government says they are so concerned about Occupy Central, it is very easy to avoid it. You just do what you are supposed to be doing, which is deliver genuine universal suffrage, which is a solemn promise that Beijing has made to the people of Hong Kong and which is in our Basic Law. No more, no less.
I am personally extremely disappointed and in many ways very pained to see what is happening to Hong Kong barely 17 years after the handover. There are still 30-odd years to go before the 50 years is up. But if we continue down this road, then I don’t think you have to wait until 2047, because One Country, Two Systems will be long gone before 2047.
We have to think about people here who have no alternatives. They are not rich like some people in Hong Kong who, if things go wrong, can just up and go elsewhere. For many people they don’t have this choice. I think it is incumbent upon every one of us who can do something to at least arrest the rate of deterioration, to continue to do our best.
Q. Will you participate in Occupy Central?
A. My sincere hope is that there will be no need for Occupy Central. I will say this: If, at the end of the day, the S.A.R. government and Beijing force the people of Hong Kong to accept a set of universal suffrage proposals that are patently false, where there is 100 percent certainty for mainland China as to who is going to be elected, then Beijing cannot blame the Hong Kong people if there is mass mobilization.
沒有留言:
張貼留言