【對華政策的範式轉移】絕對是歷史性講話.
#成萬字 #萬言書 #頹譯都譯死人
----小弟頹譯------
蓬佩奧:謝謝。謝謝你們。州長,您的慷慨介紹。的確是這樣:當您在那個體育館裡散步時,說出“蓬佩奧”的名字,人們就會耳語。因為,我有一個兄弟,Mark,他是一個非常好,一位非常出色的籃球運動員。
請為藍鷹榮譽衛隊(Blue Eagles Honor Guard)及飛行員Kayla Highsmith下士對國歌的精彩演繹給多一次掌聲如何? (掌聲)
也要感謝Laurie牧師那動人的祈禱,我還要感謝Hugh Hewitt和尼克遜基金會的邀請讓我在這個重要的美國機構發言。很高興能受空軍人員演唱,由海軍陸戰隊介紹,讓個一個陸軍傢伙站在海軍傢伙的房子前面。 (笑聲)(按蓬佩奧曾在美國陸軍服役 )一切都很好。
很榮幸來到Yorba Linda,尼克遜的父親在那裡建立了他出生和成長的房屋。
在這困難時刻,使今天成為可能的尼克遜中心董事會和工作人員,感謝,感謝我和我的團隊使這一天成為可能。
我們很幸運能在觀眾中見到一些特別的嘉賓,包括我認識的Chris Nixon (尼克遜的孫,Christopher Nixon Cox)。我還要感謝Tricia Nixon和Julie Nixon Eisenhower (尼克遜兩位女兒)對這次訪問的支持。
我還想提一提幾位勇敢的中國持不同政見者,他們長途跋涉並出席。其他尊貴的客人-(掌聲)-尊貴的客人,謝謝您的光臨。那些在帳篷下的人,您們必須支付額外的費用(笑)。
以及那些正在觀看直播的人,感謝您的收看。
最後,正如州長所說,我在Santa Ana出生,離這裡不遠。今天有我的姐姐和她的丈夫在聽眾中。謝謝大家的光臨。我敢打賭,您從沒想過我會站在這裡。
我今天的講話是我在一系列中國演講中的第四組講話,我請國家安全顧問Robert O’Brien,聯邦調查局局長Chris Wray和司法部長Barr陪同我發言。
我們有一個非常明確的目標,一個實在的任務。這是在解釋美國與中國關係的不同方面,數十年來這種關係中出現的巨大失衡以及中國共產黨所計劃的霸權。
我們的目標是明確指出,特朗普總統的中國政策正在解決的對美國人的威脅是明顯的,並且我們正確立保障自由的戰略。Robert O’Brien談到了意識形態。聯邦調查局局長Wray談到了間諜活動。司法部長Barr談到了經濟學。現在,我今天的目標是將這一切匯總給美國人民,並詳細說明中國的威脅對我們的經濟,我們的自由,乃至全球自由民主國家的未來的衝擊。
自基辛格(Kissinger)博士秘密訪問中國以來,到明年已經過去了半個世紀,而尼克松總統訪華50週年也就在2022年。
那時世界大不一樣了。
我們以為與中國交往(engagement)將創造一個帶有友好合作前景的美好未來。
但是今天—今天我們仍然戴著口罩,看著疫性的死亡人數仍在增加,因為中共對世界的承諾沒有兌現。我們每天早上都在讀到鎮壓香港和新疆的新聞消息。
我們看到的中國貿易濫用行為的驚人數字使美國失去了工作,並給整個美國經濟帶來了沉重打擊,包括南加州。而且我們正在看著一支越來越強大,甚至更具威脅性的中國軍隊。
從加利福尼亞州到我的家鄉堪薩斯州以及其他地區,我都有著與美國人心中的疑問:從與中國交往至今,美國人民這50年見到了什麼?
領袖們曾說過的中國邁向自由與民主發展的理論是否正確?
這是中國對 "雙贏" 局面的定義嗎?
實際上,從國務卿的角度來看,美國更安全嗎?我們是否有更大的可能為我們自己實現和平,並為我們之後的子孫後代享有和平?
看,我們必須承認一個硬道理。我們必須承認一個硬道理,它將指導我們在未來幾十年中發展,如果我們要擁有一個自由的21世紀,而不是習近平夢想的中國世紀,那麼與中國盲目交往的舊範式坦白說是沒有贏的機會。我們決不能在此繼續,也絕不能重返。
正如特朗普總統已明確指出的那樣,我們需要一項保護美國經濟乃至我們生活方式的戰略。自由世界必須戰勝這一新的暴政。 The free world must triumph over this new tyranny.
現在,在我似乎不太希望拆除尼克遜總統的遺產之前,我想明確地說,他做了當時他認為最適合美國人民的事情,而且他很可能是對的。
他是中國的傑出學生,冷酷的勇士和中國人民的偉大仰慕者,正如我們一樣。
他意識到中國太重要而不能忽視,即使國力由於自身的共產主義野蠻行為而被削弱。這值得尼克遜給予極大的讚譽。
1967年,尼克遜在一篇非常著名的外交事務文章中解釋了他的未來戰略。
他的話是這樣的:他說:“從長遠來看,我們根本無法永遠把中國留在國際大家庭之外……在中國改變之前,世界不會安全。因此,我們的目標是 —在可能的範圍內,我們必須作出影響,而我們的目標應該是促使改變。”
我認為這是整篇文章中的關鍵詞:“促使改變”。
因此,在歷史性的北京之行中,尼克遜總統開始了我們的交住戰略。他崇高地尋求一個更自由,更安全的世界,並希望中國共產黨能兌現這一承諾。
隨著時間的流逝,美國決策者越來越多地認為,隨著中國變得更加繁榮,它將會對外開放,它會在國內變得更加自由,而實際上在國外所面臨的威脅卻越來越小,它將變得更加友好。這一切似乎都是不可避免的。
但是那個必然的時代已經過去了。我們一直在進行的這種交往並沒有帶來尼克遜總統希望所引起的中國內部的變化。事實是,我們的政策以及其他自由國家的政策使中國經濟從衰落得以恢復,但北京反咬了養活它的國際力量。
我們曾向中國公民張開雙臂,只是看到中國共產黨利用我們的自由開放社會。中國派宣傳員參加了我們的新聞發布會,研究中心,高中,大學,甚至參加了家長教師會議。
我們將台灣的朋友邊緣化,後來台灣蓬勃發展為積極的民主國家。
我們給中國共產黨和政權本身以特殊的經濟待遇,只是看到中共堅持以對其人權侵犯保持沉默作為讓西方公司進入中國市場的代價。
前一天,Robert O’Brien大使舉了幾個例子:萬豪,美國航空,達美航空,聯合航空都從其公司網站上刪除了對台灣的提及,以免激怒北京。在荷里活,這裏的不遠處,距離美國創作自由的中心和自命為社會正義的仲裁者,他們的自我審查可說是對中國發展最不利的參考。
公司對CCP的默許也發生在世界各地。
這種企業忠誠度如何運作?奉承會得到獎勵嗎?讓我引述Barr總檢察長在講話。他在上週的一次演講中說:“中國統治者的最終野心不是與美國進行貿易。是要略奪美國。”
中國剝奪了我們寶貴的知識產權和商業機密,損失了在美國各地了數百萬個就業機會。它從美國吸走了供應鏈,然後添加了一個由奴隸制度製成的小工具。
它使世界上主要的水路對國際貿易而言變得不那麼安全。
尼克遜總統曾經說過,他擔心自己通過向中共開放世界而創造了一個“科學怪人”,這正是如此。
現在,有誠信的人可以辯論為什麼自由國家允許這些年來,這些不好的事情發生。也許我們對中國的惡毒的共產主義幼稚,或者在我們在冷戰勝利後變得自大,或者軟弱的資本主義者被北京所說的“和平崛起”所愚昧。
無論出於何種原因—無論出於何種原因,今天的中國在國內都越來越專制,並開始對其他地方的自由作出干預。
特朗普總統說:夠了。
我不認為兩派的人對我今天所說的事實提出異議。但是即使到現在,也有人堅持認為,為了對話而對話。
現在,要明確地說,我們將繼續討論。但是這些對話的意義是不同的。幾週前,我去了檀香山,與楊潔篪見面。
這是同樣的古老故事—說了很多話,但實際上沒有任何改變任何行為的提議。
楊的承諾,就像中共在他面前做出的許多承諾一樣,都是空洞的。我想,他的期望是我會屈服於他們的要求,因為坦率地說,這是許多前任政府所做的。我沒有,特朗普總統也不會。正如O’Brien很好地解釋的那樣,我們必須記住,中共政權是馬克思列寧主義政權。習近平堅信這已破產的極權主義思想。
正是這種意識形態,正是這種意識形態反映了他數十年來對全球共產主義中國霸權的渴望。美國再也不能忽視我們兩國之間的根本政治和意識形態差異,就像中共從來沒有忽視它們一樣。
以我在眾議院情報委員會,然後擔任中央情報局局長,以及擔任美國國務卿兩年多的經驗,使我對這種中央理解成為可能:
唯一的方式 — 真正改變共產主義中國的唯一方法,不是對中國領導人聽其言,而是觀其行。您會看到美國政策對此結論做出了回應。列根總統說,他是在“信任但要核實”的基礎上與蘇聯打交道的。關於中共,我說我們必須"不信任和核查"。 (掌聲)
我們,世界上熱愛自由的國家,必須像尼克遜總統所希望的那樣,促使中國發生變化。我們必須促使中國以更具創造性和果斷性的方式進行變革,因為北京的行動威脅著我們的人民和我們的繁榮。
我們必須首先改變我們的人民和我們的伙伴對中國共產黨的看法。我們必須說實話。我們不能像其他任何國家一樣,把這個假象視為正常國家。
我們知道,與中國進行貿易不像與一個正常的,遵守法律的國家進行貿易。北京威脅將國際協議視為—將協議視為建議,以作為主導全球的渠道。
但是,通過堅持公平條款,就像我們的貿易代表在獲得第一階段貿易協議時所做的那樣,我們可以迫使中國考慮其知識產權盜竊和損害美國工人的政策。
我們也知道,與擁有CCP支持的公司開展業務與與一家加拿大公司開展業務不同。他們不回答獨立委員會的問題,而且其中許多是由國家贊助的,因此無需追求利潤。
華為就是一個很好的例子。我們不再假裝華為是一家無辜的電信公司,它的出現是為了確保您可以和朋友聊天。我們稱其為真正的國家安全威脅,並為採取了相應的行動。
我們也知道,如果我們的公司在中國投資,他們可能會有意或無意地支持共產黨嚴重侵犯人權的行為。
因此,我們的美國財政部和商務部已批准並將那些危害和濫用世界人民最基本權利的中國領導人和實體列入黑名單。多個部門已就商業諮詢機構合作,以確保我們的CEO了解其供應鏈在中國境內的工作。
我們也知道,我們也知道並非所有的中國學生和僱員都只是來這裡賺錢和積累一些知識的普通學生和工人。他們太多人來這裡竊取我們的知識產權並將其帶回自己的國家。司法部和其他機構已對這些罪行進行了嚴厲的懲罰。
我們知道,解放軍也不是正規軍。其目的是維護中國共產黨精英的絕對統治,擴大中國帝國,而不是保護中國人民。
因此,美國國防部加大了工作力度,擴大了在東,南海以及台灣海峽以及整個海峽的航行操作自由。我們還建立了一支太空部隊,以幫助阻止中國對這一最後邊界的侵略。
同樣,坦率地說,我們在美國國務院制定了一套與中國打交道的新政策,推動特朗普總統實現公正與互惠的目標,以改寫幾十年來不斷加劇的失衡。
就在本週,我們宣布關閉在休斯敦的中國領事館,因為它是間諜和知識產權盜竊的樞紐。 (掌聲)
兩週前,我們在南中國海扭轉了過去八年忽略的國際法權益。
我們呼籲中國限制其核能力以適應當今時代的戰略現實。
國務院- 在世界各地,各個層面- 都與中國同行進行了交流,只是要求公平和互惠。
但是我們的方法不只是要變得強硬。那不可能達到我們想要的結果。我們還必須與中國人民互動並賦予他們權力,他們是一個充滿活力,熱愛自由的人民,他們與中國共產黨完全不同。首先是面對面的外交。 (掌聲)
無論我走到哪裡,我都遇到了有才華和勤奮的中國人。我遇過逃離新疆集中營的維吾爾族和哈薩克族。我曾與香港的民主領袖進行了交談,有陳日君樞機到黎智英。兩天前,我在倫敦會見了香港自由戰士羅冠聰。
上個月在我的辦公室裡,我聽到了天安門廣場倖存者的故事。其中之一今天在這裡。王丹是一名關鍵學生,他從未停止為中國人民爭取自由。王先生,請您站起來,以便我們見到您嗎? (掌聲)
今天與我們同在的還有中國民主運動之父魏京生。他在中國的勞改營度過了幾十年的時間。魏先生,你能站起來嗎? (掌聲)
我成長及服役於冷戰時期。如果我學到一件事,共產黨人幾乎總是撒謊。他們告訴我們的最大謊言是,他們認為自己能代表14億被監視,壓迫和害怕說出來的人。
恰恰相反。中共比任何敵人都更擔心中國人民的誠實觀點,失去對權力的控制。
試想一下,如果我們能夠從武漢的醫生那裡聽到他們的來信,並且允許他們對新疫病的爆發發出警報,那麼世界會變得更好—更不用說中國內部的人了。
幾十年來,我們的領袖一直無視,淡化勇敢的中國異見者的話,他們警告過我們所面對之政權。
我們不能再忽略它了。他們與任何人一樣知道我們永遠無法回到現狀。
但是改變中共的舉動並不單單是中國人民的使命。自由國家必須努力捍衛自由。這不是簡單的事情。
但是我有信心我們可以做到。我有信心,因為我們以前做過。我們知道這是怎麼回事。我有信心,因為中共正在重複蘇聯犯下的一些同樣的錯誤-疏遠潛在的盟友,破壞國內外的信任,拒絕財產權和法治。
我有信心。我之所以有信心,是因為我看到其他國家之間的覺醒,他們知道我們無法回到過去,美國亦如是。我從布魯塞爾,悉尼到河內都聽說過。
最重要的是,我相信我們可以捍衛自由,因為自由本身是漂亮的。
看看香港人因中共加強對這個驕傲城市的控制,要移居海外。他們揮舞著美國國旗。
是的,確實有差異。與蘇聯不同,中國已深入融入全球經濟。但是,北京對我們依賴,甚於我們依賴他們。 (掌聲)
瞧,我拒絕相信我們生活在一個不可避免中國的時代,某些陷阱(按:修昔底德陷阱)是預設的,中共至上是未來。我們的方法不是注定失敗的,因為美國正在衰落。正如我在今年早些時候在慕尼黑說的那樣,自由世界仍在勝利的一方。我們只需要相信它,就明白它並為此感到自豪。來自世界各地的人們仍然希望加入開放社會。他們來到這裡學習,來到這里工作,來到這里為家人謀生。他們並不想留在中國。
是時候了。今天很高興來到這裡。這是完美的時機。現在是自由國家採取行動的時候了。並非每個國家都將以同樣的方式對待中國,也不應該。每個國家都必須對如何保護自己的主權,如何保護自己的經濟繁榮以及如何保護自己的理想不受中國共產黨的觸碰而有所了解。
但是我呼籲每個國家的每一個領導人—如美國所先行的—簡單地堅持互惠,堅持中國共產黨的透明度和問責制。
這些簡單而強大的標準將取得很大的成就。太長時間了,我們讓中共制定交往條款,但不再這樣做。自由國家必須定下基調。
我們必須遵循相同的原則。我們必須在沙子上劃出共同的界線,而這不能被中共的討價還價或他們的野蠻沖走。確實,這就是美國最近所做的事情,因為我們一勞永逸地拒絕了中國在南中國海的非法主張,因為我們已敦促各國成為廉潔國家,以免其公民的私人信息落在手裡中國共產黨。我們通過制定標準來做到這一點。
現在,這確實很困難。對於一些小國家來說很難。他們害怕被人欺負。因此,其中一些人根本沒有能力,沒有勇氣暫時與我們站在一起。的確,我們與北約的盟友並未以其對香港的立場站起來,因為他們擔心北京會限制中國市場的准入。這種膽怯會導致歷史性的失敗,我們無法重複。
我們不能重複過去幾年的錯誤。中國面臨的挑戰要求民主國家發揮作用和精力,民主國家包括歐洲,非洲,南美,尤其是印度太平洋地區。
而且,如果我們現在不採取行動,那麼中共最終將侵蝕我們的自由,並顛覆我們的社會努力建立的基於法規的秩序。如果我們現在屈膝,我們孩子的孩子可能會受到中國共產黨的擺佈,中國共產黨的行動是當今自由世界中的主要挑戰。
習近平總書記註定不會永遠在中國內外施暴,除非我們允許
現在,這與圍堵無關。不要相信這策略。這是我們從未遇到過的複雜的新挑戰。蘇聯與自由世界隔絕了。共產主義中國已經在我們的邊界之內。
因此,我們不能獨自面對這一挑戰。聯合國,北約,七國集團國家,二十國集團,我們的經濟,外交和軍事力量合力,如果我們清楚明確地並勇往直前,無疑足以應付這一挑戰。
也許是時候讓志趣相投的國家組成一個新的團體,一個新的民主國家聯盟了。
我們有工具。我知道我們可以做到。現在我們需要意志。引用聖經經文,我問“要警醒禱告,免得陷入試探。你們心靈雖然願意,肉體卻是軟弱的。”
如果自由世界沒有改變 —沒有改變,共產主義中國一定會改變我們。無法因為舒適或便利而返回到過去的做法。
確保我們脫離中國共產黨的自由是我們這個時代的使命,而美國完全有能力領導它,
因為我們的建國原則為我們提供了這一機會。正如我上週在費城站立時所看到的那樣,注視著獨立廳,我們的國家建立在所有人類都擁有不可剝奪的某些權利的前提下。
確保這些權利是我們政府的工作。這是一個簡單而有力的真理。它使我們成為全世界人民的自由燈塔,包括中國境內的人。
確實,尼克遜在1967年寫道“除非中國改變,否則世界是不安全的”是正確的。現在我們該聽他的話了。
今天的危機已經明確了。
今天,覺醒正在發生。
今天,自由世界必須作出回應。
我們永遠無法回到過去。
願上帝保佑你們每個人。
願上帝保佑中國人民。'
願上帝保佑美利堅合眾國人民。
謝謝你們。(掌聲)
Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you, Governor, for that very, very generous introduction. It is true: When you walk in that gym and you say the name “Pompeo,” there is a whisper. I had a brother, Mark, who was really good – a really good basketball player.
And how about another round of applause for the Blue Eagles Honor Guard and Senior Airman Kayla Highsmith, and her wonderful rendition of the national anthem? (Applause.)
Thank you, too, to Pastor Laurie for that moving prayer, and I want to thank Hugh Hewitt and the Nixon Foundation for your invitation to speak at this important American institution. It was great to be sung to by an Air Force person, introduced by a Marine, and they let the Army guy in in front of the Navy guy’s house. (Laughter.) It’s all good.
It’s an honor to be here in Yorba Linda, where Nixon’s father built the house in which he was born and raised.
To all the Nixon Center board and staff who made today possible – it’s difficult in these times – thanks for making this day possible for me and for my team.
We are blessed to have some incredibly special people in the audience, including Chris, who I’ve gotten to know – Chris Nixon. I also want to thank Tricia Nixon and Julie Nixon Eisenhower for their support of this visit as well.
I want to recognize several courageous Chinese dissidents who have joined us here today and made a long trip.
And to all the other distinguished guests – (applause) – to all the other distinguished guests, thank you for being here. For those of you who got under the tent, you must have paid extra.
And those of you watching live, thank you for tuning in.
And finally, as the governor mentioned, I was born here in Santa Ana, not very far from here. I’ve got my sister and her husband in the audience today. Thank you all for coming out. I bet you never thought that I’d be standing up here.
My remarks today are the fourth set of remarks in a series of China speeches that I asked National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, FBI Director Chris Wray, and the Attorney General Barr to deliver alongside me.
We had a very clear purpose, a real mission. It was to explain the different facets of America’s relationship with China, the massive imbalances in that relationship that have built up over decades, and the Chinese Communist Party’s designs for hegemony.
Our goal was to make clear that the threats to Americans that President Trump’s China policy aims to address are clear and our strategy for securing those freedoms established.
Ambassador O’Brien spoke about ideology. FBI Director Wray talked about espionage. Attorney General Barr spoke about economics. And now my goal today is to put it all together for the American people and detail what the China threat means for our economy, for our liberty, and indeed for the future of free democracies around the world.
Next year marks half a century since Dr. Kissinger’s secret mission to China, and the 50th anniversary of President Nixon’s trip isn’t too far away in 2022.
The world was much different then.
We imagined engagement with China would produce a future with bright promise of comity and cooperation.
But today – today we’re all still wearing masks and watching the pandemic’s body count rise because the CCP failed in its promises to the world. We’re reading every morning new headlines of repression in Hong Kong and in Xinjiang.
We’re seeing staggering statistics of Chinese trade abuses that cost American jobs and strike enormous blows to the economies all across America, including here in southern California. And we’re watching a Chinese military that grows stronger and stronger, and indeed more menacing.
I’ll echo the questions ringing in the hearts and minds of Americans from here in California to my home state of Kansas and beyond:
What do the American people have to show now 50 years on from engagement with China?
Did the theories of our leaders that proposed a Chinese evolution towards freedom and democracy prove to be true?
Is this China’s definition of a win-win situation?
And indeed, centrally, from the Secretary of State’s perspective, is America safer? Do we have a greater likelihood of peace for ourselves and peace for the generations which will follow us?
Look, we have to admit a hard truth. We must admit a hard truth that should guide us in the years and decades to come, that if we want to have a free 21st century, and not the Chinese century of which Xi Jinping dreams, the old paradigm of blind engagement with China simply won’t get it done. We must not continue it and we must not return to it.
As President Trump has made very clear, we need a strategy that protects the American economy, and indeed our way of life. The free world must triumph over this new tyranny.
Now, before I seem too eager to tear down President Nixon’s legacy, I want to be clear that he did what he believed was best for the American people at the time, and he may well have been right.
He was a brilliant student of China, a fierce cold warrior, and a tremendous admirer of the Chinese people, just as I think we all are.
He deserves enormous credit for realizing that China was too important to be ignored, even when the nation was weakened because of its own self-inflicted communist brutality.
In 1967, in a very famous Foreign Affairs article, Nixon explained his future strategy. Here’s what he said:
He said, “Taking the long view, we simply cannot afford to leave China forever outside of the family of nations…The world cannot be safe until China changes. Thus, our aim – to the extent we can, we must influence events. Our goal should be to induce change.”
And I think that’s the key phrase from the entire article: “to induce change.”
So, with that historic trip to Beijing, President Nixon kicked off our engagement strategy. He nobly sought a freer and safer world, and he hoped that the Chinese Communist Party would return that commitment.
As time went on, American policymakers increasingly presumed that as China became more prosperous, it would open up, it would become freer at home, and indeed present less of a threat abroad, it’d be friendlier. It all seemed, I am sure, so inevitable.
But that age of inevitability is over. The kind of engagement we have been pursuing has not brought the kind of change inside of China that President Nixon had hoped to induce.
The truth is that our policies – and those of other free nations – resurrected China’s failing economy, only to see Beijing bite the international hands that were feeding it.
We opened our arms to Chinese citizens, only to see the Chinese Communist Party exploit our free and open society. China sent propagandists into our press conferences, our research centers, our high-schools, our colleges, and even into our PTA meetings.
We marginalized our friends in Taiwan, which later blossomed into a vigorous democracy.
We gave the Chinese Communist Party and the regime itself special economic treatment, only to see the CCP insist on silence over its human rights abuses as the price of admission for Western companies entering China.
Ambassador O’Brien ticked off a few examples just the other day: Marriott, American Airlines, Delta, United all removed references to Taiwan from their corporate websites, so as not to anger Beijing.
In Hollywood, not too far from here – the epicenter of American creative freedom, and self-appointed arbiters of social justice – self-censors even the most mildly unfavorable reference to China.
This corporate acquiescence to the CCP happens all over the world, too.
And how has this corporate fealty worked? Is its flattery rewarded? I’ll give you a quote from the speech that General Barr gave, Attorney General Barr. In a speech last week, he said that “The ultimate ambition of China’s rulers isn’t to trade with the United States. It is to raid the United States.”
China ripped off our prized intellectual property and trade secrets, causing millions of jobs[1] all across America.
It sucked supply chains away from America, and then added a widget made of slave labor.
It made the world’s key waterways less safe for international commerce.
President Nixon once said he feared he had created a “Frankenstein” by opening the world to the CCP, and here we are.
Now, people of good faith can debate why free nations allowed these bad things to happen for all these years. Perhaps we were naive about China’s virulent strain of communism, or triumphalist after our victory in the Cold War, or cravenly capitalist, or hoodwinked by Beijing’s talk of a “peaceful rise.”
Whatever the reason – whatever the reason, today China is increasingly authoritarian at home, and more aggressive in its hostility to freedom everywhere else.
And President Trump has said: enough.
I don’t think many people on either side of the aisle dispute the facts that I have laid out today. But even now, some are insisting that we preserve the model of dialogue for dialogue’s sake.
Now, to be clear, we’ll keep on talking. But the conversations are different these days. I traveled to Honolulu now just a few weeks back to meet with Yang Jiechi.
It was the same old story – plenty of words, but literally no offer to change any of the behaviors.
Yang’s promises, like so many the CCP made before him, were empty. His expectations, I surmise, were that I’d cave to their demands, because frankly this is what too many prior administrations have done. I didn’t, and President Trump will not either.
As Ambassador O’Brien explained so well, we have to keep in mind that the CCP regime is a Marxist-Leninist regime. General Secretary Xi Jinping is a true believer in a bankrupt totalitarian ideology.
It’s this ideology, it’s this ideology that informs his decades-long desire for global hegemony of Chinese communism. America can no longer ignore the fundamental political and ideological differences between our countries, just as the CCP has never ignored them.
My experience in the House Intelligence Committee, and then as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and my now two-plus years as America’s Secretary of State have led me to this central understanding:
That the only way – the only way to truly change communist China is to act not on the basis of what Chinese leaders say, but how they behave. And you can see American policy responding to this conclusion. President Reagan said that he dealt with the Soviet Union on the basis of “trust but verify.” When it comes to the CCP, I say we must distrust and verify. (Applause.)
We, the freedom-loving nations of the world, must induce China to change, just as President Nixon wanted. We must induce China to change in more creative and assertive ways, because Beijing’s actions threaten our people and our prosperity.
We must start by changing how our people and our partners perceive the Chinese Communist Party. We have to tell the truth. We can’t treat this incarnation of China as a normal country, just like any other.
We know that trading with China is not like trading with a normal, law-abiding nation. Beijing threatens international agreements as – treats international suggestions as – or agreements as suggestions, as conduits for global dominance.
But by insisting on fair terms, as our trade representative did when he secured our phase one trade deal, we can force China to reckon with its intellectual property theft and policies that harmed American workers.
We know too that doing business with a CCP-backed company is not the same as doing business with, say, a Canadian company. They don’t answer to independent boards, and many of them are state-sponsored and so have no need to pursue profits.
A good example is Huawei. We stopped pretending Huawei is an innocent telecommunications company that’s just showing up to make sure you can talk to your friends. We’ve called it what it is – a true national security threat – and we’ve taken action accordingly.
We know too that if our companies invest in China, they may wittingly or unwittingly support the Communist Party’s gross human rights violations.
Our Departments of Treasury and Commerce have thus sanctioned and blacklisted Chinese leaders and entities that are harming and abusing the most basic rights for people all across the world. Several agencies have worked together on a business advisory to make certain our CEOs are informed of how their supply chains are behaving inside of China.
We know too, we know too that not all Chinese students and employees are just normal students and workers that are coming here to make a little bit of money and to garner themselves some knowledge. Too many of them come here to steal our intellectual property and to take this back to their country.
The Department of Justice and other agencies have vigorously pursued punishment for these crimes.
We know that the People’s Liberation Army is not a normal army, too. Its purpose is to uphold the absolute rule of the Chinese Communist Party elites and expand a Chinese empire, not to protect the Chinese people.
And so our Department of Defense has ramped up its efforts, freedom of navigation operations out and throughout the East and South China Seas, and in the Taiwan Strait as well. And we’ve created a Space Force to help deter China from aggression on that final frontier.
And so too, frankly, we’ve built out a new set of policies at the State Department dealing with China, pushing President Trump’s goals for fairness and reciprocity, to rewrite the imbalances that have grown over decades.
Just this week, we announced the closure of the Chinese consulate in Houston because it was a hub of spying and intellectual property theft. (Applause.)
We reversed, two weeks ago, eight years of cheek-turning with respect to international law in the South China Sea.
We’ve called on China to conform its nuclear capabilities to the strategic realities of our time.
And the State Department – at every level, all across the world – has engaged with our Chinese counterparts simply to demand fairness and reciprocity.
But our approach can’t just be about getting tough. That’s unlikely to achieve the outcome that we desire. We must also engage and empower the Chinese people – a dynamic, freedom-loving people who are completely distinct from the Chinese Communist Party.
That begins with in-person diplomacy. (Applause.) I’ve met Chinese men and women of great talent and diligence wherever I go.
I’ve met with Uyghurs and ethnic Kazakhs who escaped Xinjiang’s concentration camps. I’ve talked with Hong Kong’s democracy leaders, from Cardinal Zen to Jimmy Lai. Two days ago in London, I met with Hong Kong freedom fighter Nathan Law.
And last month in my office, I heard the stories of Tiananmen Square survivors. One of them is here today.
Wang Dan was a key student who has never stopped fighting for freedom for the Chinese people. Mr. Wang, will you please stand so that we may recognize you? (Applause.)
Also with us today is the father of the Chinese democracy movement, Wei Jingsheng. He spent decades in Chinese labor camps for his advocacy. Mr. Wei, will you please stand? (Applause.)
I grew up and served my time in the Army during the Cold War. And if there is one thing I learned, communists almost always lie. The biggest lie that they tell is to think that they speak for 1.4 billion people who are surveilled, oppressed, and scared to speak out.
Quite the contrary. The CCP fears the Chinese people’s honest opinions more than any foe, and save for losing their own grip on power, they have reason – no reason to.
Just think how much better off the world would be – not to mention the people inside of China – if we had been able to hear from the doctors in Wuhan and they’d been allowed to raise the alarm about the outbreak of a new and novel virus.
For too many decades, our leaders have ignored, downplayed the words of brave Chinese dissidents who warned us about the nature of the regime we’re facing.
And we can’t ignore it any longer. They know as well as anyone that we can never go back to the status quo.
But changing the CCP’s behavior cannot be the mission of the Chinese people alone. Free nations have to work to defend freedom. It’s the furthest thing from easy.
But I have faith we can do it. I have faith because we’ve done it before. We know how this goes.
I have faith because the CCP is repeating some of the same mistakes that the Soviet Union made – alienating potential allies, breaking trust at home and abroad, rejecting property rights and predictable rule of law.
I have faith. I have faith because of the awakening I see among other nations that know we can’t go back to the past in the same way that we do here in America. I’ve heard this from Brussels, to Sydney, to Hanoi.
And most of all, I have faith we can defend freedom because of the sweet appeal of freedom itself.
Look at the Hong Kongers clamoring to emigrate abroad as the CCP tightens its grip on that proud city. They wave American flags.
It’s true, there are differences. Unlike the Soviet Union, China is deeply integrated into the global economy. But Beijing is more dependent on us than we are on them. (Applause.)
Look, I reject the notion that we’re living in an age of inevitability, that some trap is pre-ordained, that CCP supremacy is the future. Our approach isn’t destined to fail because America is in decline. As I said in Munich earlier this year, the free world is still winning. We just need to believe it and know it and be proud of it. People from all over the world still want to come to open societies. They come here to study, they come here to work, they come here to build a life for their families. They’re not desperate to settle in China.
It’s time. It’s great to be here today. The timing is perfect. It’s time for free nations to act. Not every nation will approach China in the same way, nor should they. Every nation will have to come to its own understanding of how to protect its own sovereignty, how to protect its own economic prosperity, and how to protect its ideals from the tentacles of the Chinese Communist Party.
But I call on every leader of every nation to start by doing what America has done – to simply insist on reciprocity, to insist on transparency and accountability from the Chinese Communist Party. It’s a cadre of rulers that are far from homogeneous.
And these simple and powerful standards will achieve a great deal. For too long we let the CCP set the terms of engagement, but no longer. Free nations must set the tone. We must operate on the same principles.
We have to draw common lines in the sand that cannot be washed away by the CCP’s bargains or their blandishments. Indeed, this is what the United States did recently when we rejected China’s unlawful claims in the South China Sea once and for all, as we have urged countries to become Clean Countries so that their citizens’ private information doesn’t end up in the hand of the Chinese Communist Party. We did it by setting standards.
Now, it’s true, it’s difficult. It’s difficult for some small countries. They fear being picked off. Some of them for that reason simply don’t have the ability, the courage to stand with us for the moment.
Indeed, we have a NATO ally of ours that hasn’t stood up in the way that it needs to with respect to Hong Kong because they fear Beijing will restrict access to China’s market. This is the kind of timidity that will lead to historic failure, and we can’t repeat it.
We cannot repeat the mistakes of these past years. The challenge of China demands exertion, energy from democracies – those in Europe, those in Africa, those in South America, and especially those in the Indo-Pacific region.
And if we don’t act now, ultimately the CCP will erode our freedoms and subvert the rules-based order that our societies have worked so hard to build. If we bend the knee now, our children’s children may be at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party, whose actions are the primary challenge today in the free world.
General Secretary Xi is not destined to tyrannize inside and outside of China forever, unless we allow it.
Now, this isn’t about containment. Don’t buy that. It’s about a complex new challenge that we’ve never faced before. The USSR was closed off from the free world. Communist China is already within our borders.
So we can’t face this challenge alone. The United Nations, NATO, the G7 countries, the G20, our combined economic, diplomatic, and military power is surely enough to meet this challenge if we direct it clearly and with great courage.
Maybe it’s time for a new grouping of like-minded nations, a new alliance of democracies.
We have the tools. I know we can do it. Now we need the will. To quote scripture, I ask is “our spirit willing but our flesh weak?”
If the free world doesn’t change – doesn’t change, communist China will surely change us. There can’t be a return to the past practices because they’re comfortable or because they’re convenient.
Securing our freedoms from the Chinese Communist Party is the mission of our time, and America is perfectly positioned to lead it because our founding principles give us that opportunity.
As I explained in Philadelphia last week, standing, staring at Independence Hall, our nation was founded on the premise that all human beings possess certain rights that are unalienable.
And it’s our government’s job to secure those rights. It is a simple and powerful truth. It’s made us a beacon of freedom for people all around the world, including people inside of China.
Indeed, Richard Nixon was right when he wrote in 1967 that “the world cannot be safe until China changes.” Now it’s up to us to heed his words.
Today the danger is clear.
And today the awakening is happening.
Today the free world must respond.
We can never go back to the past.
May God bless each of you.
May God bless the Chinese people.
And may God bless the people of the United States of America.
Thank you all.
(Applause.)
現在完了進行形 since 例文 在 無良護理師日誌 Facebook 的最讚貼文
【 一封 Co-founder & CEO Brian Chesky 的來信 (中英對照)】
早上晨讀時看到 Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky 宣布裁員 25% 的公開信。讀完覺得富有同理心並思考周到,很值得每位 CEO 參考。
其中一些對於離職員工的就業支持都很值得我們借鏡。雖然 Airbnb 有的資源比很多公司還多。但說不定有什麼是創業家們能參考的,為離職的夥伴多做一些。
為了讓更多人可以看到跟夥伴合作翻譯了一下,不通順的地方請見諒、歡迎在 google doc 提交修改建議。
Google Doc 中英對照版:https://docs.google.com/…/1ctHqdvPxi3USzT1sxzabkcJhFcWlfkg…/
原文:https://news.airbnb.com/a-message-from-co-founder-and-ceo-…/
--
今天稍早,Airbnb 聯合創辦人兼執行長 Brian Chesky 向 Airbnb 員工發送了以下訊息。
Earlier today, Airbnb Co-Founder and CEO Brian Chesky sent the following note to Airbnb employees.
這是我第七次在我家裡與各位發表談話。過去每次我們談話時,有好消息也有壞消息,然而今天我不得不分享一些非常令人難過的消息。
This is my seventh time talking to you from my house. Each time we’ve talked, I’ve shared good news and bad news, but today I have to share some very sad news.
當你們問我關於裁員的問題時,我曾說過沒有什麼不可能發生的事。今天,我必須坦承,我們正在縮減 Airbnb 的員工規模。對於像我們這樣一家以歸屬感為使命的公司來說,這是非常難以面對的,對於那些不得不離開 Airbnb 的人來說更是難上加難。我將盡可能詳細地分享我是如何做出這個決定的、我們正在為那些離開的人做什麼、以及接下來會有哪些事發生。
When you’ve asked me about layoffs, I’ve said that nothing is off the table. Today, I must confirm that we are reducing the size of the Airbnb workforce. For a company like us whose mission is centered around belonging, this is incredibly difficult to confront, and it will be even harder for those who have to leave Airbnb. I am going to share as many details as I can on how I arrived at this decision, what we are doing for those leaving, and what will happen next.
先從我們是如何作出這項決定的開始。我們正在共同經歷我們一生中最痛苦的危機,隨著危機的開始,全球旅行業都陷入停滯。Airbnb 的業務受到了重大的打擊,今年的收入預計不到 2019 年的一半。為了應對這場危機,我們籌措了 20 億美元的資金、大幅削減了成本,幾乎觸及了 Airbnb 的每一個角落。
Let me start with how we arrived at this decision. We are collectively living through the most harrowing crisis of our lifetime, and as it began to unfold, global travel came to a standstill. Airbnb’s business has been hit hard, with revenue this year forecasted to be less than half of what we earned in 2019. In response, we raised $2 billion in capital and dramatically cut costs that touched nearly every corner of Airbnb.
採取這些行動是必要的,但很顯然,當我們面對兩個嚴峻的事實時,我們必須更進一步:
1. 我們不知道旅遊什麼時候會復甦。
2. 當旅遊業復甦時,將有截然不同的樣貌。
While these actions were necessary, it became clear that we would have to go further when we faced two hard truths:
1. We don’t know exactly when travel will return.
2. When travel does return, it will look different.
雖然我們知道 Airbnb 的業務終將恢復,但它所承受的變化不會是臨時或是短暫的。於是,我們需要對 Airbnb 做出更多根本性的改變,縮減人力規模以專注在更核心的商業策略。每天都有人們共享自己的房子、並提供各式各樣的體驗。
While we know Airbnb’s business will fully recover, the changes it will undergo are not temporary or short-lived. Because of this, we need to make more fundamental changes to Airbnb by reducing the size of our workforce around a more focused business strategy.
在我們 7500 名 Airbnb 員工中,近 1900 名成員將不得不離開 Airbnb,佔我們公司的 25% 左右。由於我們不能像過去那樣顧及每項業務,透過人力的裁減,我們將會更聚焦於特定的業務上。
Out of our 7,500 Airbnb employees, nearly 1,900 teammates will have to leave Airbnb, comprising around 25% of our company. Since we cannot afford to do everything that we used to, these cuts had to be mapped to a more focused business.
▍更聚焦的業務
未來在這世界旅行將截然不同,我們需要相對應地讓 Airbnb 進化改變。人們會希望有更像家、更安全、更經濟實惠的選擇。人們也會渴望某種感覺被奪走的東西——人與人之間的連結。當我們創立 Airbnb 時,它是建立於歸屬感和連結之上。這場危機使我們更加專注於根本、最基礎的事物、讓我們回到 Airbnb 真正的特別之處——每天都有人們共享自己的房子、並提供各式各樣的體驗。
這意味著,我們將需要減少對不直接支持我們的房東社區核心活動的投資。我們暫停了在運輸部門和 Airbnb Studio 方面的努力,我們不得不縮減在飯店和 Lux 的投資。
這些決定和這些團隊成員的表現無關,也不意味著這些團隊的每個人都會離開我們。除此之外,所有 Airbnb 的團隊都將受到影響。許多團隊的規模將根據他們與 Airbnb 的發展方向的對應程度進行縮減。
▍A more focused business
Travel in this new world will look different, and we need to evolve Airbnb accordingly. People will want options that are closer to home, safer, and more affordable. But people will also yearn for something that feels like it’s been taken away from them — human connection. When we started Airbnb, it was about belonging and connection. This crisis has sharpened our focus to get back to our roots, back to the basics, back to what is truly special about Airbnb — everyday people who host their homes and offer experiences.
This means that we will need to reduce our investment in activities that do not directly support the core of our host community. We are pausing our efforts in Transportation and Airbnb Studios, and we have to scale back our investments in Hotels and Lux.
These decisions are not a reflection of the work from people on these teams, and it does not mean everyone on these teams will be leaving us. Additionally, teams across all of Airbnb will be impacted. Many teams will be reduced in size based on how well they map to where Airbnb is headed.
▍我們如何進行縮編
重要的是,我們要有一套明確的原則,以我們的核心價值觀為指導,指導我們如何減少我們的勞動力。這些是我們的指導原則:
• 將所有縮減過的業務範疇和我們將需要的人手一一對應。
• 為那些受到影響的人盡可能提供協助。
• 在過程中持續地保持團隊多樣性。
• 為那些受影響的人提供一對一的溝通。
• 等到所有細節都確定後再進行決策溝通 —— 僅部分訊息的透明會讓事情變得更糟。
我已經盡了最大的努力來堅持這些原則。
▍How we approached reductions
It was important that we had a clear set of principles, guided by our core values, for how we would approach reductions in our workforce. These were our guiding principles:
• Map all reductions to our future business strategy and the capabilities we will need.
• Do as much as we can for those who are impacted.
• Be unwavering in our commitment to diversity.
• Optimize for 1:1 communication for those impacted.
• Wait to communicate any decisions until all details are landed — transparency of only partial information can make matters worse.
I have done my best to stay true to these principles.
▍還原決策過程
決策過程開始於建構一個更聚焦業務戰略的成本結構。我們評估了每個團隊如何適應我們的新戰略,並確定了每個團隊未來的規模和形式。緊接著,我們對每個團隊成員進行了全面地檢視,並根據關鍵技能以及這些技能與我們未來業務需求的匹配程度做出了決策。
結果是,我們將不得不與我們所熱愛和珍視的隊友們分道揚鑣。有很優秀的夥伴離開了 Airbnb,其他公司有他們的加入著實幸運。
為了照顧那些即將離開的員工,我們一一檢視了遣散、股權、醫療保健和就業支持,並盡最大努力以同理並周詳的方式對待每個人。
▍Process for making reductions
Our process started with creating a more focused business strategy built on a sustainable cost model. We assessed how each team mapped to our new strategy, and we determined the size and shape of each team going forward. We then did a comprehensive review of every team member and made decisions based on critical skills, and how well those skills matched our future business needs.
The result is that we will have to part with teammates that we love and value. We have great people leaving Airbnb, and other companies will be lucky to have them. To take care of those that are leaving, we have looked across severance, equity, healthcare, and job support and done our best to treat everyone in a compassionate and thoughtful way.
▍資遣費
Airbnb 在美國的員工將獲得 14 周的基礎工資,每滿一年額外增加一周。任期將四捨五入到最近的一年。例如,如果有人在 Airbnb 工作了 3 年 7 個月,他們將獲得額外 4 周的工資,或 18 周的總工資。在美國以外,所有員工都將獲得至少 14 周的工資,外加與其所在國家的具體做法一致的任期加薪。
▍Severance
Employees in the US will receive 14 weeks of base pay, plus one additional week for every year at Airbnb. Tenure will be rounded to the nearest year. For example, if someone has been at Airbnb for 3 years and 7 months, they will get an additional 4 weeks of salary, or 18 weeks of total pay. Outside the US, all employees will receive at least 14 weeks of pay, plus tenure increases consistent with their country-specific practices.
▍股權
我們將為過去一年內聘用的所有員工移除需待滿第一年的股權到期限制,這樣所有離職的員工,無論他們在公司工作了多長時間,都可以是 Airbnb 的股東。此外,所有離開的人都有資格以 5月25日作為行權日。
▍Equity
We are dropping the one-year cliff on equity for everyone we’ve hired in the past year so that everyone departing, regardless of how long they have been here, is a shareholder. Additionally, everyone leaving is eligible for the May 25 vesting date.
▍健康保險
在一場持續時間未知的全球健康危機中,我們希望限制醫療成本總負擔。在美國,我們將通過COBRA 覆蓋 12 個月的健康保險。在所有其他國家,我們將支付到 2020 年底的醫療保險費用。這是因為我們如非是在法律上不能繼續承保,就是我們目前的計劃將不允許延長。我們額外將透過 KonTerra 提供四個月的心理健康支持。
▍Healthcare
In the midst of a global health crisis of unknown duration, we want to limit the burden of healthcare costs. In the US, we will cover 12 months of health insurance through COBRA. In all other countries, we will cover health insurance costs through the end of 2020. This is because we’re either legally unable to continue coverage, or our current plans will not allow for an extension. We will also provide four months of mental health support through KonTerra.
▍就業支持
我們的目標是幫助離開 Airbnb 的隊友找到新的工作機會。以下是我們可以提供幫助的五種方式:
• 校友人才目錄 —— 我們將推出一個面向公眾的網站,幫助即將離職的隊友找到新工作。即將離職的員工可以選擇將個人資料、簡歷和工作樣本提供給潛在的雇主。
• 校友安置團隊 —— 在 2020 年的剩餘時間裡,Airbnb 招聘的很大一部分將成為校友安置團隊。留在 Airbnb 的招聘人員將為離職員工提供支持,幫助他們找到下一份工作。
• RiseSmart —— 我們通過 RiseSmart 公司提供四個月的職業服務,該公司專門提供職業轉換和就業安置服務。
• 員工提供校友支持 —— 我們鼓勵所有留下的員工選擇加入一個計劃,以幫助離職的隊友找到他們的下一個職位。
• 筆記型電腦 —— 電腦是找到新工作的重要工具,所以我們允許所有離職的人保留他們的蘋果筆電。
▍Job support
Our goal is to connect our teammates leaving Airbnb with new job opportunities. Here are five ways we can help:
• Alumni Talent Directory — We will be launching a public-facing website to help teammates leaving find new jobs. Departing employees can opt-in to have profiles, resumes, and work samples accessible to potential employers.
• Alumni Placement Team — For the remainder of 2020, a significant portion of Airbnb Recruiting will become an Alumni Placement Team. Recruiters that are staying with Airbnb will provide support to departing employees to help them find their next job.
• RiseSmart — We are offering four months of career services through RiseSmart, a company that specializes in career transition and job placement services.
• Employee Offered Alumni Support
We are encouraging all remaining employees to opt-in to a program to assist departing teammates find their next role.
• Laptops - A computer is an important tool to find new work, so we are allowing everyone leaving to keep their Apple laptops.
▍接下來會發生什麼呢?
我想盡快讓你們所有人知曉狀況。我們在 24 個國家/地區擁有員工,根據當地法律和慣例,提供清晰說明所需的時間各不相同。一些國家要求以非常具體的方式收到解僱通知。雖然我們的流程可能因國家而異,但我們在為每一位員工制定計劃時都力求做到深思熟慮。
在美國和加拿大,我可以提供直接的信息。在接下來的幾個小時內,即將離開 Airbnb 的人將收到一份日曆邀請函,邀請你們與本部門的一位高層領導參加離職會議。對我們來說,重要的是,在法律允許的範圍內,人們可以通過 1:1 的個人對話獲得信息。美國和加拿大離職員工的最後一個工作日將是 5月11日(星期一)。我們認為,週一將給人們時間開始採取下一步行動,並且有機會道別——我們理解並尊重這一點有多麼重要。
一些留下來的員工將賦予新的職位,並將收到主題為「新職位」的會議邀請,以瞭解更多相關信息。對於那些在美國和加拿大的 Airbnb 團隊成員,你將不會收到日曆邀請。
▍Here is what will happen next
I want to provide clarity to all of you as soon as possible. We have employees in 24 countries, and the time it will take to provide clarity will vary based on local laws and practices. Some countries require notifications about employment to be received in a very specific way. While our process may differ by country, we have tried to be thoughtful in planning for every employee. In the US and Canada, I can provide immediate clarity. Within the next few hours, those of you leaving Airbnb will receive a calendar invite to a departure meeting with a senior leader in your department.
It was important to us that wherever we legally could, people were informed in a personal, 1:1 conversation. The final working day for departing employees based in the US and Canada will be Monday, May 11. We felt Monday would give people time to begin taking next steps and say goodbye — we understand and respect how important this is.
Some employees who are staying will have a new role, and will receive a meeting invite with the subject “New Role” to learn more about it. For those of you in the US and Canada who are staying on the Airbnb team, you will not receive a calendar invite.
太平洋時間下午6點,我將為我們的亞太團隊主持一個 world@ 全球會議。太平洋時間上午12點,我將為我們的歐洲和中東團隊主持一個 world@ 全球會議。在每次會議之後,我們將根據當地的做法在每個國家開展下一步工作。
出於對我們受到影響的隊友的尊重,我已經要求所有
Airbnb 的負責人等到本週末再召集他們的團隊。我想給大家接下來的幾天時間來處理這個問題,我將在太平洋時間本週四下午 4 點再次主持一場 CEO 問答。
At 6pm pacific time, I will host a world@ meeting for our Asia-Pacific teams. At 12am pacific time, I will host a world@ meeting for our Europe and Middle East teams. Following each of these meetings, we’ll proceed with next steps in each country based on local practices.
I’ve asked all Airbnb leaders to wait to bring their teams together until the end of this week out of respect to our teammates being impacted. I want to give everyone the next few days to process this, and I’ll host a CEO Q&A again this Thursday at 4pm pacific time.
▍一些最後的話
正如我在過去八周所瞭解到的,危機讓你清楚什麼才是真正重要的。雖然我們經歷了一場旋風,但有些事情對我來說比以往任何時候都清楚。
首先,我要感謝 Airbnb 的每一個人。在這段痛苦的經歷中,你們所有人都激勵了我。即使在最糟糕的情況下,我也看到了我們最好的一面。世界現在比以往任何時候都更需要人與人之間的聯繫,我知道 Airbnb 會在這種時空背景下崛起。我相信這一點,正因為我相信你們。
第二,我對各位有一種深深的愛。我們的任務不僅僅是旅行。當我們創建 Airbnb 時,我們最初的口號是「像個人一般旅行」,人的部分總是比旅行的部分更重要。我們所關心的是歸屬感,而歸屬感的核心是愛。
▍Some final words
As I have learned these past eight weeks, a crisis brings you clarity about what is truly important. Though we have been through a whirlwind, some things are more clear to me than ever before.
First, I am thankful for everyone here at Airbnb. Throughout this harrowing experience, I have been inspired by all of you. Even in the worst of circumstances, I’ve seen the very best of us. The world needs human connection now more than ever, and I know that Airbnb will rise to the occasion. I believe this because I believe in you.
Second, I have a deep feeling of love for all of you. Our mission is not merely about travel. When we started Airbnb, our original tagline was, “Travel like a human.” The human part was always more important than the travel part. What we are about is belonging, and at the center of belonging is love.
對於留下來的你們,
我們向那些即將離開的人致敬的最重要方式之一,是讓他們知道他們的貢獻是重要的,他們將永遠是 Airbnb 故事中的一部分。我相信,他們的貢獻將繼續下去,就像我們的使命將持續不斷一般。
對於那些離開 Airbnb 的人,
我真的很抱歉。請知道這不是你的錯。世界永遠不會停止渴望你們帶給 Airbnb 的品質和才華……正是你們成就了 Airbnb。我衷心感謝你們與我們分享你們的天賦。
布萊恩
To those of you staying, One of the most important ways we can honor those who are leaving is for them to know that their contributions mattered, and that they will always be part of Airbnb’s story. I am confident their work will live on, just like this mission will live on.
To those leaving Airbnb, I am truly sorry. Please know this is not your fault. The world will never stop seeking the qualities and talents that you brought to Airbnb…that helped make Airbnb. I want to thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for sharing them with us.
Brian
現在完了進行形 since 例文 在 葉漢浩 Alex Ip Facebook 的精選貼文
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.