經濟學人的封面,圖片是龍的嘴咬向香港,爪子伸向台灣
中國在香港用恐懼來統治
全世界應該感到擔憂
https://www.economist.com/…/china-has-launched-rule-by-fear…
Dragon strike
China has launched rule by fear in Hong Kong
The rest of the world should worry, too
The people of Hong Kong want two things: to choose how they are governed, and to be subject to the rule of law. The Chinese Communist Party finds both ideas so frightening that many expected it to send troops to crush last year’s vast protests in Hong Kong. Instead, it bided its time. Now, with the world distracted by covid-19 and mass protests difficult because of social distancing, it has chosen a quieter way to show who’s boss. That threatens a broader reckoning with the world—and not just over Hong Kong, but also over the South China Sea and Taiwan.
On May 21st China declared, in effect, that Hong Kongers deemed to pose a threat to the party will become subject to the party’s wrath. A new security law, written in Beijing, will create still-to-be defined crimes of subversion and secession, terms used elsewhere in China to lock up dissidents, including Uighurs and Tibetans. Hong Kong will have no say in drafting the law, which will let China station its secret police there. The message is clear. Rule by fear is about to begin.
This is the most flagrant violation yet of the principle of “one country, two systems”. When the British colony was handed back to China in 1997, China agreed that Hong Kong would enjoy a “high degree of autonomy”, including impartial courts and free speech. Many Hong Kongers are outraged (see article). Some investors are scared, too. The territory’s stockmarket fell by 5.6% on May 22nd, its biggest drop in five years. Hong Kong is a global commercial hub not only because it is situated next to the Chinese mainland, but also because it enjoys the rule of law. Business disputes are settled impartially, by rules that are known in advance. If China’s unaccountable enforcers are free to impose the party’s whims in Hong Kong, it will be a less attractive place for global firms to operate.
China’s move also has implications far beyond Hong Kong. “One country, two systems” was supposed to be a model for Taiwan, a democratic island of 24m that China also sees as its own. The aim was to show that reunification with the motherland need not mean losing one’s liberty. Under President Xi Jinping, China seems to have tired of this charade. Increasingly, it is making bare-knuckle threats instead. The re-election in January of a China-sceptic Taiwanese president, Tsai Ing-wen, will have convinced China’s rulers that the chances of a peaceful reunification are vanishingly small. On May 22nd, at the opening of China’s rubber-stamp parliament, the prime minister, Li Keqiang, ominously cut the word “peaceful” from his ritual reference to reunification. China has stepped up war games around Taiwan and its nationalists have been braying online for an invasion.
China is at odds with other countries, too. In its building of island fortresses in the South China Sea, it ignores both international law and the claims of smaller neighbours. This week hundreds, perhaps thousands of Chinese troops crossed China’s disputed border with India in the Himalayas. Minor scuffles along this frontier are common, but the latest incursion came as a state-owned Chinese paper asserted new claims to land that its nuclear-armed neighbour deems Indian (see article). And, as a sombre backdrop to all this, relations with the United States are worse than they have been in decades, poisoning everything from trade and investment to scientific collaboration.
However much all the regional muscle-flexing appals the world, it makes sense to the Chinese Communist Party. In Hong Kong the party wants to stop a “colour revolution”, which it thinks could bring democrats to power there despite China’s best efforts to rig the system. If eroding Hong Kong’s freedoms causes economic damage, so be it, party bigwigs reason. The territory is still an important place for Chinese firms to raise international capital, especially since the Sino-American feud makes it harder and riskier for them to do so in New York. But Hong Kong’s gdp is equivalent to only 3% of mainland China’s now, down from more than 18% in 1997, because the mainland’s economy has grown 15-fold since then. China’s rulers assume that multinational firms and banks will keep a base in Hong Kong, simply to be near the vast Chinese market. They are probably right.
The simple picture that President Donald Trump paints of America and China locked in confrontation suits China’s rulers well. The party thinks that the balance of power is shifting in China’s favour. Mr Trump’s insults feed Chinese nationalist anger, which the party is delighted to exploit—just as it does any tensions between America and its allies. It portrays the democracy movement in Hong Kong as an American plot. That is absurd, but it helps explain many mainlanders’ scorn for Hong Kong’s protesters.
The rest of the world should stand up to China’s bullying. On the Sino-Indian border, the two sides should talk more to avoid miscalculations, as their leaders promised to in 2018. China should realise that, if it tries the tactics it has used in the South China Sea, building structures on disputed ground and daring others to push back, it will be viewed with greater distrust by all its neighbours.
In the case of Taiwan China faces a powerful deterrent: a suggestion in American law that America might come to Taiwan’s aid were the island to be attacked. There is a growing risk that a cocksure China may decide to put that to the test. America should make clear that doing so would be extremely dangerous. America’s allies should echo that, loudly.
Hong Kong’s options are bleaker. The Hong Kong Policy Act requires America to certify annually that the territory should in trade and other matters be treated as separate from China. This week the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, declared that “facts on the ground” show Hong Kong is no longer autonomous. This allows America to slap tariffs on the territory’s exports, as it already does to those from the mainland. That is a powerful weapon, but the scope for miscalculation is vast, potentially harming Hong Kongers and driving out global firms and banks. It would be better, as the law also proposes, to impose sanctions on officials who abuse human rights in Hong Kong. Also, Britain should grant full residency rights to the hundreds of thousands of Hong Kongers who hold a kind of second-class British passport—much as Ms Tsai this week opened Taiwan’s door to Hong Kong citizens. None of this will stop China from imposing its will on Hong Kong. The party’s interests always trump the people’s. ■
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「impartially」的推薦目錄:
impartially 在 CUP 媒體 Facebook 的最佳貼文
韋智達律師行代表荃灣警署內被強姦及性侵犯投訴人X小姐發表聲明:
「當我在2019年10月向警方就一宗就被警員強姦及性侵犯作出刑事投訴時,我是在期望警方會公正、絕對保密並尊重我的私隱及尊嚴之下向警方報案。我循適當的渠道報案,並就事件向警方提供了詳細的說明,亦回答了鉅細無遺而相當具入侵性的問題。我容許了警方在我的終止懷孕手術後從胚胎取出DNA樣本,以助辨別至少一名施暴者。
我從未想將此投訴公諸於世。我亦未有將這投訴政治化。我於2019年11月11日公開作出聲明,只是為了回應那些使我極困擾的披露所謂案件詳情的網上流言,以及選擇性地透露所謂調查細節並作出對證據作出負面評論的『警方消息』。我相信任何客觀旁觀者都是認為這些舉動是有意公開抹黑我的行為。
在警察公共關係科透露案情細節及作出評論之前,本應就我的投訴進行調查的警方反而於2019年11月4日申請搜查令以檢取我的私人醫療紀錄及私家診所的閉路電視片段。這是在我不知情和沒有我的同意下發生,濫權並嚴重侵犯了我的私隱。所幸的是我的醫生及時通知,而法庭亦從我的代表律師得悉有關細節後撤銷該搜查令。
於2020年1月16 日,當我從媒體報導得知警務處處長公開指稱我的投訴是「假消息」及「正循誤導警員或給予假口供方向調查」時,我再一次感到極度難過。我相信任何客觀旁觀者都會認為警務處處長這些行徑是公開貶損我並影響成功檢控機會的舉動。
透過我的代表律師,我不斷向警方要求他們提供查詢調查的進展和細節。這是我在罪行受害者約章下受保障的權利,亦是因為警方的舉措使我相信我的投訴被貶低。我從未被告知調查的細節,這意味着我並不能反駁任何指我的投訴與證據不符的說法。
在2020年4月6日,律政司通知我的律師,指警方不會繼續進行調查並聲稱我的投訴與他們所得的證據不符。雖然我的律師作出有關要求,但他們未有提供該證據的細節,所以我未能說服律政司我的說法是真的,亦未有機會反駁指稱我的說法與其他證據不符的言論。
昨日(2020年5月12日),我由媒體報導得知警務處處長公開聲稱我將因「落假口供」而面臨拘捕。他再次選擇了公開作出這些聲稱,任何客觀旁觀者都會認為這些行徑是有意貶損我的行為。
七個月前,我鼓起勇氣,就在荃灣警署內被身份不明的警務人員強姦及性侵犯一事作出舉報。我希望並期盼我的投訴會在尊重我私隱和尊嚴的情況下被公正、絕對保密地調查。然而,這沒有發生。」
Allegation by Ms X of Rape and Sexual Assault inside Tsuen Wan Police Station.
We continue to represent Ms X and are authorised by her to issue the following statement on her behalf.
———————————————————-
“When in October 2019 I lodged my criminal complaint of rape and sexual assault by police officers, I did so in the expectation that it would be investigated with impartiality by the police, in strict confidence, and with respect for my privacy and dignity. I filed my report through the proper channels and gave a detailed account of the events to police, answering extensive and highly invasive questions. I permitted the taking of a DNA sample from my aborted foetus in order to assist in identifying at least one of my assailants.
I have sought no publicity about my complaint. Nor have I politicised my complaint. I issued a statement on 11 November 2019 only in response to deeply distressing alleged details of my case being leaked onto the internet and ‘police sources’ selectively releasing supposed details of the investigation along with adverse comment on the evidence. I believe this was done in a way which any objective observer would be driven to conclude was directed at publicly discrediting me.
These leaks and comment by the Police Public Relations Bureau followed a gross invasion of my privacy and abuse of police power when, on 4 November, the police who were supposed to be investigating my complaint, obtained a search warrant to seize my private medical records and CCTV footage from the clinic of my private doctor. They did so without my knowledge or consent. Thankfully I was told of that warrant by my doctor and the court set aside the search warrant after it was properly apprised of the facts by my lawyers.
I was further distressed to learn on 16 January 2020, that the Commissioner of Police had alluded, in public, to my criminal complaint as being ‘fake information’ and that ‘investigators are now investigating in the direction of misleading police officer’. I believe that was in a manner in which any objective observer would be driven to conclude was directed at publicly discrediting me and diminishing any prospects of a successful prosecution.
Through my lawyers I have repeatedly requested updates and details of the police investigation. This was pursuant to guarantees in the Hong Kong Police Victim’s Charter and because the conduct of the police led me to believe my complaint was being undermined. No details of the investigation have ever been provided. This has meant that I have not been in a position to refute any claims that my complaint was contrary to other evidence.
On 6 April 2020, the Department of Justice informed my lawyers that my police report would not be taken any further, claiming that my complaint is contrary to evidence they obtained. No particulars of that evidence have been provided despite requests by my lawyers so I have not been in a position to be able to convince the Department of Justice that my account is true; nor have I had any opportunity to refute the claim that my account is contrary to other evidence.
Yesterday (12 May 2020) I learnt from media reports that the Commissioner has publicly said that I am facing arrest for ‘making a false statement’. He again chose to do so publicly, in a manner which any objective observer would be driven to conclude was directed at discrediting me.
Seven months ago, I plucked up all my courage to file a complaint of rape and sexual assault by unknown police officers inside Tsuen Wan Police Station. I hoped and prayed that the complaint would be investigated impartially, in strict confidence and with respect for my privacy and dignity. None of that has happened.”
————————————————————-
The anonymity order granted by the court on 5 November 2019 remains in force. This prohibits any person from identifying Ms X. Anyone breaching this order risks being found in contempt of court.
有關X小姐就荃灣警署內被強姦及性侵犯的投訴
我們繼續代表X小姐,並得到她的授權代表她作出以下聲明:
————————————————————-
「當我在2019年10月向警方就一宗就被警員強姦及性侵犯作出刑事投訴時,我是在期望警方會公正、絕對保密並尊重我的私隱及尊嚴之下向警方報案。我循適當的渠道報案,並就事件向警方提供了詳細的說明,亦回答了鉅細無遺而相當具入侵性的問題。我容許了警方在我的終止懷孕手術後從胚胎取出DNA樣本,以助辨別至少一名施暴者。
我從未想將此投訴公諸於世。我亦未有將這投訴政治化。我於2019年11月11日公開作出聲明,只是為了回應那些使我極困擾的披露所謂案件詳情的網上流言,以及選擇性地透露所謂調查細節並作出對證據作出負面評論的『警方消息』。我相信任何客觀旁觀者都是認為這些舉動是有意公開抹黑我的行為。
在警察公共關係科透露案情細節及作出評論之前,本應就我的投訴進行調查的警方反而於2019年11月4日申請搜查令以檢取我的私人醫療紀錄及私家診所的閉路電視片段。這是在我不知情和沒有我的同意下發生,濫權並嚴重侵犯了我的私隱。所幸的是我的醫生及時通知,而法庭亦從我的代表律師得悉有關細節後撤銷該搜查令。
於2020年1月16 日,當我從媒體報導得知警務處處長公開指稱我的投訴是「假消息」及「正循誤導警員或給予假口供方向調查」時,我再一次感到極度難過。我相信任何客觀旁觀者都會認為警務處處長這些行徑是公開貶損我並影響成功檢控機會的舉動。
透過我的代表律師,我不斷向警方要求他們提供查詢調查的進展和細節。這是我在罪行受害者約章下受保障的權利,亦是因為警方的舉措使我相信我的投訴被貶低。我從未被告知調查的細節,這意味着我並不能反駁任何指我的投訴與證據不符的說法。
在2020年4月6日,律政司通知我的律師,指警方不會繼續進行調查並聲稱我的投訴與他們所得的證據不符。雖然我的律師作出有關要求,但他們未有提供該證據的細節,所以我未能說服律政司我的說法是真的,亦未有機會反駁指稱我的說法與其他證據不符的言論。
昨日(2020年5月12日),我由媒體報導得知警務處處長公開聲稱我將因「落假口供」而面臨拘捕。他再次選擇了公開作出這些聲稱,任何客觀旁觀者都會認為這些行徑是有意貶損我的行為。
七個月前,我鼓起勇氣,就在荃灣警署內被身份不明的警務人員強姦及性侵犯一事作出舉報。我希望並期盼我的投訴會在尊重我私隱和尊嚴的情況下被公正、絕對保密地調查。然而,這沒有發生。」
—————————————————————
法庭於2019年11月5日頒下的匿名令仍然有效,禁止任何人辦別X小姐的身份。任何違反這一命令的人都可能被視為藐視法庭。
#MeToo
impartially 在 柳俊江 Lauyeah Facebook 的最佳解答
Allegation by Ms X of Rape and Sexual Assault inside Tsuen Wan Police Station.
We continue to represent Ms X and are authorised by her to issue the following statement on her behalf.
———————————————————-
“When in October 2019 I lodged my criminal complaint of rape and sexual assault by police officers, I did so in the expectation that it would be investigated with impartiality by the police, in strict confidence, and with respect for my privacy and dignity. I filed my report through the proper channels and gave a detailed account of the events to police, answering extensive and highly invasive questions. I permitted the taking of a DNA sample from my aborted foetus in order to assist in identifying at least one of my assailants.
I have sought no publicity about my complaint. Nor have I politicised my complaint. I issued a statement on 11 November 2019 only in response to deeply distressing alleged details of my case being leaked onto the internet and ‘police sources’ selectively releasing supposed details of the investigation along with adverse comment on the evidence. I believe this was done in a way which any objective observer would be driven to conclude was directed at publicly discrediting me.
These leaks and comment by the Police Public Relations Bureau followed a gross invasion of my privacy and abuse of police power when, on 4 November, the police who were supposed to be investigating my complaint, obtained a search warrant to seize my private medical records and CCTV footage from the clinic of my private doctor. They did so without my knowledge or consent. Thankfully I was told of that warrant by my doctor and the court set aside the search warrant after it was properly apprised of the facts by my lawyers.
I was further distressed to learn on 16 January 2020, that the Commissioner of Police had alluded, in public, to my criminal complaint as being ‘fake information’ and that ‘investigators are now investigating in the direction of misleading police officer’. I believe that was in a manner in which any objective observer would be driven to conclude was directed at publicly discrediting me and diminishing any prospects of a successful prosecution.
Through my lawyers I have repeatedly requested updates and details of the police investigation. This was pursuant to guarantees in the Hong Kong Police Victim’s Charter and because the conduct of the police led me to believe my complaint was being undermined. No details of the investigation have ever been provided. This has meant that I have not been in a position to refute any claims that my complaint was contrary to other evidence.
On 6 April 2020, the Department of Justice informed my lawyers that my police report would not be taken any further, claiming that my complaint is contrary to evidence they obtained. No particulars of that evidence have been provided despite requests by my lawyers so I have not been in a position to be able to convince the Department of Justice that my account is true; nor have I had any opportunity to refute the claim that my account is contrary to other evidence.
Yesterday (12 May 2020) I learnt from media reports that the Commissioner has publicly said that I am facing arrest for ‘making a false statement’. He again chose to do so publicly, in a manner which any objective observer would be driven to conclude was directed at discrediting me.
Seven months ago, I plucked up all my courage to file a complaint of rape and sexual assault by unknown police officers inside Tsuen Wan Police Station. I hoped and prayed that the complaint would be investigated impartially, in strict confidence and with respect for my privacy and dignity. None of that has happened.”
————————————————————-
The anonymity order granted by the court on 5 November 2019 remains in force. This prohibits any person from identifying Ms X. Anyone breaching this order risks being found in contempt of court.
有關X小姐就荃灣警署內被強姦及性侵犯的投訴
我們繼續代表X小姐,並得到她的授權代表她作出以下聲明:
————————————————————-
「當我在2019年10月向警方就一宗就被警員強姦及性侵犯作出刑事投訴時,我是在期望警方會公正、絕對保密並尊重我的私隱及尊嚴之下向警方報案。我循適當的渠道報案,並就事件向警方提供了詳細的說明,亦回答了鉅細無遺而相當具入侵性的問題。我容許了警方在我的終止懷孕手術後從胚胎取出DNA樣本,以助辨別至少一名施暴者。
我從未想將此投訴公諸於世。我亦未有將這投訴政治化。我於2019年11月11日公開作出聲明,只是為了回應那些使我極困擾的披露所謂案件詳情的網上流言,以及選擇性地透露所謂調查細節並作出對證據作出負面評論的『警方消息』。我相信任何客觀旁觀者都是認為這些舉動是有意公開抹黑我的行為。
在警察公共關係科透露案情細節及作出評論之前,本應就我的投訴進行調查的警方反而於2019年11月4日申請搜查令以檢取我的私人醫療紀錄及私家診所的閉路電視片段。這是在我不知情和沒有我的同意下發生,濫權並嚴重侵犯了我的私隱。所幸的是我的醫生及時通知,而法庭亦從我的代表律師得悉有關細節後撤銷該搜查令。
於2020年1月16 日,當我從媒體報導得知警務處處長公開指稱我的投訴是「假消息」及「正循誤導警員或給予假口供方向調查」時,我再一次感到極度難過。我相信任何客觀旁觀者都會認為警務處處長這些行徑是公開貶損我並影響成功檢控機會的舉動。
透過我的代表律師,我不斷向警方要求他們提供查詢調查的進展和細節。這是我在罪行受害者約章下受保障的權利,亦是因為警方的舉措使我相信我的投訴被貶低。我從未被告知調查的細節,這意味着我並不能反駁任何指我的投訴與證據不符的說法。
在2020年4月6日,律政司通知我的律師,指警方不會繼續進行調查並聲稱我的投訴與他們所得的證據不符。雖然我的律師作出有關要求,但他們未有提供該證據的細節,所以我未能說服律政司我的說法是真的,亦未有機會反駁指稱我的說法與其他證據不符的言論。
昨日(2020年5月12日),我由媒體報導得知警務處處長公開聲稱我將因「落假口供」而面臨拘捕。他再次選擇了公開作出這些聲稱,任何客觀旁觀者都會認為這些行徑是有意貶損我的行為。
七個月前,我鼓起勇氣,就在荃灣警署內被身份不明的警務人員強姦及性侵犯一事作出舉報。我希望並期盼我的投訴會在尊重我私隱和尊嚴的情況下被公正、絕對保密地調查。然而,這沒有發生。」
—————————————————————
法庭於2019年11月5日頒下的匿名令仍然有效,禁止任何人辦別X小姐的身份。任何違反這一命令的人都可能被視為藐視法庭。
#MeToo
impartially 在 Impartially Meaning - YouTube 的必吃
Video shows what impartially means. In an impartial manner; fairly.. Impartially Meaning. How to pronounce ... ... <看更多>