葉太是前高官，熟知政府運作和昔日議會的資料及紀錄。可惜政府於是次修例的解說過程中，並沒有人像葉太般能清晰、有理有節地指出泛民的謬誤，在此感謝葉太的敢言，讓市民看清真相。

#香港幸好有葉太

Dear friends, an English summary of the key points I made in the LegCo adjournment debate is set out below:

1.Rebutting the pan democrats’ objections to the government’s fugitive offenders amendment legislation, I pointed out that arising from two criminal cases (the Telford Gardens murder case and the Cheung Tse-keung kidnap case) in which the suspects fled to mainland China after committing the offences, Martin Lee Chu-ming, then a Member of the Legislator, moved a motion in LegCo on 9 December 1998 urging the government to discuss and conclude an agreement with Beijing on rendition arrangements between mainland China and the SAR, so as to restore the public’s confidence in the SAR’s judicial jurisdiction”. The wording is as follows:

“That this Council deeply regrets that, while the cases involving the kidnapping of two business tycoons in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) and the murder of five persons in the
Telford Gardens, which are being handled in the Mainland in accordance with the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, have caused widespread concern among Hong Kong people, the SAR Government has not tried its utmost to seek the return of those who are suspected of violating the law in the SAR by the Basic Law; this Council also urges the SAR Government to expeditiously discuss and conclude an agree-ment with the Central People’s Government, on the basis of internationally agreed principles, on rendition arrangements between the Mainland and the SAR, so as to restore the public’s confidence in the SAR’s judicial jurisdiction.”

2.All the legislators from the Democratic Parry supported this motion. Who made an about-turn in opposing the government’s amendment legislation
to facilitate the rendition of fugitive offenders and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters with mainland China? Who have been lying to the people of Hong Kong?

3.As Secretary for Security, I had, on 3 December 198, reported to LegCo’s Security Panel the government’s plan to conclude an agreement on the rendition of fugitive offenders with mainland China. Then Chief Secretary Anson Chan undertook to expedite action to reach an agreement with the mainland.

4. All decisions about rendition are ultimately made by the courts. Two recent examples: a high court in New Zealand rejected an extradition request from China to extradite an ethnic Korean New Zealand citizen suspected of murdering a sex worker in Shanghai on the ground that the court did not believe that he would have access to “fair trial” in China. A court in Scotland rejected an extradition request from Taiwan to extradite a British national accused of killing a newspaper agent by drink driving on the ground that the court did not believe that he would
have non-discriminatory treatment in prison.

5. The Financial Action Task Force established under the auspices of G20 had described the lack of rendition arrangement and agreement on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters with mainland China as a “significant deficit” in Hong Kong’s fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.

6. On the question of pressure on judges to kowtow to Beijing, why should judges fear pressure? They are appointed by the Chief Executive with approval by the Legislative Council. They are well trained; well paid and have security of tenure. They are only accountable for the judgments they made which would go down in the common law as part of the
jurisprudence on extradition. They are not accountable to Beijing.

7. On the need to formally “withdraw” the fugitive offenders bill, I pointet out that then Chief Executive Tung Chee-hua used wording similar to that of the current administration in announcing the postponement of the second reading debate of the national security bill on 7 July 2003. On 2 October 2003, then Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee wrote to House Committee Chairperson Selina Chow to explain that to give effect to Mr.Tung’s announcement of “withdrawal” of the bill on 5 September, he would not give notice under LegCo Rules of Procedure to resume second reading debate of the bill within the current term of the Legislative Council.

8. Thus it is clear that the current administration followed the same wording and procedure as in 2003. Clear indication that second reading debate
would not be resumed in the rest of the legislative term is effective “withdrawal”. Insistence on withdrawal is merely a ploy adopted by the opposition to dial up pressure on the administration to undermine its ability to govern.

9.The orderly demonstrations carried out recently by large numbers of of Hong Kong people fully testify to the abundance of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong. But I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence after the mass protest on 9 June, the violent attack on the Police on 12 June, the repeated actions taken by unruly protesters to lay siege to the Police Headquarters, the Immigration Tower, the Revenue Tower and the Justice Place. These protesters have become urban “bandits”, disrupting social order and damaging Hong Kong’s overseas reputation as a safe city. The attacks on Police Headquarters, with a view to undermining Police morale, are particularly vicious. These protesters have committed multiple offences and should be brought to justice.

-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\

(中文版本發言全文)

【誰是第一人敦促特區政府與內地商討移交逃犯協議？讓市民看清真相】

多謝代理主席女士，我發言是支持張華峰議員的議案，我完全同意張議員議案指出，政府現時當務之急是盡快恢復社會秩序，穩定營商環境，採取及時的應對措施 ，令市民可以恢復正常的生活。我亦很高興藉這個休會辯論的機會，向市民講真話，講清講楚，告訴市民那些人一直講大話，瞞騙市民！可惜尹兆堅議員不在席，我想告訴所有的泛民議員，究竟誰是第一人敦促特區政府與內地商討移交逃犯協議，以及刑事司法互助安排呢？正是李柱銘議員！

1998年香港出現了兩宗轟動社會的刑事案件，第一宗是德福花園的「五屍命案」，風水師李育輝殺了五名女士後逃到內地，被逮捕及處決；第二宗是「張子強案」，張子強涉嫌綁架和囤積軍火，同樣逃到內地，然後被逮捕及處決。當時立法會非常震驚，要求特區政府盡快與內地商討刑事司法互助安排，例如1998年12月3 日，我擔任保安局局長，向立法會保安事務委員會交代，要與內地訂明有關安排，並與今日的特區政府一樣，承諾所有安排必須符合「雙重犯罪」原則、指定罪行、不得再移交第三國家的保障、死刑及政治罪行或受政治迫害一律豁免移交的保障，就此，根據保安事務委員會會議文件編號CB(2)748/98-99(02) 第十段有清楚說明：「鑑於公眾對近日張子強和李育輝等案件的關注，亦正如政務司司長所承諾，政府會盡力加快工作，以期早日與內地就此重要事項達成協議。」當時政務司司長就是陳方安生女士。

接下來，李柱銘先生亦在1998年12月9 日動議議案。李議員動議的議案內容如下：「由於兩名富商在香港特別行政區（“特 區”）被綁架案及德福花園五屍命案均在內地法院以《中華人民共和國刑法》審理，引起港人極大關注，但特區政府卻未盡全力爭取將在特區境內涉嫌違法的人士，交還特區法院審理，以捍衛《基本法 》賦予特區的司法管轄權，對此，本會深表遺憾；同時，本會促請特區政府以國際社會公認的原則為基礎，盡快就中港兩地移交疑犯的安排與中央人民政 府進行商討及達成協議，恢復港人對特區司法管轄權的信心。」

因此，我真的要問問尹兆堅議員，究竟是誰人表演「四川變臉」？李柱銘去美國告狀時，有沒有告訴美國人他是提出修例的第一人？他當年不斷敦促特區政府和內地達成協議！我則堂堂正正光明正大地多次到北京開會，商討移交逃犯協議和刑事司法互助安排，會議後每次都是光明磊落向本會匯報。為何對這些事實你們全部失憶？是誰欺騙市民？拍攝影片誤導市民，宣傳香港人如何肉隨砧板上，隨時像動物一樣被移送內地！

事實上，所有案例都證明移交逃犯是需要經過法庭冗長而複雜的程序。最近新西蘭的高等法院否決移交一名韓裔新西蘭公民，該人士涉嫌在上海謀殺一名性工作者，而這案件已由2011年審理至今。蘇格蘭的法庭也拒絕了台灣一個引渡要求，有關一名英國人在台灣醉酒駕駛，撞死一名派報紙的職員。由此可見，最終決定權在法庭手上，並非行政長官一人決定。亦有指法官備受壓力，試問法官受高深教育，良好的司法訓練，身受納稅人供給不錯的報酬，他們當然必須承擔責任。我們每個人都有壓力，法官承擔責任，幫助香港人解決法律問題，是他們應有的責任。因此，代理主席，我認為應該就此向市民講清講楚，是誰人不斷向市民講大話？誤導市民！將這條應該做的法例，抹黑成一條所謂「送中」的惡法！

亦看看國際社會怎麼說，Financial Action Task Force， 即G20集團轄下的「財務行動特別組織」，素來批評香港與內地沒有移交逃犯協議和刑事司法互助安排。過往，他們直指這是一個significant deficit ，即一個「重大缺憾」。近來，可能因為要和應香港反對修例的聲音，則改為 legal shortcoming，即一個「法律上的缺憾」。不過，我們仍然需要完善這些法律，所以政府不撤回是正確的。那些要求行政會議成員辭職的人，全部皆作出不公平的指責。這條例本身完全沒有錯，但大家都同意，政府在宣傳和解釋這條條例方面，乃至為市民反駁種種謊言的工作，做得嚴重不足。

說到撤回，我們看看當年政府處理23條的時候所用的語言。2003年7月7日，時任行政長官董建華先生發表聲明：「我即時召開行政會議特別會議。經過詳細商討後，基於自由黨的立場，我們決定將條例草案押後恢復二讀，並在未來一段時間加強向市民解釋修訂案內容。」其實這個方針與現時政府無異，一樣是將其押後並且加強解釋，並沒有表示撤回。再看看我的接任人李少光局長向內務委員會主席周梁淑怡女士致函的內容，信函的日期是2003年10月2日，李局長寫道：「為在程序上落實前文所提及，行政長官會同行政會議的決定，我現確認我不擬根據《議事規則》第 54(5)條發出預告，以在本屆立法會任期內恢復該草案的二讀辯論。草案因此會根據《議事規則》第 11(4)條及《立法會條例》（第 542 章）第 9(4)條，在本屆立法會任期完結時失效。」即是和現在特區政府的說法一樣，繼續開放式的諮詢去解釋這條條例，沒有時間表，不發出預告恢復二讀，任由這條例「自然死亡」，實質上等同不會再推動修例，等同撤回。

為什麼當時沒有要求撤回的爭論呢？我認為今天有人強烈要求撤回，根本別有用心！為了找理由不斷衝擊政府部門，除了衝擊警察總部之外，又衝擊入境事務大樓、稅務大樓，今天亦有超過100人衝擊律政中心。他們的目的到底與這條條例有什麼關係呢？其實只不過是用「撤回」作一個藉口，不斷擾亂香港秩序，甚至令香港在國際社會失色，令許多希望到香港做生意或旅遊的人，感到香港是一個不安全的城市，他們的用心實在非常惡毒！「撤回」是一個要求律政司下台的藉口，假如律政司下台，他們就會要求整個特區政府領導班子總辭，所有支持過修訂條例的行政會議成員、立法會議員，全部都應該總辭，不如讓泛民和黃之鋒接手特區政府，這就是他們的最終目的。代理主席，所以我一定要藉這個休會辯論的機會，向市民講清楚這背後的陰謀。

當然，我要強烈譴責近日這些示威人士衝擊警察總部。過去兩星期有大部分市民和平遊行，充分彰顯香港擁有高度自由，以及人權得到高度保障，這是我們香港人皆引以為榮的核心價值。不過，在這些和平的示威遊行之後，有些不法之徒聚眾衝擊政府部門，特別是衝擊警隊，他們的用心非常惡毒！他們知道警隊是維護香港治安和秩序最重要的支柱，他們就故意不斷打擊警隊的士氣，甚至侵犯他們的私隱，包括網上「起底」和 網上欺凌。昨晚市民在愛丁堡廣場和平集會後，有眾多穿黑衣的人士走入地鐵站，他們最後走到軍器廠街再次包圍警察總部。我見到一名正在上班的警員，他沒有戴口罩，光明正大地上班，但竟然被人追打！不過，他無畏無懼，直視這些示威者。其實這些人已經觸犯多項刑事罪行，包括襲警、非法集會、刑事毀壞，警方應該將他們繩之於法，不可以因為你「聲大」你「人多」就可以獲得特赦。

代理主席，就此我感到特別震驚，為何一位前政務司司長能夠說出特赦及釋放違法人士，此等嚴重衝擊法治的言論呢？我們一位前同事余黎青萍女士，她以英語寫了一篇非常感人的聲明，在我們前政務官的圈子裏流傳。她表示 disappointed by 這位前同事陳方安生的所作所為！我亦 disappointed by 民主黨的變臉與謊言！李柱銘到美國告狀，有否告知美國人，他是第一人支持與內地簽訂移交逃犯協議，和達至司法互助？這些真相應該告知市民。

代理主席，這些近日的示威者已經成為一股流寇，不斷去衝擊各個政府部門。我懷疑他們真正目的就是要拖垮政府，傷害我們整體市民的利益。因此，我懇請各位善良的市民，看清楚真相，不要支持這些破壞香港繁榮安定的壞分子，不要參加他們的集會，亦希望各位父母約束您們的子女，並解說給他們知道，和平示威沒有問題，但一遇到出現亂象，應該帶他們離開現場，以免他們身陷險境。

法國神父通宵陪伴大家
感謝佢帶領大家
和平地、平安地渡過一晚
願平安常與每位同在

「原來香港人是可以不為自己、無私地付出血汗，只為了美好的信念，為了香港將來，為了和平、自由。」

＃沸點直擊#已是夜深 【煲底下的法國人 范偉樂神父】
與青年一同祈禱，談 #修身齊家治國平天下

「大家好！明顯地，我不是香港人，我是一個法國人，希望你們聽懂我的廣東話。你們知道嗎？我們在法國罷工罷課，是很專業的！我在這裡，見到那些穿黃背心的朋友，你們或許會知道。不過，在法國罷工罷課，不像現在這樣，很多時人們只是維護自己利益，有時更會發生暴力，就好像「黃背心」(示威行動) 一樣，我們在法國會這樣罷工的。
　
但這幾天我在香港，見到很多人團結在一起，他們不是為了自己利益，而是為了香港將來、為公義、為自由、為平安，去表達自己的意見和關心，這令我覺得非常感動。

我4年前來到香港，我是一位天主教神父，一心在香港服務。4年前我仍未懂得講中文，那時候，我接觸到香港人，我覺得他們高度崇尚個人主義或者消費主義，又不太願意和別人打招呼，甚至有點冷漠。

但這幾天發生的事，讓我知道，那時候我誤會了。原來香港人可以不為自己，無私地付出血汗，只為了美好的信念、為香港將來、為和平、自由。就像夏主教說的，香港人值得驕傲，這些精神，我們需要珍惜。

起初來港2、3年，我不太清楚香港人身份；他們既是中國人、卻不喜歡中國人的身份？故此我也不大清楚香港人的身份是什麼。不過，這幾天，我開始明白香港人的身份是怎樣的。原來，有這麼多人團結起來，為了維護最重要的價值：自由、和平、仁愛！感謝大家在這幾天參與了這場大型運動！

現在，我正學習中文，最近我學習到一句說話，我相信大家也懂得的：「修身、齊家、治國、平天下」。「平天下」代表我們要平安，這幾天我們在此參與，正是因為「治國」出現了問題。現在「治國」不足，大家也為將來感到恐懼，害怕將來不能像現在般集會，不能擁有宗教自由。

由於治國出現了問題，所以我們現在要出來表達意見，但你們也要謹記：「治國」只是排第三位，排第一位是「修身」，修身即是要自己先要有和平和平安，保護我們和天主的關係，保護我們和別人互愛的關係。

而排第二位是「齊家」，的確，我們在家庭內，會有不同的意見，有時會有衝突或吵架，但我們要在家庭裡，保護愛的關係和包融的關係，互相包融與寬恕，才能補足到「治國」的缺乏。

故此，我們要關心「治國」問題，也要先「修身」和「齊家」，保持這樣的精神才能有真正的平安。真正的自由不單是外在的自由或政治的自由，也是內心的自由。所以我們要向我們的天父祈禱，因為我們的力量有限制，有時會不知該怎樣做，所以我們投奔天主 ，求祂幫助我們。

仁慈的天父，我們今晚在此聚集一起，因我們相信在困難中、在黑暗中，祢時常會與我們同在。求祢賜給我們團結共融的精神，好好保護祢賜給我們的愛和平安，亦為香港社會祈禱，或許香港社會人與人關係有點複雜，但無論我們在哪兒，也求祢讓我們造和平的工具，去做一些小事、 說一句話， 把大家的關係修好，使人與人之間的關係，可以互相包容和幫助。

我們感謝祢，這幾天有許多人為了公義、自由、仁愛而付出，雖然我們不知道將來會怎樣，能否繼續像現在般祈禱或表達意見，但求祢讓我們這份保護團結及和平的精神。因主、耶穌基督之名，求祢俯聽我們的祈禱，亞孟。」

於6月17日凌晨時份

Hello, everyone. It's apparent that I'm not a Hongkonger. I'm French. Hope you can understand my Cantonese.
Well, you know, when we're on strike in France...stop working or going to classes...we're very professional. I see lots of you here wearing a yellow vest. May be you know. However, in France, when we're on strike, it's not like here. People try to protect their own interests and would even gone violent sometimes...just like the Yellow Vest Movement. We would strike like that in France.
But these few days in Hong Kong, lots of people hold onto each other, not for their personal interest but for the future of Hong Kong, for justice, for freedom, for peace...express their opinion and care. I'm really moved.

I came to Hong Kong four years ago. I'm a Catholic priest and I came to serve Hong Kong. Four years ago, I don't know Cantonese. The Hongkongers I came across then gave me a feeling that they're fond of individualism and consumerism. They don't even want to greet each other...apparently a bit cold. But what happened these few days told me that I was wrong then about Hongkongers. Hongkongers can devote their sweat and blood not for their own self benefit but for their ideal, for the future of Hong Kong, for peace and freedom. As Bishop Ha said: Hongkongers, you should be proud of yourselves. Keep this spirit. We should treasure this spirit.

For the first two or three years when I first came to Hong Kong, I'm not quite sure about the identity of Hongkongers.
Hongkongers are Chinese but doesn't really like the identity of being Chinese. Hence, I'm a bit confused. But for the past few days, I begin to understand better the identity of Hongkongers. So many people hold onto each other in solidarity to protect the most valuable notions: freedom, peace and love. Thank you everyone to be part of this massive scale movement.

I'm still learning Chinese. Recently, I learnt a saying...I'm sure you all know that saying: improve your own self, manage your family, govern your country and then peace for all.

'Peace for all' means we all need peace. We're here these few days because there's a bit of problem about 'governing'.

This discrepancy in governing makes everyone worry about the future...worry about the freedom of gathering, the freedom of religion like what we're having now will be gone.

It's because of this discrepancy in governing, people come out to voice their opinion. But please remember, 'govern your country' is only at the third place. The first one is 'improve your own self'. That means, you should first have peace and safety...to protect the relationship between us and God...to protect the love between us and the others.

The second one is 'manage your family'. It's true that we have different opinion in the family. Sometimes, we argue...we have conflicts. But we have to protect the love within our family, accommodate each other, forgive each other so that we can make up to the discrepancy in 'governing'.

Hence, if we're going to care for 'governing our country', we have to, first of all, 'improve our own self' and 'manage our family'. With such a spirit, we will have real peace. Real freedom is not just a superficial freedom or political freedom. It's the inner freedom in our heart. We must pray to our heavenly Father. Our strength is limited. Sometimes, we don't know what to do. We must go to our God and beg for His help.

Merciful God, we're here tonight...we believe that when there is hardship, when we're in the dark, You are with us. Please grant us the spirit of solidarity, so that we can protect the love and peace you gave us. We pray for Hong Kong. May be the relationship among Hongkongers are a bit complicated but wherever we are, please let us be the instrument of peace...do something, may be very small, say a word or two to repair the relationship among us...so we can be accommodative and help each other.

We thank you...for the past few days, lots of people are sacrificing for justice, freedom and love. Although we don't know if in the future, we can pray or express our opinion like what we're doing now, please let us keep up with this spirit of solidarity and peace.

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Nicolas de Francqueville