姓名：陳芊蓉
班級：政一B
學號：06114240
【標題】英人權領袖被港遣返 揭中領館係黑手 入境處職員含淚送機
【出處】http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20171012/57320995
【時間】106年10月12日
【內文】
曾聲援被判囚的雙學三子、英國保守黨人權委員會副主席羅哲斯（Benedict Rogers），昨早從曼谷飛抵香港，惟香港入境處最終拒絕讓他入境，只能乘飛機返回曼谷。事後羅哲斯親自撰文記述今次被拒入境的來龍去脈，透露事前已接獲中國大使館預先告誡將被拒入境香港，意味今次拒絕他來港的決定，來自中國政權。他坦言為香港感到悲哀，希望世界各國能醒覺，「一國兩制」岌岌可危。
全文如下（中文繙譯版本，以英文版為準）：
20年前的我剛畢業，便飛到香港開始我的第一份工作。時值香港回歸幾個月，我在香港過了快樂的5年，從1997年起當記者，直至2002年。我從來沒想過，20年之後，我會被拒入境香港。
過去3年，我越來越關注香港的自由、法治和「一國兩制」備受侵蝕的情況。正因如此，我也越來越多機會接觸和宣傳香港的現況。我很榮幸曾在倫敦接待過黃之鋒、羅冠聰與陳方安生，又與李柱銘緊密合作，他們全都是英雄，也是我的朋友。我想這是合適時機再到訪香港，只是簡單地見見人、多聽多了解現況。過去15年我曾多次到香港，近幾年則較少。
此行原本希望與人們私下見面。我已謹慎地查詢過，有否可能探望正在監獄服刑的黃之鋒、羅冠聰與周永康，可惜約在一星期前我發現這是不可能的事。很不幸，即使只作出查詢，亦已引起了中國當局的注意。
上星期五，我接到一通來自英國國會議員的電話。我跟他頗熟悉，也非常尊敬他。他告訴我他接到了中國駐倫敦大使館的電話，對方對我此行冀探望3名學生的行徑表達關注，更表明此舉或「對中英關係構成嚴重威脅」。我請他向中國大使館重申，我不會嘗試到訪任何監獄。
即使或許有人會認為這是做得過火，但我亦只希望為事情降溫，我自願向中國當局保證，不會在香港進行任何公開活動，亦不會接受媒體訪問。我更提出在回程後與中國大使會面，進行建設性的討論，聽取他們的看法。不過這些提議換來的只有拒絕，還有更進一步的威脅，告誡我將會被拒絕進入香港。
看來還有另一因素。我是保守黨人權委員會副主席，是在工餘時間擔任的義務性質職務，我亦在保守黨候選人名單之列。似乎中國當局誤會了我的境況，認為我是國會議員、政黨高層或是政府官員，由此引伸出我今次香港之行，是以黨代表的身份來港。這是可以諒解的，因為在中國，黨員就是黨員，他們或許不理解英國政黨乃是由個人、獨立思想組成的，而且義務黨員與正式黨員亦有區別，代表黨行事與私下行事亦不相同。我試圖通過第三方向大使館保證，我絕對不會代表黨，更不會代表政府，強調此行純屬私人性質，以普通公民身份，私下與新知舊友在香港見面。不幸的是，這也無法滿足中國當局。
與他人商量過後，我認為如果我陷入來自大使館的壓力，經第三方傳達非正式的文字訊息，我就會一如平日所批評的他人一樣做著同一件事：向中國叩頭。我的良心不允許我這麼做。如果我在第一道關卡就退縮，還怎有面目去看黃之鋒、羅冠聰、周永康、李柱銘、陳方安生等人呢？所以我決定按原定行程嘗試入境，當作測試。或許他們只是在虛張聲勢說不讓我入境，希望我息事寧人而作罷。又或許他們是認真的，他們就要公開正式拒絕我入境，向世界展示「一國兩制」被侵蝕的另一事例。
很遺憾，後一種情況最終發生了。抵港之後我步向入境部門，如常向入境處人員出示護照。入境處人員將我的名字輸入電腦，顯然電腦說了「不可以」。她（入境處人員）向上級請示，並帶我到櫃檯後的房間叫我等候。過了不久，一個穿著便服的官員和我見面，我向她保證今次行程屬私人性質，私下見見朋友，又提到我曾經在香港生活過5年。她查看我的酒店預訂，我還在想或許她們會放行。一會兒後，她正式告知已決定拒絕我入境，將把我送上返回曼谷的航班，亦即今次航程的原出發地。
我必須強調，我對拒絕我入境、一直「看顧」我的入境處人員絕無責怪之意。他們只是執行他們的職務，而且他們待我盡可能地友善和禮貌，他們給我水，又向我微笑。的確，我的印象是他們並不想這樣做（拒絕我入境），他們只是在執行上頭的指示，他們控制不了。
我在等待上機時，轉向身旁的入境處人員微笑，感謝他對我照顧有加。「一國兩制是否已死？」我問，「一國一制，對吧？」他眼泛淚光，懇切地說，「先生，我只是在履行職務，我不能評論。謝謝你的合作。」我向他說我知道，我不會怪他。
稍後，我們在上機前握了手，我對他說：「對香港來說，這是非常悲哀的一天。對我來說也悲哀，我無法探望在香港的朋友，但對香港而言特別悲哀，拒絕一個沒有犯罪的公民入境。」他點頭，再次眼泛淚光，「我明白。這很悲哀。」我臨上機前向他說最後一句話，「希望事情會變得更好。」
「一國兩制」的原意理應為「港人治港」。但很明顯，今次拒絕我入境的決定並非來自香港，而是來自中國政權。「一國兩制」的原意理應為法治，惟即使何俊仁律師坐列車趕來機場，希望看看有甚麼能幫得上忙，最終也未能成事，因為在那之前我已被帶上飛機。「一國兩制」的原意理應為表達自由、結社自由，這是香港的基本權利，惟儘管我保證不會參與任何公開活動，只有私人性質會面，但我自己的表達自由，以及我希望能會面的人的表達和結社自由，都已經被剝削了。
我倒沒關係，香港才是重點。從今次嚴竣的、個人的、悲痛的親身經歷可知，即使「一國兩制」仍然未死去，亦已行將消亡殆盡，而且正在加快。世界各國必須醒覺，尤其作為《中英聯合聲明》簽署方的英國。我對中英關係不會構成任何威脅，但我相信中國政權的舉動，尤其是在香港的行徑，反而會（構成威脅）。
Benedict Rogers親撰英文原文
By Benedict Rogers
Twenty years ago, as a fresh graduate, I flew to Hong Kong just a few months after the handover, to begin my first job. I spent five very happy years working as a journalist in Hong Kong, from 1997-2002. I never expected that twenty years later, I would be refused entry to Hong Kong.
In the past three years I have become increasingly concerned about the erosion of Hong Kong’s freedoms and the rule of law, and the threats to “one country, two systems”. As a result, I have been increasingly engaged in advocacy for Hong Kong. I have had the privilege of hosting, in London, Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Anson Chan, and of working closely with Martin Lee – all heroes and friends of mine. I decided it was time for me visit Hong Kong again, simply to meet people and to listen and learn about the current situation. I had visited Hong Kong several times over the past fifteen years, but had not been back for a few years.
My intention was to meet people privately. I had made discreet enquiries about whether or not it would be possible or desirable to visit Joshua Wong, Nathan Law or Alex Chow in prison, but I had realized a week or more ago that it would not be possible. Unfortunately, even enquiring about the possibility drew the attention of the Chinese authorities.
The first indication I had that there was a problem came last Friday, when I received a telephone call from a British Member of Parliament whom I know well and respect greatly. He informed me he had received calls from the Chinese Embassy in London, expressing concern that an attempt to visit these three student leaders would pose “a grave threat to Sino-British relations”. I asked him to reassure the Chinese Embassy that I would not be attempting to visit any prisons. I took a further step – a compromise, some might say one too big, but one intended to de-escalate the situation – by voluntarily assuring them that I would not undertake any public engagements or media interviews while in Hong Kong. I also offered to meet the embassy upon my return, for a constructive discussion and to hear their perspectives. These offers were rebuffed and I received further, increasingly threatening messages from the embassy, culminating in a message warning me that I would be denied entry.
It appears there was another factor too. I serve as Deputy Chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, a voluntary role in my spare time, and I am on the Conservative Party’s Candidates List. It appears that the Chinese authorities misunderstood my status and thought at first that I was a Member of Parliament or a senior party or government official, and that my visit to Hong Kong would be in an official capacity on behalf of the party. I suppose one could forgive them for that mistake, because in China a party member is a party member come what may. They perhaps don’t understand that British political parties are made up of individual, independent minds – and furthermore there’s a difference between a voluntary party member and a party official, and a difference between someone acting on behalf of the party and someone acting in a private, personal capacity. Nevertheless I sought to reassure the embassy, via a third party, that I was absolutely not representing the party, and certainly not the government, and that my visit was a purely personal, private visit to meet old friends and new acquaintances in Hong Kong, as a private citizen. Unfortunately, that did not satisfy either.
In consultation with others, I took the view that if I were to cave in to pressure from the embassy, sent through unofficial text messages via a third party, I would be doing exactly what I have criticized others of doing: kowtowing to China. My conscience would not allow me to do that. How could I look my friends Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, Alex Chow, Martin Lee, Anson Chan and others in the eye if I caved at the first hurdle? I decided therefore that I had to put it to the test by going as planned to Hong Kong. Perhaps they were bluffing, threatening to deny me entry in the hope that I would go away quietly. Or, if they were serious, then they would have to refuse me entry formally and publicly, exposing to the world yet another example of the erosion of one country, two systems.
Very regrettably, the latter course was what occurred. I landed in Hong Kong, proceeded to immigration, and when my turn came I presented my passport and arrival card as normal. The immigration officer put my name into the computer, and evidently the computer said no. She called other officers over, they took me to a private room behind the counters, and I was asked to wait. After a little while a plain clothes official conducted an interview with me. I assured her that my visit was a private, personal visit to meet friends, and that I had lived in Hong Kong for five years. She took details of my hotel booking, and I thought perhaps they were about to allow me in. A little later, however, she informed me that the decision had been made to deny me entry, and put me back on the flight to Bangkok, which was where I had flown from.
It is important to emphasise that I do not in any way blame the immigration officers who “looked after” me during this time. They were just doing their job and, in the circumstances, they treated me as kindly and courteously as possible. Their manner was polite and friendly, they offered me water, they smiled. Indeed, I had the impression that they really did not want to be doing this, but that they were operating according to orders from above, beyond their control.
As I waited to board I turned gently to the officer standing with me. I smiled, and I thanked him for looking after me well. “Is one country, two systems dead now?”, I asked. “One country, one system, right?” He looked with a hint of tears in his eyes, pleadingly. “Sir please, I am just doing my job. I cannot comment. Thank you for your cooperation”. I reassured him that I knew he was only doing his job, and that I did not blame him.
A little later, as we shook hands at the entrance to the plane, I said to him: “This is a very sad day for Hong Kong. It’s sad for me, that I am unable to visit my friends in Hong Kong, but it’s particularly sad for Hong Kong, that a private citizen who has committed no crime is refused entry.” He nodded, again with a hint of tears. “I understand. It is sad,” he said. My final word to him was this: “I hope things will change for the better”.
“One country, two systems” is supposed to mean “Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong”. Yet it is overwhelmingly clear that the decision to deny me entry to Hong Kong was not taken in Hong Kong, but by the Chinese regime. “One country, two systems” is supposed to mean the rule of law, yet a solicitor, Albert Ho, who very kindly took the train out to the airport in order to meet me and see if he could assist, was denied access to me because I was put back on the plane before he could reach me. “One country, two systems” is supposed to mean basic rights in Hong Kong – freedom of expression and association – yet despite assurances from me that I would not engage in any public events, and would simply be having private meetings, my own freedom of expression and more importantly the freedom of expression and association of those I had hoped to meet has been curtailed.
This is not about me. It is about Hong Kong. And it is clear from this very stark, personal, first-hand and painful experience that if “one country, two systems” is not yet completely dead, it is dying rapidly, being decapitated limb by limb with accelerating speed. The world, and especially the United Kingdom with its responsibilities under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, must wake up to this. I am no threat to Sino-British relations. But I believe the conduct of the Chinese regime, particularly in Hong Kong, is.
【相關條文】
中華民國憲法：
第10條 人民有居住及遷徙之自由。
第11條 人民有言論、講學、著作及出版之自由。
第14條 人民有集會及結社之自由。
中華人民共和國香港特別行政區基本法 ：
第2條：全國人民代表大會授權香港特別行政區依照本法的規定實行高度自治，享有行政管理權、立法權、獨立的司法權和終審權。
第4條：香港特別行政區依法保障香港特別行政區居民和其他人的權利和自由。
第22條：中央人民政府所屬各部門、各省、自治區、直轄市均不得干預香港特別行政區根據本法自行管理的事務。
第27條：香港居民享有言論、新聞、出版的自由，結社、集會、遊行、示威的自由，組織和參加工會、罷工的權利和自由。
【心得評論】
香港一國兩制的道路是否已走向蜿蜒崎嶇？
從今年的香港特首選舉被質疑能否代表民意到黃之鋒和羅冠聰等人入獄，都引發越來越多的人去反思香港一路走過來的路，尤其香港民眾本身對公共事務也越發有感，這都被期望成為間接施壓給中國的一種管道，但，要挺過這樣的荊棘路，真的不簡單。
Rogers的身分敏感，香港的身分也敏感，但如今只是一位住過香港五年的普通百姓要回香港看看朋友，卻被拒絕入境，而那份拒絕，來自中國政權。
一個國家有權決定遣返旅客，這是無庸置疑的，但若被拒絕入境的理由只是害怕一個有政治相關背景的人會去顛覆自己好不容易建立起的威望和統治，似乎又太過大驚小怪，或者說當權者本身對自己的統治就缺乏了安全感，太害怕人民反動的聲音，太恐懼自己的權力不保。
這又似乎違反了基本法保有人民的權利，違反了一般人所被授予的自由權，甚至違反了香港本身的高度自治權，這也許是中國當局的一種不自信，但若只願架起城牆，不讓人民和外界有所接觸，又或者想盡辦法去拒絕反對自己的聲音，必然也不是長遠之計。
我想大家都在期待，香港有天能有自己的聲音存在，那份聲音不違法，不被認為顛覆國家政權，不用被入監被警告，有人可以聽見他們的聲音，外界可以清楚他們己身的主張，我們大家可以幫他們撐把傘，或是他們以自己的力量去抵制風雨，或許還在路上，或許十分艱鉅，但如果有越發多的人去關注這件事情，這件事本身就又多了一點力量。
