李家超：《经济学人》这篇文章，“可耻地作出了严重却毫无根据的指控”
【文/李家超 译/观察者网 由冠群】
《经济学人》编辑人员：
你好。
你方在2022年1月8日发表了一篇有失公允的新闻报道，在文章中作出了明显误导性的描述——“香港新一届立法会议员宣誓就职。这是对民主的讽刺。”对此，我深感震惊。
《经济学人》刊文讽刺香港立法会选举
首先，新一届立法会议员是在12月19日以公开、公平、公正的方式选举出来的，90名议员来自不同的政治阶层。与自1997年中华人民共和国香港特别行政区成立以来的历次选举一样，本次选举也受到了新闻媒体的广泛关注和报道。
所有90位当选议员都承诺自己的行为会符合香港和国家的利益。任何国家，无论是其宪法规定亦或道德准则，都不会允许叛国者、卖国贼、外国代理人或以其他面目出现的非爱国者进入其政治体制。包括中国在内的世界各国都把“不得背叛自己的国家和人民”当作对议员的最低要求。
其次，这篇文章可耻地作出了严重却又毫无根据的指控，声称投票是“被操纵了”。如果真的存在什么“操纵”，那也是有人出于阴暗的内心偏见，故意操纵扭曲香港的形象。参与选举的香港选民曾经并将在以后继续自由地投票，作出自己的选择。香港专门立法防止有人操纵选举，其中就包括将煽动他人不投票或投无效票的行为定为犯罪。
第三，香港《基本法》保护选举权和被选举权以及言论自由和新闻自由。适用于香港的《公民权利及政治权利国际公约》规定了香港人有权行使这些权利，只要不违反法律，包括不危害国家安全，香港人行使权利就受到法律的妥善保护。
香港警方采取的任何法律行动都严格坚持以证据为依据，以法律为准绳。它们所针对的是相关个人或实体的非法行为，而不考虑嫌疑人的政治立场、身份背景或职业工作。
民主并不是被哪个国家所独享的。世界上存在许多不同的民主模式。评判民主模式成功与否的标准是看它能否有效运作，使人民过上富足的生活。
香港《基本法》明确阐明了香港的民主发展道路。在坚持“一国两制”方针的基础上，香港的民主将是循序渐进式发展的，并要符合香港的实际情况。如果外国试图替香港定义民主或强加给香港一个民主模式，那这种行为本身就是不民主的。
外国势力干涉香港事务助长了2019年的大规模暴力违法行为，这些行为不仅威胁到了香港的安全稳定，还威胁到了香港的法治和司法独立，法官在这种情况下受到了恐吓，法院也被汽油弹损毁。《国家安全法》的出台迅速有效地恢复了香港的安全稳定。这些都是客观事实和香港居民的亲身经历。这些民众欣慰而又喜悦地看到香港现在仍然是一个开放、安全、充满活力且具有良好商业环境的大都市。
祝好，
香港特别行政区政务司司长
李家超
2022年1月11日
Dear Editor,
I am appalled by the biased reporting in the article which you published on January 8, 2022 using a blatantly misleading description, “Hong Kong’s new legislature has been sworn in. It is a mockery of democracy”.
First, the Legislative Council election on December 19 was conducted in an open, fair and honest manner, returning 90 legislators from different political backgrounds. The election was widely covered and reported by the media, which was facilitated throughout in the same way as elections that had taken place in Hong Kong since the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China in 1997.
All of the 90 elected legislators have the commitment to act in the interests of Hong Kong and the Country. No country will by its constitution or ethics allow treasonists, traitors, foreign agents or other forms of non- patriots to take part in its political system. This minimum standard of non- betrayal of one’s own people and nation is the common ground of all nations, including China.
Second, it is shameful that the article makes a serious but baseless accusation that the polls were “rigged”. If anything was “rigged”, it was the deliberately distorted image of Hong Kong that has been manipulated from the dark side of one’s personal internal bias. Hong Kong voters in the election were and will continue to be free to cast their ballot and make their own choices. There is legislation specifically in place to prevent anyone from rigging polls. That includes criminalising acts of inciting another person not to vote or to cast an invalid vote.
Third, the right to vote and to stand for election, as well as the freedom of speech and of the press, are enshrined in the Basic Law. The exercise of these rights, as covered in the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as applied to Hong Kong, are well protected provided that it is done within the confines of the law, including not endangering national security.
Any legal actions taken by the Hong Kong Police are strictly based on evidence and in full accordance with the law. They aim at the unlawful acts of the persons or entities concerned, regardless of the suspects’ political stance, background or occupation.
No country has a monopoly on democracy. There are many different models of democracy. The success of any model is to be measured by how effective it is in enabling its people to prosper in their living.
The democratic development of Hong Kong has been well defined under the Basic Law. Its development will be progressive and in accordance with the actual situation of Hong Kong, in adherence to the principle of “One Country, Two Systems”. If a foreign country tries to define or impose a model of democracy on Hong Kong, it is undemocratic in itself.
The massive violence and lawlessness in 2019, fueled by interference by foreign forces, threatened not just the personal safety and security of Hong Kong. It also threatened Hong Kong’s rule of law and judicial independence, where judges were also targeted for intimidation and courts damaged by petrol bombs. The National Security Law has swiftly and effectively restored stability and security. These are facts and experiences of people living here in Hong Kong, who are relieved and happy to see Hong Kong now continue to be an open, safe, vibrant and business-friendly metropolis.
Yours sincerely,
John K C Lee
Chief Secretary for Administration
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
（香港特区政府网站刊登此邮件）
本文系观察者网独家稿件，文章内容纯属作者个人观点，不代表平台观点，未经授权，不得转载，否则将追究法律责任。关注观察者网微信guanchacn，每日阅读趣味文章。