立場新聞 Stand News

香港沒有希望了

2020/6/24 — 19:02

圖片素材來源:Meckl Antal @ Unsplash

圖片素材來源:Meckl Antal @ Unsplash

前首席大法官李國能在「國安法」立法前名發表聲明(註 1),表示「國安法」破壞了特區的司法獨立,這是一個很嚴重的指控。由一位最熟悉香港法治的前官員說出這一番話,它說明香港已經沒有希望。「國安法」帶來的破壞,將超越該法所打擊的政治範疇,影響深遠,禍及經濟和民生。

《蘋果日報》(註 2)寫了一篇完全誤導的評論,認為李國能撐立惡法。這篇文章蓄意不提李國能聲明的最後一句:「When exercised, these cases will be dealt with and tried in mainland China. The defendant will not enjoy the safeguards of our judicial process. Although it is said that this jurisdiction could only be exercised in the most exceptional circumstances, it would undermine the independent judicial power which our courts are authorised to exercise under the Basic Law.」

《蘋果日報》這篇帶政治偏見的文章將李國能聲明的核心思想洗白,讓不求甚解的一眾黃絲永遠地自我感覺良心,繼續圍爐取暖,阿 Q 精神地說:「看,我們一向都認為如是,一向都拒絕看建制派的東西。」

廣告

沒錯,李國能是徹頭徹尾的建制派,否則,他如何可以任首席終審大法官呢?可是,他的發表在 6 月 22 日的聲明是一塊「試金石」。

他在人大的「說明」的基礎上,提出了兩項請求;一是,要求若真的不幸地由特首指派審理國安法的法官,也應聽取首席大法官的意見。正是這點,《蘋果日報》認為他撐「國安法」,可是,這是李國能的無奈。李國能關注基本法的完整性並非始於今天,他在蒙面法上也表達過類似關注(註 3)。

廣告

"The statement appears to suggest that the Hong Kong courts have no power to hold Hong Kong legislation to be invalid on the ground of inconsistency with the Basic Law. If this is what was meant, it is surprising and alarming,"

李國能在國安法上的第一個建議是對人大的試金石,我們拭目以待。假若人大完全忽視這個沒有實質殺傷力的請求,(筆者認為相當大機會),這說明中共完全不理會港人(包括藍絲)的感受。

李國能說到的第二點,中國在特殊情況下,可以從香港抓人返大陸審理、判刑和投進中共黑牢。李國能的第二個請求與人大沒有迴旋餘地,人大沒有讓步餘地。李國能提醍醐灌頂地指出,「國安法」破壞了香港法治。

「國安法」令港人夢碎。當年的基本法核心,是保證中共不會來港抓人。中共在基本法的諮詢期間不斷安撫港人可以放心,它的承諾就是不來抓人。現在呢?它還可以說基本法保護港人嗎?

國安法是跨顏色的。它打碎了立基本法之初,港人認為河水不犯井水的幻想。當年的港人誤信中共,留了下來,相信只要不碰政治就可以安居立命。

人大強立「國安法」同時凸顯了自身的結構缺陷。它是一個獨裁政權的傀儡。人民代表大會在 5 月 28 日以 2,878 贊成,1 票反對,6 票棄權通過,說明了這一點。由獨裁制訂的惡法可以越出這獨裁的願望。

這是什麼呢?

讓我們退一步看看,中國本身的法律都是由人大制訂的。中國的法院每天審理大量案件,很多都不涉及政治。我們不能說,所有的判決都不合理,因為,所有政權都需要有效的運作,如黑格爾認為:「法律永遠服從國家」。

但我們在中國看到,法官貪腐是一個普遍現象,這至少在我們認識的香港沒有出現。這是因為香港實行普通法,法治不受政治干預。特首選派審案法官,打開了潘多拉魔盒。大陸直接在港拉人更令問題不可收拾,它可以抓來港的美國人嗎?

中共凌駕於法院是中國法官墮落的根源,是中國法治失去完整性的原因。

在國安法實施之後,問題未必在實施之初出現,也未必完全在政治層面出現。但,久而久之,香港的法官將看來基本法在憲制上的互不協調,對法治失去信心,開始腐化。這些腐化最容易出現的地方,正是經濟性案件,因為,那裏才有贜款。

 

備註

註 1

It is unfortunate that the draft law has not yet been published. But it is significant to note that the explanation of the Legislative Affairs Commission of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee has stated that the legal principles of our system would be followed, including the presumption of innocence. There is no suggestion that the law would be retrospective.

I would wish to comment on two matters affecting the judiciary. First, it was stated that the chief executive would have the power to select judges who would deal with national security cases. This would be detrimental to the independence of the judiciary.

Under the Basic Law, judges are appointed by the chief executive on the recommendation of an independent commission, that is, the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission. Judges are chosen on the basis of their professional qualities and they exercise their judicial power independently, free from any interference.

The judiciary is independent from the executive authorities. The independent judiciary should decide on the judges who would hear these cases without any interference from the executive authorities.

Further, the chief executive would not have the required knowledge of the experience and expertise of judges to make the selection on his or her own. Also, the chief executive’s chairmanship of the National Security Commission to be established in Hong Kong would make it inappropriate for him or her to make the choice on his or her own.

If this view is not acceptable, then the arrangement should at least provide that the chief executive’s selection of these judges must be based on the recommendation of the chief justice or that of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission. This would ensure that the choice will be made on a professional and independent basis.

Secondly, the explanation stated that under specific circumstances, the central authorities may exercise jurisdiction over a small number of criminal cases that jeopardise national security. This also raises serious concern.

When exercised, these cases will be dealt with and tried in mainland China. The defendant will not enjoy the safeguards of our judicial process. Although it is said that this jurisdiction could only be exercised in the most exceptional circumstances, it would undermine the independent judicial power which our courts are authorised to exercise under the Basic Law.

註 2

【港版國安法】李國能撰文撐立惡法 但須不具追溯力在港審訊

他認為,國安法必須不具追溯力,罪行的定義必須合理確切,調查的權力必須受香港法律規管,特別是除非獲得司法授權,處所不得被搜查,電話不得被監聽,檢控的決定應依據香港的《檢控守則》,且審訊應在香港公開公正地進行,而被告應被假定無罪,並必須在無合理疑點下定罪。

註 3

Andrew Li 'alarmed' by Beijing stance on mask law ruling

"The statement appears to suggest that the Hong Kong courts have no power to hold Hong Kong legislation to be invalid on the ground of inconsistency with the Basic Law. If this is what was meant, it is surprising and alarming," he said.

“Since 1997, our courts have held that they have such power, whilst fully accepting that any interpretation by the NPCSC would be binding in Hong Kong. The NPCSC in its 1999 and subsequent interpretations did not suggest otherwise."

“I hope this is not what the statement meant. Maybe it meant that any NPCSC interpretation would be binding, which our courts have fully accepted,” he added.

發表意見