種族歧視在香港

民主黨立法會議員劉慧卿

2011.12.3 信報

區 議會選舉塵埃落定，可是餘波未了。親共政黨政團為了爭取選票，不惜藉外傭爭取居港權的司法覆核，大肆渲染及誇大可能有五十萬名外傭和其家屬將獲來港定居， 並組織遊行示威，煽動巿民的不滿以至恐慌情緒。雖然排拒外傭行動隨選舉完畢暫時靜下來，但是巿民和外籍傭工的嫌隙被撩撥起來及表面化，不是一時三刻能平 服。外籍傭工和僱主共處同一屋簷下，照顧香港人的小孩和長者，若兩者互相排拒，大家的日子都不會好過。

教育制度歧視難融入社會

最近排斥外傭的行動或許是香港首次，將不同族群的矛盾以集體表達的形式浮現在眾人面前。其實，多年來香港一直存在種族歧視，一些香港人有意或無意之間表露出對膚色較深人士的歧視，而被歧視一方是心知肚明，亦感到不好受。

平 等機會委員會於7 月發表報告，指出少數族裔學童因制度上的歧視而得不到平等發展機會。由於主流學校沒有為少數族裔學童提供合適的語文支援，少數族裔兒童只能選擇入讀以教授 非華語學生為主、中文課程較淺易的指定學校。至於主流學校，若校方增加招收少數族裔學生，有些華裔家長便不願選擇這些學校，甚至為子女轉校。少數族裔學童 因而被置於隔離狀態，不但缺乏學好中文的環境，更不利日後融入主流社會。

雖然一般學校很少基於種族理由而拒絕取錄少數族裔兒童，但是少數族裔往往因其中文能力低於華裔學生而不獲取錄。結果，南亞裔19 至24 歲的年輕人升讀專上教育課程的機會（5.4%）是遠低於本地年輕人(22.4%)。

措施小恩小惠難解癥結

政府官僚拒絕用根本方法解決問題，如改革制度，制訂適合少數族裔學童的中文課程和中文能力評核方法。亦因為如此，少數族裔得不到平等競爭機會，處於需要支援的地位。當局的回應是成立支援服務中心，提供中文班、興趣班及民族特色活動等服務，以示關懷和仁慈。

立法會於2008 年制訂《種族歧視條例》，相關委員會提出擴闊法例的適用範圍，規定政府在執行職能時不得種族歧視，親北京政黨民建聯投反對票，只在社區向他們提供小恩小惠、舉辦民族共融文藝表演等活動，塑造關懷少數族裔的形象。

這些支援措施或可以起一些粉飾的作用，卻不能徹底改善少數族裔的處境。很多南亞裔人士和其祖先已居港超過一百年，但他們的發展空間長久遭到窒礙，處於社會的邊緣，對主流社會的不滿必然日深。

作 為國際都巿，香港居住人口的文化和族裔必然日趨多元，若港人抱歧視心態，採取隔離制度，種族矛盾必會累積。如果居於這彈丸之地的數百萬人無法融洽共處，生 活質素必然受影響。筆者希望香港人能有包容的心態，讓多元的文化成為豐富的社會資源，多個種族融洽相處，互相尊重，幫助香港加強國際聯繫和經貿關係，一同 生活得更多姿多彩。

「富有洗腦特色的國民教育」

最近香港的核心價值受到嚴峻挑戰，特區政府於五月推出諮詢文件，建議在中學及小學開設「德育及國民教育科」。很多香港人並不抗拒國民教育，作為中國人，我們認識及關懷國家民族，培養和建立國民身份認同是天經地義，但諮詢文件載列的愛國標準，包括聽到國歌要在心裡高興、看見國家隊運動員拿到冠軍要感到鼓舞、自豪地說出自己是中國人。文件宣揚的是盲目附和的愛國，會危害香港社會原有的民主、人權、自由等意識，因此不可以接受。

香港主權移交已近十五年，有批評指香港人不愛國（其實是指不愛中國共產黨）。特區政府企圖透過國民教育灌輸政治思想，影響下一代的獨立思考能力，製造和諧社會的假像。特區政府以強硬手段推行國民教育，是低估了市民的政治智慧。輿論普遍認為匆匆推行備受爭議的科目，是為社會埋下計時炸彈；更有中學生成立「反對德育及國民教育科聯盟」，抵抗洗腦科目。天主教樞機陳日君直斥當局建議的國民教育概念模糊，是要「溫水煮蛙」，為學生洗腦，有可能鼓勵極端民族主義；他又質疑國民教育是否等於無條件支持共產黨，並呼籲教師和學生反對當局建議的國民教育，又不排除公民抗命或向法院提出司法覆核。

１　為何要推行國民教育？

在一九九七年回歸前，港英殖民地政府沒有具體的「國民教育」政策。一九八九年北京發生愛國民主運動及六四屠城，引發一場民族醒覺運動，令許多香港人確立其中國人身份。他們遊行、示威、捐錢，各盡綿力聲援北京學生，直至六月四日北京的血腥鎮壓，香港人哭了。愛國民主運動被北京定性為「一九八九年春夏之交的政治風波」，平反六四則成為香港人的共同心願。自此每年六月四日，數萬以至十多萬香港人都會在銅鑼灣維多利亞公園亮起燭光，悼念六四死難者。點點燭光是香港人不會忘記的承諾，是對中國人身份的認同，是愛國的象徵。

回歸後，民主派議員每年都在立法會提出「平反六四」的議案，堅持政治良心；但在北京眼中，民主派人士堅持普世價值而反對六四屠殺，反對一黨專政，是「反中亂港」；加上香港人薄弱的國民身份認同^[1]，令香港被北京標籤為「反共基地」。有親北京人士曾公開表示，香港的地已回歸，但人心仍未回歸。中央政府意識到這問題，曾試圖用政治暴力令香港人歸順。

二零零三年特區政府在中央指令下，妄顧民情，強行為基本法第二十三條[2]立法，限制市民的自由和權利。七月一日（香港回歸紀念日），七、八十萬市民身穿黑衣，上街抗議，最終迫使政府讓步，撤回方案。不到兩年後，第一任行政長官董建華黯然下台。自此，中央政府更銳意令香港人心回歸，一方面開放自由行，實行經濟收買，另一方面大力鼓吹愛國論，抗衡普世價值。二零零九年五月行政長官曾蔭權在立法會表示：「事件（六四屠城）發生之後，國家發展有驕人成就，為香港帶來繁榮穩定，相信香港人對國家的發展有客觀的評價」[3]，暗示香港人已經不再糾纏於六四事件，更聲稱他「代表所有香港人的意見」。結果超過十五萬市民出席六四集會，以行動證明「曾蔭權不代表我」。

在六四大屠殺期間成立的香港市民支援愛國民主運動聯合會（支聯會）強調薪火相傳，重視教育工作，近年六四集會不乏一九八九年以後出生的年輕人。這是香港的喜訊，卻是中央政府的惡耗。為了箝制思想自由，令新一代變成不會反抗的順民，行政長官曾蔭權力推「國情／國民教育」，動用龐大公帑推廣，預計二零一一至二零一二年的開支高達九千五百七十萬港元。他在二零零五年的施政報告謂，「希望所有立法會議員、區議員以至廣大市民多關心國家大事，多建立溝通渠道，多與內地交流接觸」。對於十多名被禁止進入大陸二十年的立法會議員，曾蔭權是貓哭老鼠，為何他不據理力爭讓民主派可以自由往返大陸？若多名民主派立法會議員也不能回內地，不能與內地官員接觸和溝通，香港與內地的關係又怎能正常化？北京如此排斥香港人的民意代表，又怎能與特區有真正的溝通？

曾蔭權在二零一零年的施政報告中提出「進一步加強國民教育內容，使這個課題成為獨立的『德育及國民教育科』」，並預期在兩年內成為小學一年級到高中三年級學生必修的科目。特區政府推廣國民教育科的手法、倉卒的諮詢過程、粗疏的諮詢文件，令人感到設立德育及國民教育科，是曾蔭權在明年七月離職前必須完成的任務。

２　富有中國特色的國民教育

其實國民教育並不是萬惡，關鍵在於形式及內容。理想的圖像：國民教育作為宣揚普世價值的平台，讓教師們可以光明正大地，播下民主自由人權的種子。在核心價值受到侵蝕的今天，教師可以講述劉曉波、黃琦、譚作人、胡佳、高智晟、劉賢斌、艾未未，以一件又一件有血有淚並不斷在內地重演的維權事件，教導學生甚麼是正義與良知；又可以講述天安門母親在痛失至愛後，儘管活在白色恐怖的威嚇之下，並受到執政者無孔不入的監控，但仍然組織起來，堅持要為六四死難者討回公道，展露出父母親對子女無私無畏的愛；更可以在每年的六四，由教師聯同學生到維園增添點點燭光，令愛國的火把薪火相傳。

可惜特區政府計劃推行的國民教育，卻富有中國特色，是遵命的國民教育，以中央的國情國策，試圖主導學生的思想行為。諮詢文件附設的教案選材偏頗，避談六四、民工、拆遷、維權運動和食品安全等侵權議題和社會的陰暗面，列出的都是升國旗、欣賞中華文化、慶祝國慶等歌功頌德的例子，以展視中國美好的一面，並要求學生對國家表現樣版式的國民認同感。例如，有教材要求學生大聲說出「我為自己是一個中國人而高興」，或是因觀看升旗儀式而「眼眶一下子紅了…心裏激動極了，彷彿在國旗上面見到我國努力的成就、輝煌的過去、人民的團結，淚水不禁地流出來」。此舉不僅要求學生認同國民身分，甚至規管學生強烈表達愛國情感的方式，剝奪學生的思想、信念以及表達自由。

在建構國民身份的過程和宣揚愛國情懷，一不小心便可能形成偏執的情緒。諮詢文件期望提升學生對國民身分的認同；縱然文件叫學生「反思」，但所有「反思」都有同樣的結論：「作為一位年青人，我們應熱愛國家，刻苦奮鬥，願意為社會、為國家作出承擔和貢獻」。如此培育出來對國家及民族的自豪感和歸屬感可能流於盲目的支持；而且，過份強烈的認同和偏執的情緒亦可能帶來負面效果，未能對國家作出持平的批判，或產生排他性的國民身份。

國民教育諮詢文件的教材把一些模糊的概念簡化成「非你即我」，將多元的概念單一化。在初中階段：社會及國家生活範疇的「我與外國人傾談」教材套中，有個「我是中國人」的心理測驗，以三條問題測試學生對中國的認同和中國文化的認識，其中一題「如果外國人誤會你是『日本人』，你的感受是怎樣？」；三個選擇是「感到有點光榮」「沒有甚麼感覺」及「感到不是味兒」。教材謂，若選答「感到有點光榮」或「沒有甚麼感覺」，便反映「你可能對外國文化有點尊崇…對國民身分認同仍未足夠，需要多點認識及檢討」；只有選擇「感到不是味兒」才是「對中國文化與中國人的身分抱有正面的態度」。答案顯示教育局想推行的國民教育可能導致帶有排他性的國民身份；更反映教育局對「民族」、「中華民族」和「中國人」這些貫穿整個國民教育的概念認識不足，對特定族群的定形及成見。教材在二零零九年推出時已惹來爭議與批評，但教育局置若罔聞，仍舊用作為國民教育課程指引的教材，實在令人氣憤。為了抗衡民主派人士到一些學校演講，當局決定委派親北京人士，如人大代表和政協委員到各學校演講，向學生灌輸愛國觀念。

政府提出的學科政策、課程目標及教學設計都忽略了基本的政治學理論，尤其是國家、民族、政府、政權及政黨的分別。在二百四十三頁的「國民教育」諮詢文件中，「國家」出現了四百八十三次，但「共產黨」卻從沒有出現，是否因為當局知悉市民害怕共產黨，因此絕口不提，令堂堂一個執政黨隱形了，至如斯悲哀！而且，文件有意去政治化，例如「我為國家隊打氣」，文件建議教師以非政治化的方式處理國家大事：「談到國家大事，亦非一定是那些令人沉悶或難明的政治、社會問題；『國家足球隊的表現』、『國家有多少面奧運獎牌』也可以是國家大事」。

根據課程文件，評估學生的價值觀及態度的評核方法：讓家長評估學生、學生互相評估，目標就是要令學生「形成品格」，即是把「中華、國情、憂患、爭扎」內化成價值觀。以課程文件提供的「評估報告」為例，其中一項「為同胞的成就表達欣喜或感到自豪」，配合教材《我為國家隊打氣》，強調必須「在國家取得成就時感到高興，也在國家陷入挫敗時感到沮喪，（才）是國民身份認同感的表現」，更要求「教師如發現學生對國家民族的感情不太強烈時，不要批評，並接納其表現，但仍請學生為此作自我反省」，利用體育項目為政權塗脂抹粉，引導學生在感情上接納國家運動員。面對家長、老師、同學的逐項「情意表現」評估，令學生可能為了通過評估而不敢說出真心話，造就壓抑的校園氣氛，甚至虛偽風氣。長此下去，校園將充斥著虛假的口號和淺薄的矯情，達到壓抑社會變革、維持以至鞏固中央專制政權的目的。

整份諮詢文件的議題片面，隱惡揚善，欠缺全面認識，壓抑獨立思考及批判思考，因此惹來社會各界的不滿。政府卻刻意迴避，即使是為教育工作者召開的閉門諮詢會，亦遭與會教師批評為假諮詢，因為問答時間過短，教育局總課程發展主任張永雄在回應倉卒諮詢的質疑時，謂「今次只用一年，代表我有效率」；他更訓斥教師，指「普世價值是西方價值」，「西方價值只是向中國施壓的方法」，又質疑「為何硬要用負面的角度講國情？」傲慢的官員以凌架民意的方法去推行國民教育科，令大家質疑這由上而下的做法是否由北京下達的指令。

３ 公眾的迴響

面對高官失言，擁有輿論監察的傳媒卻異常的沉默。儘管出席簡介會的教師向相熟傳媒轉達張永雄的「西方價值壓力論」，但卻未得到傳媒的重視，只有明報作出小篇幅的報導，令人擔心傳媒「自我審查」情况愈趨嚴重。

幸而香港仍是一個自由開放的社會，很多市民不會啞忍政府的不義之舉。當局建議設立德育及國民教育科，司馬昭之心，無法矇蔽市民雪亮的眼睛。諮詢期展開後，一班以九十後為主的中學生質疑成立新科目的理據，並不滿教育局未有聆聽學生意見。為了表達對政府推行德育及國民教育科的意見和關注科目設立後對學生的影響，他們成立了「反對德育及國民教育科聯盟」，名為「學民思潮[4]（Scholarism）」。他們更聯同香港專上學生聯會、香港教育專業人士協會及民主派政團，要求政府撤回諮詢文件；又策劃連串反國民教育科的行動。於七月一日的大遊行，他們的旗幟飄揚；打開報章，可以看見他們的廣告聯署；走上街頭，可以聽到他們熱切地為市民解釋自己理念。政府荒唐的措施促使年青人上街表達訴求，為年青人上了最好的公民教育課，這是當局始料不及！

４　結語

面對洶湧的民情，政府卻不知悔改，拒絕撤回諮詢文件。眼見中學生發動的反國民教育科弄得如火如荼，政府倒也不敢在中學頭上動土，因此放棄在中學推行新科，轉而先在小學實施。政府的稍微讓步證明學界和政界團結合作的力量足以左右大局。民間的不滿，是針對由小一至中六的德育及國民教育科。政府明明是理虧，卻以小小的讓步去敷衍回應民間的訴求，無視問題的核心，但筆者深信，政府轉移視線的技倆並不會奏效，因為反對之聲不會因政府的權宜之計而靜下來。現階段的勝利並不足夠，終極目標是要推翻這種由上而下、長官意志、違反教育原則的國民教育。筆者僅以「學民思潮」的口號作結──「改變始於足下」共勉之。

──4,887字

The Sino-Global Discourse 2011

Organized by the Institute of Cultural Diplomacy (ICD), Berlin, Germany

“Who’s afraid of Ai Weiwei?”

By Emily Lau, Hong Kong Legislative Councillor

17 September 2011

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,

It is a pleasure and an honour to be invited to speak at this conference, the aim of which is to examine the growing prominence of China on the world stage, the opportunities that this phenomenon presents, and how China can maintain its robust economic growth and social evolution to benefit the global environment.

To many people in the international community, China’s rise in the last few decades has been remarkable. Earlier this year, China overtook Japan to become the second biggest economy in the world. There is no doubt that the economic reforms adopted by Beijing in the past few decades have improved the lives of many Chinese people. According to the World Bank, since 1979 the economic reforms have lifted 400 million Chinese people out of poverty. But the fantastic growth has also created staggering problems of corruption and social disparity, and has led to gross violations of human rights.

China’s impressive economic performance has attracted many foreign politicians and business people to rush in to take advantage of the burgeoning market. In so doing, many of them are prepared to turn a blind eye to erosion of universal core values such as human rights, democracy and the rule of law, values that they themselves cherish and uphold at home.

Today I would like to talk about the human rights situation in China, and explore why it would benefit China and the international community if the Chinese Government were to improve its human rights record by respecting the basic rights of its own people.

The title of my lecture is “Who’s afraid of Ai Weiwei?” To many people in Germany, Ai Weiwei requires little introduction. For those of you who do not know him, he is one of China’s most prominent and provocative artists with a rising profile in the architectural world. He helped to design the Olympic National Stadium known as the Bird’s Nest for the 2008 Summer Games in Beijing.

Ai Weiwei is known for his sharp tongue and is an outspoken critic of the Chinese Communist regime. He has demanded democracy in China, criticized government corruption for playing a part in the deaths of thousands of schoolchildren in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, and supported intellectual Liu Xiaobo, a political prisoner who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last December.

On 3rd April this year, Ai Weiwei was detained by the authorities in Beijing as he tried to board a plane for Hong Kong. After he went missing for three days, the police admitted they were investigating him for “suspected economic crimes.”

Ai Weiwei’s arrest and detention sparked an international outcry. The United States, Britain and the European Union criticized Beijing’s crackdown on dissidents and activists. The German Foreign Minister summoned the Chinese ambassador to express his government’s concern. The outgoing US ambassador Jon Huntsman described him as one the activists who “challenged the Chinese Government to serve the public in all cases and at all times.”

Two days before his disappearance, Ai Weiwei spoke to German broadcaster ARD. He warned that “people with different minds and voices are being thrown into prison.” He said there were two surveillance cameras at his gate entrance, his phone was tapped and every message he sent on the microblog was censored.

“In many ways China is just like the Middle Ages,” he said. “China’s control over the people’s minds and the flow of information is just like the time before the Enlightenment. Writers, artists and commentators are detained or thrown into jail when they expressed their views on democracy, opening up, reform and reason. This is the reality of China.”

After detaining Ai Weiwei for 81 days, the authorities released him because “of his good attitude in confessing his crimes and a chronic illness.” However many people believe Ai Weiwei was released because there was little evidence to prove he has committed any criminal offence and also because of the huge international outcry. After all, the Chinese leadership is concerned about the country’s international image.

Thus it is of paramount importance that the international community should speak out when they see human rights violations in China. This is because human rights transcend national boundaries and the protection of human rights is everyone’s business. Sometimes when overseas organizations criticize the Chinese Government’s poor human rights record, Beijing accused them of interfering in China’s domestic affairs.

I reject this claim and urge the international community to continue to speak out. Beijing should know that if China wants to become a respected member of the international community, she must abide by the code of behaviour which is set out in the various United Nations human rights covenants.

In fact the Chinese Government has signed and ratified a number of human rights covenants and is willing to accept scrutiny by the relevant UN committees. Beijing does this by submitting reports on its implementation of the covenants and by sending delegations to attend the UN hearings. In October 1998 the Chinese Government signed the most important covenant -- the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), but still has not ratified it.

In spite of repeated demands by the international community, the Chinese Government refused to ratify the ICCPR, claiming it is not yet ready. In July 1997, Hong Kong ceased to be a British colony and became a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. Way back in 1976, the British Government extended the application of the ICCPR to Hong Kong.

3-3-3

Just before the change of sovereignty, to the relief of the United Nations, the Chinese Government decided to allow Hong Kong to continue to be a party to the ICCPR after 1997. Thus every five years, the Hong Kong Government submits a report on its implementation of the ICCPR to the Human Rights Committee and sends a delegation to attend the UN hearing. In July, the Chinese Government submitted Hong Kong’s latest report to the Human Rights Committee and a hearing is expected to be held next year.

Ever since 1988, I have travelled to the UN on many occasions to observe human rights hearings on Hong Kong and made interventions as a member of Hong Kong NGOs. I do this because I think it is important to have international scrutiny of Hong Kong’s human rights record.

As for Mainland China’s human rights record, it was under the scrutiny in the UN in February 2009 by the Human Rights Council. Under this new mechanism which replaced the Human Rights Commission, each country’s record is scrutinized in a three-hour session. Many countries which had a chance to speak praised China’s remarkable economic achievement. Only a few western countries were critical but their comments were rejected by the Chinese delegation.

It is no secret that the Chinese Government has worked hard to win friends, particularly among third world countries. According to China’s official white paper on foreign aid, China provided US$37.7 billion in aid to foreign countries in 2009 and the money was distributed in the form of grants, interest-free loans and concessional loans, and nearly half was given to African countries. All the countries in sub-Saharan Africa which have diplomatic ties with the PRC received foreign aid.

As depicted by Ai Weiwei, there are grave human rights violations in Mainland China and the level of discontent is soaring. However the situation in the Hong Kong is different. Under the Chinese Government’s policy of “one country, two systems,” the 7 million Hong Kong people are allowed to retain the free life style and the rule of law that they enjoyed under British colonial rule, and this promise is supposed to last for 50 years until 2047.

Because of “one country, two systems,” Hong Kong is the freest city in China, and this is possible because of a vibrant civil society, the people’s respect for freedoms and the rule of law, an independent judiciary and an independent legal profession. I myself and many pro-democracy Legislative Councillors are evidence of “one country, two systems.”

This is because although we are Chinese nationals and can live and work in Hong Kong, we are not allowed to travel to Mainland China. In fact, of the 60 members in the Legislative Council, 11 have been banned by the Chinese Government for more than 20 years. Thus I can come to Berlin or to another other country, but I cannot go to Mainland China. Another indication of “one country, two systems” is the Falun Gong, which can operate in Hong Kong but is banned in Mainland China.

On several occasions in the past few years, pro-democracy legislators were given special dispensation to visit the Mainland for a few days. But this is ridiculous. We are Chinese citizens and it is our right to freely enter and leave the country. But this is being denied and there is no telling whether I will be able to freely visit Mainland China in my life time.

In order for China to become a respectable member of the international community, Beijing must respect the people’s human rights and respect the rule of law. For this to come about, China must have an independent judiciary and an independent legal profession.

As the economy of China develops at a rapid pace, a number of changes also took place in the country. These included transformation in the forms of communication associated with the rise of the Internet, increasing social disparity and corruption. Together with all these developments, the human rights movement is an unintended consequence of the legal reform process which began more than 30 years ago.

From 1966 to 1976, China experienced a period of celebrated “lawlessness” which was known as the Cultural Revolution. This was subsequently denounced as 10 years of calamity. After the death of Chairman Mao Zedong, who was the architect of the Cultural Revolution, the new leadership altered the Soviet model for economic development and moved towards a market economy, but resurrected its political-legal system.

In the early 1980s, the legal profession was restored. Legal institutions were re-established. Laws and regulations addressing every aspect of a modern legal system were promulgated. Law schools were set up to train hundreds of thousands of legal professionals, and “legal consciousness” was propagated among the general population. The government expanded the roles of lawyers to help to settle disputes, promote the evolving “socialist market economy,” foster international business cooperation and legitimise the punishment of serious offenders.

In principle, the lawyers were no longer Soviet-style “state legal workers” but independent professionals with a task of protecting the rights of citizens, including those who are at odds with the government. The expression weiquan – “defending rights” – became part of this new legitimising vocabulary, and it was being used in textbooks, news reports and television programmes. The proclamation of the idea of legality was also used to legitimize Communist Party rule, as in official uses of the phrase “ruling the country in accordance with the law.”

In promoting this political-legal system, the Chinese Government failed to anticipate the extent that the laws promulgated, and the propaganda slogans that were spread through the education system, the media and other channels would be taken up, interpreted and turned against the government by the law’s new experts, including lawyers, officials and academics.

The promulgation of new laws stipulating the citizens’ rights was understood as a promise that the government would be bound by the rules it has created. This means contracts would have to be fulfilled and property protected; the violation of another person’s property or personal rights could trigger claims to damages, even against the government; no one could be falsely accused or mistreated in detention; officials breaking the law would not only be disciplined by the Party, but might also face criminal punishment.

In some cases, the laws were honoured. Important procedural protections such as those for criminal suspects and defendants began to be put into practice. Some citizens were able to challenge the authorities for wrongdoing, and sometimes prevailed in law suits against the state. They were even able to challenge laws that were not in conformity with the Constitution.

Many people put sincere hopes in constructing the rule of law. Some law schools at major universities even began to imitate American law schools by opening clinics that permitted students to study the needs of less fortunate citizens, and to gain an understanding of the shortcomings of the existing legal system.

The trend seemed unstoppable and there was no meaningful alternative to a development that would gradually limit the power of the state. As Professor Eva Pils at Chinese University of Hong Kong’s Faculty of Law put it, “The genie had been let out of the bottle… It was more than just a set of rules, it was a spirit of rule of law, rights protection and constitutionalism, which was released into an atmosphere of burgeoning academic engagement, underpinned by greatly improved means of mass communication through the Internet and other technological innovations.”

All these activities led to the rise of a human rights movement which consisted of uncoordinated actions and appeals against government injustice. The movement has no leaders but just activists who called themselves “rights defenders.” These activists may be aware of each other, often through the Internet, but do not co-ordinate their actions. The lawyers who became involved in this movement were known as human rights lawyers.

Some victims of social injustice received support from the lawyers, who took up cases such as criminal prosecution of alleged Tibetan or Uyghur “separatists,” democracy organizers and Falun Gong or “house church” worshippers.

7-7-7

The lawyers also took up cases involving claims against the government for misconduct and corruption, birth control abuses and forced eviction and relocation. They also helped victims of natural disasters such as the May 2008 Sichuan earthquake, and victims of malfeasance by state enterprises, as in the Sanlu contaminated milk powder scandal.

The Chinese Government was alarmed to see the human rights lawyers taking up cases, but the most threatening phenomenon was that the idea of human rights began to take hold among ordinary Chinese citizens. Petitioners used the expression “human rights” with greater confidence and fluency, especially after it had been written into the Constitution in 2004 – “the state respects and protects human rights.” The people increasingly decried the inadequacies of the judicial system as one of their primary grievances, and even denounced the system of “letters and visits” that they routinely used to bring petitions to the authorities.

Because the human rights lawyers were seen as a threat, the judicial authorities began to impose pressure on them. They were warned by their law firms or justice bureau officials not to take up “politically sensitive” cases or risk losing their professional licenses.

The annual registration of professional licenses is a tactic used by the justice bureau and the lawyers associations to curb the lawyers’ right to practice. To our knowledge, two human rights lawyers have had their licenses permanently revoked, and the licenses of seven others have been suspended.

In the whole of China, there are about 170,000 licensed lawyers but only a tiny fraction, about 100, can be called human rights lawyers. These courageous lawyers could easily become multi-millionaires if they follow the advice of the state and steer away from sensitive cases. However the human rights lawyers chose to follow their conscience and help the oppressed and downtrodden. In doing so, some of them have had grave consequences, including persecution, imprisonment and torture. In order to support these brave lawyers, we formed the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group in Hong Kong in 2007.

8-8-8

Just a few months before we formed the Concern Group, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party passed a resolution trumpeting the concept of “harmonious society.” This implied that dissonance was unpleasant and unwanted, and harmony was essential for the sake of maintaining social stability. The scene is set for confrontation.

As China emerges as the fasting growing economy in the world, its rulers feel deeply insecure and is afraid of its own citizens. In March this year, the government announced a whopping 14 per cent increase in the budget for domestic security. This means US$95 billion would be spent on law and order items including state security, police, armed civil militia, courts and jails. This is what officials called spending on “stability protection.” It is the second time that outlay on internal security has surpassed the defence budget of the People’s Liberation Army, which stands at US$91.5 billion.

Some commentators see the huge expenditure as a warning against the calls on the Internet for a “Jasmine Revolution,” protests inspired by the popular uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East. It shows the rising costs of maintaining internal control and is a signal that the crack down on dissenting views will intensify. It does not require too much imagination to figure out that if more money is spent on improving the livelihood of the ordinary people, such as on providing decent housing, education, health and welfare facilities, less people will want to take to the streets or to challenge the government in court.

As China emerges as a superpower, she must be reminded that the international community expects her to follow the code of civilized behaviour which is enshrined in the various international human rights covenants. China must do so because human rights is a universal core value. A prosperous China which respects the rule of law and the basic rights of her own people will be an asset to the international community, particularly at a time when the global environment is filled with conflicts, acrimony, hatred and hostility.

9-9-9

If China wants, she can deploy her vast resources to help resolve conflicts and eradicate poverty and discrimination. If China wants, she can be a respected and responsible world power by helping to make this turbulent world a much more civilized and friendly place to live in. This is a duty I hope the Chinese leadership will take up and the international community should not stop urging Beijing to do so.

END

I write to endorse whole-heartedly your editorial ("Without school places, we lose out", July 17). You published a front page article ("Business fears over lack of school places", July 13) which highlighted the present predicament: the lack of places in quality international schools is having a detrimental impact on Hong Kong's business environment. This is because businesspeople from overseas will not come to work here unless their children's educational needs can be met.

For many years, I and members of the Democratic Party have received complaints from members of various chambers of commerce, saying Hong Kong's competitive edge has been undermined by the lack of places in good international schools.

This problem has been repeatedly raised in the Legislative Council, as members are fully aware of the damage that is being inflicted on Hong Kong as an international financial centre. In the past few months, three oral questions were asked on this very topic, but they failed to push the administration of Donald Tsang Yam-kuen to take urgent remedial action.

The day before you published the July 13 article, I made the same point at a meeting of the government's business facilitation advisory committee, of which I am the vice-chair. The committee addressed this issue last year and was told last week the government has commissioned a study on this topic and the result will be available at the end of the year.

It is infuriating that various government departments cannot co-ordinate their efforts to resolve this pressing problem effectively and efficiently. So long as we can't solve the problem, many companies will locate in other cities which have sufficient quality international schools.

This is bad news for Hong Kong. I urge the administration to get its act together and solve the problem as soon as possible.