新西兰先驱报中文网报道 7月31日，中国驻奥克兰总领馆就奥大校园内的学生冲突发表公开声明。本周一，行动党党魁David Seymour写信给奥克兰总领馆，指责后者干涉新西兰内政，限制新西兰大学内的言论自由，希望外国政府尊重新西兰人的权利以及新西兰的法律和价值观。

对此，8月8日中国外交部发言人在答记者问时指出，“希望新西兰个别人士停止以‘言论自由’为名纵容‘港独’分子的反华分裂活动” 。而中国驻奥克兰总领事阮平也通过中英双语声明阐述了香港的局势和中国的官方立场。

奥克兰大学冲突事件回顾

本报记者之前曾对奥克兰大学校园内的冲突事件作出详细报道。根据社交媒体上发出的视频，当月29日，在奥克兰大学市中心校区，三名中国大陆留学生与在校内“连侬墙”上张贴时事及政治主张宣传单的香港学生发生争执，过程中，香港女生Serena Lee疑似被一名中国大陆留学生推搡倒地。事后，Lee在接受新西兰媒体采访时表达担忧称，“香港拟议中的法律可能会终结我们所知的这个城市和我们的个人自由，但当在新西兰也有人试图阻止我们的言论自由时，我感到震惊。”

一名当事大陆留学生在其书面声明中表示，“首先，我们立场非常坚定，支持言论自由......其次，我们并不想发生任何冲突，也没有对港独进行暴力恐吓，我们对香港同学不实表述感到遗憾。此外，他们在墙上贴出’光复香港’等港独标语，我们认为一个中国原则和香港是中国一部分的原则不容挑战，新西兰政府对此也从未改变立场。”

相关阅读：奥克兰大学校园内现学生冲突事件 当事人回应争议视频

行动党党魁致信中国驻奥克兰总领馆

7月31日，中国驻奥克兰总领馆对奥大校园内有关“香港独立”等内容的海报引发学生冲突一事表示关注。总领馆批评新西兰一些媒体在报道此事时“内容有失偏颇，特别是对近期香港局势的描述严重失实”。

在公开声明中，总领馆表示“赞赏中国留学生自发的爱国爱港言行，反对分裂国家行径”，并“对有人利用近期香港局势，以所谓学术自由和言论自由为借口，在大学校园从事抹黑攻击中国政府和香港特区政府、煽动反华情绪、制造中国大陆和香港学生对立的行为表示强烈谴责和反对”。

然而，对于中国驻奥克兰总领馆“赞赏中国留学生自发的爱国爱港言行”，行动党党魁David Seymour反驳称，“被推倒在地的抗议者正在行使他们的和平集会自由和言论自由的权利，这些权利受到法律的保护”。

他还表示，“总领馆的言论助长了破坏和暴力行为......干涉了我们的内政。”

中国驻奥克兰总领事发中英双语声明

在Seymour致信后，中国驻奥克兰总领事阮平用中英双语声明阐述了香港的局势，“挑动对抗的人实际上是揣着明白装糊涂，恶意散布谣言，误导民众。他们蓄意制造暴力事件，其行动完全超出了和平示威的范畴”。他在声明中反问：“试问世界上哪一个负责任的政府可以坐视如此破坏法治的事态不断发酵而无动于衷？ 新西兰是法治社会。我相信新西兰当局也不会容忍这种事态发展。 ”

阮平总领事表示，“维护好香港法治不仅符合中国包括香港特区的利益，也符合其他国家的利益。”

声明称：“任何外国如果想把香港搞乱，把‘两制’变成‘两国’，把香港变成牵制或者遏制中国的一枚棋子，这个图谋注定无法得逞。”

中国外交部回应

8月8日，中国外交部华春莹也回答了记者提出的关于“新西兰政府表示将保护大学言论自由”的问题。

记者问道：“据了解，近期，新西兰政府向中国官员表示，新将保护大学言论自由，以回应中国总领馆就奥克兰出现“港独”运动发表的声明。中方对此有何回应？据悉，中国官员本周一在新西兰会见了新外交官，你能否证实？如属实，双方谈论了哪些内容？”

华春莹回答说：“近日极少数别有用心的人在奥克兰大学宣扬“港独”并进行反华滋事，激起该校中国留学生强烈愤慨和坚决抵制。中国驻奥克兰总领馆公开澄清事实并阐明严正立场，同时呼吁中国留学生在遵守新西兰法律和大学规定的基础上合理表达诉求，完全是正常履职，无可指摘。”

她强调称：“希望新西兰个别人士摘下有色眼镜，摒弃双重标准，停止以‘’言论自由”为名纵容‘’港独分子的反华分裂活动。”

以下为中国驻奥克兰总领事阮平的中英双语声明原文，中文《先驱报》获得授权转载：

中文版

把香港的抗议变成骚乱的人最终图谋是什么？
中国驻奥克兰总领事阮平

今年 6 月以来，围绕中国香港特区政府修订《逃犯条例》和《刑事事宜相互法律协助条例》，香港发生了一系列游行示威活动并最终演变成暴力袭警和打砸立法机构等公共设施的骚乱事件，对特区的法治、社会秩序、经济民生已经造成了严重的影响，也在新西兰引起广泛关注。我认为有必要就此问题做出一些说明，以正视听。相信大家也都想了解，为什么香港一个正常的立法事务会引发这么大的风波。

2018 年 2 月，香港居民陈某携怀孕女友潘某赴台湾，因争吵杀害潘后潜逃回香港。由于香港法律和属地管辖原则，特区法院对该案无管辖权，香港原有的“两个条例”又不允许香港和台湾地区进行移交逃犯和刑事司法协助。潘在香港的父母强烈要求香港政府修改条例，允许疑犯引渡到台湾接受审判。香港特区政府才有了修订条例之举。

香港目前相关的两个条例还是 1997 年回归前的法律，仅与 19 个国家和地区有移交逃犯安排、与 30 个国家和地区有刑事司法协助安排，与中国内地、澳门和台湾地区一直没有相关安排，甚至不能开展个案合作。修例是为修补法律漏洞，维护社会公义和法治原则，避免犯罪分子逍遥法外，是必要的、正当的、合法的。在全球化、信息化时代，各类犯罪的跨境性非常突出，打击犯罪有赖于各个司法管辖区的密切合作，世界上不能有任何一个地方让犯罪分子用作“避罪天堂”。即使是在有着不同社会制度、法律制度的国家之间，这类合作也是非常正常的。比如，中国同3737个国家签个国家签署了引渡条约，与更多的国家签有刑事司法协助条约。前不久，根据与西班牙签订的引渡条约，中国成功从西班牙引渡条约，中国成功从西班牙引渡了200多名电信诈骗犯罪嫌疑人。香港回归中国已经20多多年了，一方面，香港特区政府根据中央政府授权，可以与外国开展此类合作；另一方面，作为中国的一部分，却因原有法律限制无法与中国其他地区开展此类合作。所以从完善“一国两制”体系和弥补法律漏洞角度看，修订相关法律不应产生任何争议。

有人担心，修例会影响香港特区的司法独立，进而冲击“一国两制”。其实这种担心没有必要。香港特区政府提出的修例方案，是将香港原有法律规定的与外国的相关合作制度，包括合作范围、限制条件、司法审查程序等等，均比照适用于香港与中国其他地区之间，在向香港社会公众征询意见后又进一步缩小了合作范围。如此谨慎的制度安排，丝毫不会影响香港的司法独立。难道说实行“一国两制 ”，就要内地与香港彼此隔绝，甚至连最基本的司法合作都不能进行吗？这种逻辑非常荒唐。必须明确，“一国两制”的前提和基础是“一国”，中国内部不同司法管辖区之间开展司法互助、避免给犯罪分子提供避风港，是落实“一国”原则的应有之义。

上述道理并不难理解。挑动对抗的人实际上是揣着明白装糊涂，恶意散布谣言，误导民众。他们蓄意制造暴力事件，其行动完全超出了和平示威的范畴。这也是近年来他们的惯用手法。只要是涉及香港与中央政府和内地的关系，就要混淆视听，制造恐慌，搅乱社会秩序。尤其不能容忍的是，在香港特区政府已经宣布 停止推进修例的情况下，这些人不仅不收手，反而更加变本加厉，公然采取污损国徽、侮辱国旗、冲击中央政府驻港联络办、冲击香港立法会和香港警署、使用有毒有害液体和粉末袭击和围殴警察、纵火、制造炸弹、瘫痪交通等暴力破坏行动，甚至发生咬断警察手指这样血淋淋的事件，其行动不断升级，有组织化、专业化、暴力化特征日益突出。显然，他们根本不是就反对修例表达关切，而是借题发挥，目的就是要搞乱香港，破坏“一国两制”。试问世界上哪一个负责任的政府可以坐视如此破坏法治的事态不断发酵而无动于衷？ 新西兰是法治社会。我相信新西兰当局也不会容忍这种事态发展。

在这种情况下，美国等个别国家不是谴责闹事者破坏法治的暴力行为，而是对香港警察十分克制的正当执法肆意歪曲，对中国政府横加指责，还为闹事分子撑腰打气，给事态恶化推波助澜。他们不仅采取不负责任的、选择性、误导性的态度和明显的双重标准，而且在事件中扮演着十分不光彩的角色。他们应该为此感到羞耻。

1984年 12 月中国与英国签订《联合声明》，确定按照邓小平先生提出的“一国两制”原则，对 1997 年 7 月 1 日香港主权回归中国做出具体安排。中国兑现了承诺， 1990 年全 国人大颁布了《香港特别行政区基本法》，将明确在《联合声明》的“一国两制”原则以法律的方式确定下来。我当年有幸以秘书身份参加了长达 5 年的香港基本法起草委员会的工作。我想指出的是，香港回归后不仅继续保留原有法律体系和社会制度不变，而且享有更高的、从来没有过的高度自治，包括立法权和司法权。比如，香港基本法规定，香港法院在 1997 年香港回归后享有终审权，之前香港司法终审权是在英国女王的枢密院。新西兰有过同样经历，应该容易理解。 1997 年香港回归，那些带着假发的大法官仍然坐在那里，香港司法不仅依旧独立，而且权力却更大 ，司法终审权历史上第一次来到香港！中央政府从来没有干预过这些法官判案。另一方面，香港基本法第 23 条要求香港立法机构自行制定法律禁止分裂国家的行为。这是维护“一国”的重要法律保障。这类法律规定在香港回归以前是有的，只不过是禁止反对女王和颠覆大英帝国的行为。然而从香港回归到如今，香港立法机构二十多年来就是不立法禁止分裂国家的行径。对此，中国中央政府也没有干预，相信香港能够管理好自己的事务。我认为，正是没有相应的立法保证“一国”，才是加入骚乱的暴徒敢于污损国徽、侮辱国旗、冲击中央政府驻港联络办的根源。没有保证“一国”的法规，“两制”就无法完美体现，香港的繁荣和稳定就不可避免地时常受到这种有组织的骚乱冲击。

法治是香港人引以为傲的核心价值，是香港良好营商环境的基础，是香港保持繁荣稳定的基石。1997年香港回归，香港基本法实施，保证了“一国两制”原则的顺利贯彻执行。香港的法治指数在全球名列前茅。维护好香港法治，是广大香港民众的心愿，不仅符合中国包括香港特区的利益，也符合其他国家的利益。任何外国，如果真心拥护“一国两制”，真正关心香港的繁荣稳定并为此作出积极的贡献，我们表示欢迎。但如果想把香港搞乱，把“两制”变成“两国”，把香港变成牵制或者遏制中国的一枚棋子，这个图谋注定无法得逞。

英文版

What is the P urpose of T hose W ho T urn P rotest s into Riots in Hong Kong?
By Ruan Ping, Chinese Consul General

Since June this year, around the HKSAR government's amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance, a series of protests have occurred and eventually turned into riots of violent assaults to the police and smashing public facilities such as legislative council and police stations , causing severe impact on the rule of law, social and economic order of Hong Kong . The situation has also aroused widespread attention in New Zealand. I deem it necessary to make some explanations in this regard so as to set the record straight . I believe everyone is wondering why an ordinary legislative affair in Hong Kong has turned into such a big storm.

In February 2018, Hong Kong resident Mr Chan, who brought his pregnant girlfriend Ms Pan to Taiwan, was suspected of killing Ms Pan there and fleeing back to Hong Kong. Due to Hong Kong's law and territorial jurisdiction, the HKSAR government has no authority over the case. Hong Kong's original two ordinances do not allow Hong Kong and Taiwan to hand over fugitives and carry out criminal justice assistance. Pan’s parents in Hong Kong strongly urged the HKSAR government to amend the ordinances to allow the suspect to be extradited to Taiwan for trial. As a result, the HKSAR government took the action of making amendments to the ordinances.

The current two ordinances of Hong Kong are still the laws before its return to the motherland in 1997. Hong Kong has only reached arrangements for surrender of fugitive offenders with 19 countries and regions, and signed criminal justice assistance arrangements with 30 countries and regions. There have been no such arrangements with the Chinese mainland, Macau and Taiwan. It is not even possible to carry out cooperation on individual cases. The amendments are necessary, justifiable and lawful to fix the legal loopholes, uphold the principles of social justice and the rule of law, and to prevent criminals from going unpunished. In the era of globalization and information, various cross-border crimes are rampant. Combating crime depends on the close cooperation of multiple jurisdictions. No place in the world should be allowed to be “heaven of criminals”. Such cooperation is normal even between countries with different social and legal systems.

For example, China has signed extradition treaties with 37 countries and criminal justice assistance treaties with more countries. Not long ago, according to the extradition treaty with Spain, China successfully extradited more than 200 telecom fraud suspects from Spain. Hong Kong has returned to China for more than 20 years. On the one hand, the HKSAR government can carry out such cooperation with foreign countries authorized by the Central Government; on the other hand, as a part of China, Hong Kong cannot cooperate with other parts of China due to the legal loopholes. Therefore, there should be no controversies to fix the legal loopholes and improve the practice of “One Country, Two Systems”.

It is not necessary for some people to worry about the negative impact of the amendments on the judicial independence of Hong Kong and the principle of “One Country, Two Systems”. According to the proposed amendment bill, the relevant judicial cooperative arrangement existing between Hong Kong and other foreign countries, including the scope, restrictions and review procedures, will also be applied to other parts of China. And after consultation with the public, the scope has been further limited. Such a prudent arrangement is to ensure Hong Kong's judicial independence. Is it reasonable to prevent the basic judicial cooperation and create isolation between Hong Kong and mainland just in the name of “One Country, Two Systems”? This is absurd. It must be clarified that the premise and foundation of “One Country, Two Systems” is "one country". Implementing this principle entails the mutual legal assistance and avoidance of providing safe havens for criminals among different judicial areas in China.

All of the above is not difficult to understand, but we cannot wake up those who pretend to be asleep as they deliberately provoke confrontation, maliciously spread rumors, mislead the public and commit violence. Their actions are completely beyond peaceful demonstrations. This is also what they have done repeatedly in recent years. As long as it comes to relationship between Hong Kong and the mainland, they confuse the public, cause panic and disrupt the social order. Even after the HKSAR government suspended the amendments, they have gone from bad to worse. They smeared paint on China's national emblem, insulted the national flag, and attacked Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in Hong Kong. They stormed the Legislative Council building and the Hong Kong Police Station, assaulted and attacked the police with corrosive liquids and toxic powders. They set fire, hurled petrol bombs, halted traffic, and even bit off part of a police officer's finger. And these should not be tolerated at all. Apparently, their actions are highly organized, specialized, violent and constantly escalating. They are not expressing their concerns about the amendments, but seizing on it to disrupt Hong Kong’s rule of law and undermine the principle of “One Country, Two Systems”. I believe that no responsible government in the world, including New Zealand government, will allow this kind of situation of undermining the rule of law to continue without taking any action.

Under such circumstances, some countries including the United States do not condemn the violent acts of those who disrupt the rule of law, instead they distort the fact that the Hong Kong polices are enforcing the law properly. They rudely criticize the Chinese government, support radicals, and fuel the deterioration of the situation. They should be ashamed of their irresponsible and disgraceful role, selective and misleading attitudes, and obvious double standard.

In accordance with the “One Country, Two Systems” principle proposed by Mr. Deng Xiaoping in December 1984, China and the United Kingdom signed the "Joint Declaration" to determine the specific arrangements for the return of Hong Kong's sovereignty to China on July 1, 1997. And China fulfilled its promise. In 1990, the National People's Congress promulgated the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, in which the “One Country, Two Systems” principle stated in the Joint Declaration has been legalized. I was lucky enough to have worked as a secretary in the Basic Law Drafting Committee for six years. What I want to point out is that Hong Kong has not only retained its previous legal and social system, but also enjoyed a higher degree of autonomy, including legislative and judicial powers, which had never been achieved before. For example, the Hong Kong Basic Law stipulates that Hong Kong courts have the power of final adjudication after the return of Hong Kong in 1997. Before that, the final adjudication in Hong Kong went to the Queen’s Privy Council. It is easy for New Zealand to understand this, for it has similar experience. Since Hong Kong’s handover in 1997, the judges with wigs have still been there. Hong Kong's judiciary not only remains independent but also enjoys more power. For the first time in history, the final adjudication has come to Hong Kong. The central government has never interfered in these judges’ rulings. On the other hand, Article 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law requires the Hong Kong legislature to make its own laws prohibiting the secession of the country. This is an important legal guarantee for the maintenance of "one country". There were similar laws before the handover of Hong Kong, which only banned activities against the Queen and subversion of the British Empire. However, after over 20 years of its return, Hong Kong Legislative Council still has not promulgated the law against the secession of the country. Even though, the central government has not intervened, believing that Hong Kong can manage its own affairs. In my opinion, it is because there is no related legislation to guarantee "one country" that the radicals who joined the riots dare to deface the national emblem, insult the national flag, and attack the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in the HKSAR. Without the laws and regulations guaranteeing "one country", the "two systems" cannot be perfectly embodied. And Hong Kong's prosperity and stability will inevitably be affected by such organized riots.

The rule of law is the core value the people of Hong Kong take pride in, the foundation of Hong Kong's sound business environment, and the important cornerstone for the region to maintain its prosperity and stability. The return of Hong Kong in 1997 and the implementation of the Hong Kong Basic Law have ensured the smooth implementation of the "One Country, Two Systems" principle. Hong Kong ranks high in the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index. Maintaining the rule of law in Hong Kong is the wish of the general public of Hong Kong. It is not only in the interests of China including the HKSAR, but also in the interests of other countries. It is appreciated if foreign countries could truly support "One Country, Two Systems", care about Hong Kong's prosperity and stability, and make positive contributions accordingly. But if any foreign country wants to mess up Hong Kong and turn Hong Kong into a pawn that contains or curbs China, their scheme is doomed to fail.

注：凡新西兰先驱报中文网引用、摘录或转自其他媒体的作品，本网对其观点和真实性恕不负责。新西兰先驱报中文网致力于帮助文章传播，希望能够与作者建立长期合作关系。若有任何问题请联系[email protected]。

chineseherald.co.nz All Rights Reserved 版权所有