(http://www.epochtimes.com)
【大紀元1月15日訊】大紀元駐歐洲記者秦川1月14日電/日前﹐新唐人電視臺記者就香港23條立法一事採訪了英國國會議員史蒂芬‧雷德曼博士。雷德曼博士對中國的人權問題十分關注﹐經常在國會及媒體採訪中談及此問題。圖為在他的家中接受了採訪。以下是採訪全文。
問﹕您對香港23條立法有何看法﹖
答﹕我對針對叛國罪的法律並沒有甚麼反對。每個國家都有反對叛國的法律。我擔心的是香港的立法會訂得很含糊﹐會把我認為不是叛國的行為也包括其中。叛國是針對政府的一種行為﹐而不能是一種思想或信仰。在英國﹐我有權利同意政府的做法﹐也有權利不同意﹐我有權利對我的朋友們講我是否支持政府﹐但我不能隨便推翻政府。反叛國的法律應該是這樣規定的。因為我們還沒有看到23條立法的具體條文﹐所以咨詢就像在真空中進行。我很擔心該法律對叛國的定義會是甚麼樣﹐甚麼樣的行為會被定為有罪。
問﹕該立法會對香港的未來造成甚麼影響呢﹖
答﹕香港經濟如此成功的一個原因是因為它是一個自由的社會﹐人們可以自由地發揮他們的想象力﹐自由地追求自己的夢想。如果你打算限制這種自由﹐最終你會限制香港的成功﹐香港的經濟繁榮會開始消失。那不僅會對香港造成傷害﹐當然也會對中國大陸造成傷害﹐因為大陸一直依賴香港進行大量的對西方貿易。
問﹕英國政府在此問題中有甚麼責任﹖
答﹕因為我們與香港有長期關係﹐因為是我們談判終止了香港與英國的從屬關係﹐所以我們擁有重大的責任。而且﹐香港很多民眾期待我們能夠對他們提供保護。如果他們感到新立法對他們構成威脅﹐他們會指望英國政府替他們說話。這也是我的立場。我相信﹐我們需要對這種可能性作好思想準備。我們需要確定﹐新法律只能是真正針對叛國罪的﹐而不是對叛國進行含糊定義從而限制人權的。
問﹕12月10日﹐中國副總理錢其琛在北京說﹐香港23條立法與英美兩國無關。您對此有何評論﹖
答﹕他錯了。人權與我們所有人都有關係﹐不管我們在世界的哪個角落。十分坦率地說﹐我希望中華人民共和國和聯合王國成為很好的朋友﹐我希望中國和英國自由地進行貿易。我相信中國經濟的增長會給我的國家﹑我的選民﹐以及中國的人民帶來繁榮和富裕。但是﹐這種增長只有在人權受到尊重的環境下才能實現。所以﹐我希望看到中國轉變為更加開明的政權。實際上﹐我認為中國的新任領導層有很大潛力成為一個很好的改革性的政府﹐並領導中國向改革的方向前進。所以﹐我的直言不諱並沒有不尊重中國的意思。相反﹐明確指出我心目中中國變革的正確方向﹐這是一種友好的行為。只有這樣﹐我們兩國之間才能有真正的友誼﹐而這種友誼我認為是至關重要的。
問﹕迄今為止﹐英國國會對23條立法有甚麼反應﹖
答﹕現在英國政府說﹐因為還沒有看到立法的具體細節﹐因為細節還沒有公佈﹐所以政府不願意評論他們還沒看見的東西。但是﹐政府已經明確表示﹐希望香港政府儘快公佈立法細節﹐並且要求新立法尊重人權。我必須指出﹐我對號稱咨詢而不公佈法律草案這一點持嚴肅的批評態度。我搞不懂﹐民眾對他們根本看不到的新法律如何「咨詢」﹖我認為﹐如果香港政府先擬定法律草案再進行咨詢﹐讓我們知道法律條文是明確的﹐對香港只會有好處而不會有危險﹐那也就不會有今天這種爭執了。但他們至今沒有公開立法條文﹐所以我們不知道新法律裡面會有甚麼﹐所以人們就會一直保持警惕﹐直到看到具體立法。我指出這些﹐是因為我希望新法律的規定能夠是有益無害的。
問﹕23條立法爭議很大。如果23條本身就是反人權的﹐英國政府為甚麼會允許它列入基本法呢﹖
答﹕反叛國的法律並不一定是反人權的。一個國家有一部反叛國罪的法律是完全合理的。但我相信﹐叛國是一種明確的行為﹐它是行為而不是思想。人們必須永遠擁有向他人談論自己信仰的自由﹐與有共同信仰的人們交往結社的自由﹐以及向他人介紹和解釋自己信仰的自由。這些都是完全合理的權利﹐世界上任何地方的任何人都應該享有的權利。如果你超越這些權利而犯下叛國的行為﹐那麼有法律針對這種行為也是完全合理的。所以﹐23條是否會違反人權﹐要看立法最終是怎麼規定的。而我擔心的就是到現在我們還沒有看到立法的細節。有可能我們現在是小題大作了﹐但在看到具體立法之前我們不能放心。
問﹕23條立法會對英國產生甚麼後果呢﹖它只是一個道德問題﹐還是有可能會有更深刻的影響﹖
答﹕首先﹐這是一個重大的道德責任。其次﹐像我剛才說的﹐這也是一個重要的經濟問題﹐因為我們希望能夠與香港和中國大陸自由地進行貿易﹐而如果當地的人權不受尊重﹐我們就不能夠自由地貿易。第三﹐很多香港人現在住在英國﹐很多大陸來的人也來英國定居﹐他們在家鄉都有親人﹐如果新立法構成威脅﹐他們的家人會遭遇危險。所以﹐很多在英國定居的有中國背景的人會擔心立法對他們家人的影響。
問﹕這個問題好像並沒有吸引很多英國媒體的注意力。您認為英國公眾還關心香港嗎﹖
答﹕我肯定地認為﹐英國公眾仍然關心香港。23條的問題沒有獲得應有的注意﹐我覺得可能是因為現在大家在探討一個相當複雜的技術性問題﹐而媒體往往喜歡報導看起來黑白分明的事。我認為﹐當立法公佈以後﹐如果像我所擔心的那樣﹐它是危險的﹐或者它的規定是含糊不清的﹐那麼我相信這個問題會在英國獲得大得多的關注。另外﹐不要忘記﹐奧運會還有幾年就要在中國大陸召開了。英國人喜歡他們的體育﹐但如果他們認為中國政府不是一個開明的﹑尊重人權的政府﹐他們就不會盼望北京奧運的召開。所以﹐在今後的幾年裡﹐奧運也會逐漸提昇英國國內對中國人權問題的興趣。我認為﹐英國人民確實仍然關心著香港。
問﹕您怎樣看待中國的人權問題﹖
答﹕目前這個問題是很麻煩的。我非常關心法輪功和一些基督教團體所遭受的待遇。我相信﹐在一個國家裡﹐宗教和政治信仰應該是多元化的。但目前而言﹐信仰多元化在中國是不受尊重的。但我對新的領導層抱有很高的期望﹐我相信他們傾向於改革﹐我也希望他們能在今後的幾年裡設法改善中國的人權狀況。我不想對中國政府和中華人民共和國有任何的不敬或不尊重﹐因為我希望他們參與探討改善中國人權狀況的對話﹐並與我的政府和其他西方國家政府一道﹐致力於增進我們的關係。
問﹕中國政府在人權問題上聽取過西方國家的意見嗎﹖
答﹕迄今為止還沒有。但是﹐如果他們不聽﹐我們能做的只有讓我們的聲音更響亮些﹐更清楚些。我希望﹐當他們看到今天這個節目時﹐能夠重新開始考慮這些問題。正像我說的﹐有兩樣東西是中國大陸迫切需要的﹕一個是成功舉辦奧運會﹐另一個是確定與西方的貿易關係。這兩樣事情完全取決於他們能否改善人權記錄。所以我希望新的領導層不再背前任領導人的包袱﹐能夠開誠佈公地討論這些問題﹐以使我們在以後的幾年裡獲得進步。
問﹕您認為英國政府和其他西方國家政府對中國人權問題有沒有足夠的關注﹖
答﹕我認為他們經常對自己的立場表達得不夠明確。我覺得他們有時候會被做生意的慾望所左右﹐而在道德問題上不能夠坦率直言。我認為﹐我們應該在與中國做朋友的同時﹐明確地表達我們內心的想法。朋友之間有時會很坦率﹐有時候會指出我們做錯的地方。所以我認為﹐如果我們要與中國大陸維持這種重要的友好關係和貿易關係﹐英國政府就應該更明確地告訴中國我們到底希望看到甚麼。
問﹕您能不能介紹一下您參與的有關中國人權的活動﹖
答﹕我的活動局限於在國會講話﹐以及對媒體明確表達我的想法。我不參加示威或其他類似的直接活動﹐因為我認為不必要做這些。我相信我們可以用對話來解決問題。在香港﹐我們可以在咨詢中表達自己的看法﹐並且在立法最後提出時﹐我們要清楚地知道甚麼是好的﹐甚麼是不好的﹐並且把不好的東西改掉。我們可以同中國採取議會間﹑政府間的對話來解決這些問題。
問﹕是甚麼促使您為中國的人權付出努力呢﹖
答﹕是一種道德的義務。從中國來的﹑在中國和香港有親人的人們會來告訴我他們的擔懮。而且我相信﹐如果我們要在二十一世紀擁有世界的和平﹐我們就必須與中國交往﹐讓中國更深入地參與到我們的想法中來。沒有中國﹐我們不可能擁有穩定和發展的經濟﹐我們不可能擁有穩定持久的世界和平。而要與中國交往﹐我們就必須與之對話。這就是驅使我這樣做的動力。
————
UK Member of Parliament Talks about Article 23
New Tang Dynasty TV interviewed Dr Steve Ladyman, Member of Parliament of the United Kingdom, on the proposed Article 23 legislation in Hong Kong. Dr Ladyman has been very concerned with the human rights situation in China, and has been vocal in expressing his concerns to the media and in the parliament. Below is the full report.
Q: What do you think of the proposed Article 23 legislation in Hong Kong?
A: I have no objection to laws against treason. Every country has laws against treason. My concern is that the new legislation may be framed so widely that things I don’t regard as treason will be captured by it. Treason is an act against the government; it isn’t a thought or belief against the government. In the UK I’m free to agree or disagree with the government, I’m free to talk to my friends about whether I agree or disagree with the Government, but I’m not free to try and overthrow the Government. And that’s the way a law on treason should be framed. Because we haven’t seen the details of the new legislation yet because the consultation has been held in a vacuum, I’m very concerned about the way it will be framed and what will be capture by it.
Q: What indications might the proposed law have for the future of Hong Kong?
A: One of the reasons why Hong Kong has been such a success economically is because it has been a free society where people have been free to use their imaginations and free to follow their dreams. If you start to restrict that freedom then ultimately you will start to restrict the success of Hong Kong and its economic prosperity will start to diminish. And that will damage not just Hong Kong but of course it will ultimately damage the People’s Republic because the People’s Republic is going to rely on Hong Kong for a lot of its trading with the Western world.
Q: What responsibilities do the British Government have in this matter?
A: Because of our long-term relationship with Hong Kong, because it was us that negotiated the end of the treaty where Hong Kong was a British protectorate, we have great responsibility and, of course, many of the people in Hong Kong look to us for protection. So if they feel threatened by the proposed changes in legislation, it’s to the British Government they look for someone who will be an advocate on their behalf and that’s very much my position. I just believe that we need to be aware of this possibility and we need to make sure that when the new legislation is framed, it genuinely deals with real treason and not with a wider concept of treason which I would regard as a restriction of human rights.
Q: On December 10th, the Chinese Vice Premier Qian Qichen said in Beijing that the proposed legislation on Article 23 in Hong Kong has nothing to do with the UK or USA. Do you have any comments on that?
A: He’s wrong. Human Rights are to do with all of us wherever we are in the world. And, let me be absolutely frank, I want the People’s Republic and the United Kingdom to be great friends; I want the People’s Republic and the United Kingdom to trade freely. I believe that growth of the economy in the People’s Republic can bring prosperity to my country and my constituents as well as to the people in the People’s Republic. But that growth can only come about in an environment where human rights are respected. So I want to see the People’s Republic moving towards what I regard as a more liberal regime, and actually I believe that the new Leadership in the People’s Republic has a great potential to be a great reforming Government and to lead the People’s Republic in that direction. So with me speaking out is with no disrespect to the People’s Republic. It is an act of friendship that I want to identify the way I believe the People’s Republic needs to move so that we can have the friendship between our two countries that I believe is vital for us.
Q: What has been the response in the British Parliament to this legislation?
A: Well at the moment the Government is saying that, because it hasn’t seen the detail of the new legislation, because it hasn’t been published yet, it’s not willing to criticise what it hasn’t seen. But it’s making clear that it wants to encourage the Hong Kong authorities to publish the new legislation as quickly as possible and it wants it framed in such a way as to respect human rights. I have to say I am very critical of the fact that the legislation has not been published whilst the consultation has been going on. I don’t see how you can have a consultation about legislation that you haven’t seen yet, and I think that, if the Hong Kong authorities drafted the legislation and then held the consultation, we might not be having this dispute now, because it would be clear that the legislation was tightly framed and was going to be helpful rather than dangerous. Because they haven’t released the legislation we don’t know what’s going to be in it, so the people are very much keeping their powder dry at the moment until they’ve seen the legislation. I’m speaking out now because I want to make sure that the legislation is framed in the way I believe will be helpful.
Q: Article 23 legislation has caused such a dispute today. If it was anti-human rights from the very beginning, then why did the British Government allow it to become part of the basic law?
A: Well it isn’t necessarily anti-human rights. It is absolutely reasonable for every country to have a law about treason. But I believe is treason is an overt act, something that you do, not something that you think. You must always be free to talk to people about your beliefs, to associate with people that share your beliefs, and to try and convince other people that you are right. That is perfectly reasonable and something that everybody everywhere in the world should be allowed to do. If you take that further and commit an act of treachery, then it’s entirely reasonable that you have laws against that. So whether Article 23 turns out to be anti-human rights or not depends upon the way the legislation is framed and it’s the legislation we haven’t seen yet so that’s my concern. It could potentially, almost be a storm in the teacup that we may have nothing to argue about, but we won’t know until we’ve seen the detail of the regulations.
Q: What consequences do you think this legislation might have on the United Kingdom? Is it just a moral responsibility for the UK or does it have more profound implications?
A: Well, first of all, there is the moral imperative. Secondly, as I said earlier, there is the economic imperative because we want to trade freely with Hong Kong and with the People’s Republic and if we don’t believe that human rights are being respected we won’t be able to trade freely. Thirdly, many people from Hong Kong now live here in the United Kingdom and people from Mainland China have also come here to live in the United Kingdom and they have family at home and their family will be threatened if the legislation is dangerous. So, many people who have a Chinese background who live here will worry about what the effect will be on their family at home.
Q: This issue doesn’t seem to have attracted very much attention from the British Press. So do you think that the British public in general still care about Hong Kong?
A: I certainly think they do still care about Hong Kong. This particular issue hasn’t got the profile I would like it to have got. I think that probably because it’s quite a technical argument at the moment and it’s quite complex and the media quite often likes to deal with things that seem like they’re black and white. I think when the legislation is published, if it is dangerous, if it is too widely framed, as I fear it might be, then I think it will become very much more of an issue in the United Kingdom. Also, let’s not forget we’re in the lead up to the Olympic Games on the Mainland, and the British love their sports and they aren’t going to be able to enjoy looking forward to the Olympic Games if they don’t see the Peoples Republic as being a liberal regime that respects human rights, so there will be that issue as well over the coming years, which will ramp up the interest in the UK. But people in the UK certainly still do care about Hong Kong.
Q: How do you evaluate the Human Rights situation in China?
A: Well it’s difficult at the moment, and I have considerable concerns about the way people like Falun Gong and some Christian communities are being treated. I believe that you need to have a plurality of both religious and political beliefs within a country. And the range of beliefs is not being respected at the moment. But I have high hopes for the new leadership and I do believe the new leadership do want to be reformists and I hope that they’ll move to improve human rights in China over the coming years. So I’m not going to be rude or disrespectful to this Government and the People’s Republic of China, because I want them to engage in a discussion about how human rights should improve in the People’s Republic and work together with my Government and with other Western governments to improve our relationship.
Q: Have they been listening to western governments in regard to human rights issues?
A: Not so far. But, if people aren’t listening, all one can do is talk a little louder and more clearly. And, hopefully, when they see this broadcast, they’ll start thinking about these issues again. And as I say, we do have two things that the People’s Republic desperately want: One is to hold successful Olympic Games, and secondly to approve their trading position with the West. Those two things are going to be entirely dependent on them improving their human rights record. So I’m hoping that the new leadership don’t perhaps have the same baggage as the previous leadership, and we’ll take that on board and move things forward over the coming years.
Q: Do you think the British Government and other Western Governments have paid enough attention to human rights issues in China?
A: I don’t think they’ve been clear enough about their position quite often. I think sometimes they’ve allowed desire to trade get in the way of speaking out on the moral issues involved and I think we should be clearer about what we believe and it’s definitely possible to be clear about what we believe whilst still being a friend to China. Friends are sometimes frank with each other, sometimes tell each other where we’re making mistakes. So I think that the British Government, which is the only one I can try and influence, should be clearer about what we want in the future if we’re going to have this friendly relationship and trading relationship that we definitely want with Mainland China.
Q: You have been involved in some activities in regard to human rights in China. Could you tell us more about that?
A: Well my activities are restricted to speaking out in Parliament and making my views clear in the media. I don’t get involved in demonstrations or any of these direct activities because I don’t believe that it’s necessary to do that. I believe we can deal with the problem by talking. We can deal with it in Hong Kong by people making their views clear during this consultation, by making sure that, when the legislation is finally tabled, we’re all very clear about what we believe are the good parts and bad parts of it, and getting that fixed. And we can deal with this problem by talking parliament to parliament and Government to Government with the People’s Republic of China.
Q: What has been driving you to do all this for human rights of China?
A: The moral dimension. People of Chinese background who have family back in China and in Hong Kong who have come to tell me of their fears and my belief that if we are going to have the sort of world peace that we all desperately want in this 21st Century, it’s only going to be if we can engage with China and involve China more closely in our deliberations and in our thoughts. We can’t have a stable and growing economy and we can’t have a stable and improving peace in this world without China and we can only have that engagement with China by talking so that’s what’s driving me.
Q﹕ Thank you very much, Dr Ladyman.(http://www.dajiyuan.com)
