李家超：《經濟學人》這篇文章，“可恥地作出了嚴重卻毫無根據的指控”
【文/李家超 譯/觀察者網 由冠羣】
《經濟學人》編輯人員：
你好。
你方在2022年1月8日發表了一篇有失公允的新聞報道，在文章中作出了明顯誤導性的描述——“香港新一屆立法會議員宣誓就職。這是對民主的諷刺。”對此，我深感震驚。
《經濟學人》刊文諷刺香港立法會選舉
首先，新一屆立法會議員是在12月19日以公開、公平、公正的方式選舉出來的，90名議員來自不同的政治階層。與自1997年中華人民共和國香港特別行政區成立以來的歷次選舉一樣，本次選舉也受到了新聞媒體的廣泛關注和報道。
所有90位當選議員都承諾自己的行為會符合香港和國家的利益。任何國家，無論是其憲法規定亦或道德準則，都不會允許叛國者、賣國賊、外國代理人或以其他面目出現的非愛國者進入其政治體制。包括中國在內的世界各國都把“不得背叛自己的國家和人民”當作對議員的最低要求。
其次，這篇文章可恥地作出了嚴重卻又毫無根據的指控，聲稱投票是“被操縱了”。如果真的存在什麼“操縱”，那也是有人出於陰暗的內心偏見，故意操縱扭曲香港的形象。參與選舉的香港選民曾經並將在以後繼續自由地投票，作出自己的選擇。香港專門立法防止有人操縱選舉，其中就包括將煽動他人不投票或投無效票的行為定為犯罪。
第三，香港《基本法》保護選舉權和被選舉權以及言論自由和新聞自由。適用於香港的《公民權利及政治權利國際公約》規定了香港人有權行使這些權利，只要不違反法律，包括不危害國家安全，香港人行使權利就受到法律的妥善保護。
香港警方採取的任何法律行動都嚴格堅持以證據為依據，以法律為準繩。它們所針對的是相關個人或實體的非法行為，而不考慮嫌疑人的政治立場、身份背景或職業工作。
民主並不是被哪個國家所獨享的。世界上存在許多不同的民主模式。評判民主模式成功與否的標準是看它能否有效運作，使人民過上富足的生活。
香港《基本法》明確闡明瞭香港的民主發展道路。在堅持“一國兩制”方針的基礎上，香港的民主將是循序漸進式發展的，並要符合香港的實際情況。如果外國試圖替香港定義民主或強加給香港一個民主模式，那這種行為本身就是不民主的。
外國勢力干涉香港事務助長了2019年的大規模暴力違法行為，這些行為不僅威脅到了香港的安全穩定，還威脅到了香港的法治和司法獨立，法官在這種情況下受到了恐嚇，法院也被汽油彈損毀。《國家安全法》的出台迅速有效地恢復了香港的安全穩定。這些都是客觀事實和香港居民的親身經歷。這些民眾欣慰而又喜悦地看到香港現在仍然是一個開放、安全、充滿活力且具有良好商業環境的大都市。
祝好，
香港特別行政區政務司司長
李家超
2022年1月11日
Dear Editor,
I am appalled by the biased reporting in the article which you published on January 8, 2022 using a blatantly misleading description, “Hong Kong’s new legislature has been sworn in. It is a mockery of democracy”.
First, the Legislative Council election on December 19 was conducted in an open, fair and honest manner, returning 90 legislators from different political backgrounds. The election was widely covered and reported by the media, which was facilitated throughout in the same way as elections that had taken place in Hong Kong since the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China in 1997.
All of the 90 elected legislators have the commitment to act in the interests of Hong Kong and the Country. No country will by its constitution or ethics allow treasonists, traitors, foreign agents or other forms of non- patriots to take part in its political system. This minimum standard of non- betrayal of one’s own people and nation is the common ground of all nations, including China.
Second, it is shameful that the article makes a serious but baseless accusation that the polls were “rigged”. If anything was “rigged”, it was the deliberately distorted image of Hong Kong that has been manipulated from the dark side of one’s personal internal bias. Hong Kong voters in the election were and will continue to be free to cast their ballot and make their own choices. There is legislation specifically in place to prevent anyone from rigging polls. That includes criminalising acts of inciting another person not to vote or to cast an invalid vote.
Third, the right to vote and to stand for election, as well as the freedom of speech and of the press, are enshrined in the Basic Law. The exercise of these rights, as covered in the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as applied to Hong Kong, are well protected provided that it is done within the confines of the law, including not endangering national security.
Any legal actions taken by the Hong Kong Police are strictly based on evidence and in full accordance with the law. They aim at the unlawful acts of the persons or entities concerned, regardless of the suspects’ political stance, background or occupation.
No country has a monopoly on democracy. There are many different models of democracy. The success of any model is to be measured by how effective it is in enabling its people to prosper in their living.
The democratic development of Hong Kong has been well defined under the Basic Law. Its development will be progressive and in accordance with the actual situation of Hong Kong, in adherence to the principle of “One Country, Two Systems”. If a foreign country tries to define or impose a model of democracy on Hong Kong, it is undemocratic in itself.
The massive violence and lawlessness in 2019, fueled by interference by foreign forces, threatened not just the personal safety and security of Hong Kong. It also threatened Hong Kong’s rule of law and judicial independence, where judges were also targeted for intimidation and courts damaged by petrol bombs. The National Security Law has swiftly and effectively restored stability and security. These are facts and experiences of people living here in Hong Kong, who are relieved and happy to see Hong Kong now continue to be an open, safe, vibrant and business-friendly metropolis.
Yours sincerely,
John K C Lee
Chief Secretary for Administration
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
（香港特區政府網站刊登此郵件）
本文系觀察者網獨家稿件，文章內容純屬作者個人觀點，不代表平台觀點，未經授權，不得轉載，否則將追究法律責任。關注觀察者網微信guanchacn，每日閲讀趣味文章。