Source : GovHK Press Release (2019.09.17)
以下是行政長官林鄭月娥今日（九月十七日）上午出席行政會議前會見傳媒的開場發言和答問內容：
行政長官：各位傳媒朋友，早晨，我先說幾點。在剛剛過去的周末，我們又見到很多激進人士大肆破壞一些公共設施和港鐵站，這些行為危害我們的社會安全；更令人擔憂的是我們見到在不同地區，有不同立場、不同政見人士，最初只是大家表達意見，繼而口角，更甚至動武，引起了很多爭執。我在此呼籲，香港是一個包容、和諧的社會，我希望不同政見、不同背景人士用和平理性的方法去行使他們表達意見的自由；如果訴諸武力，只會令問題越來越複雜、令香港社會撕裂越來越深化、令我們想走出這困局進入復修的路越來越漫長，這情況對於整體香港社會非常不利。在每一次有這些爭執的時候，當然雙方都會去報警，要求警方介入；我在此強調，香港警隊在執法和維護治安方面是不偏不倚、一視同仁，所以對於坊間有些對我們警隊極不公道的批評，我在此嚴正指出，我完全不認同，我亦非常肯定警隊在如此困難的情況下，要將兩批已經非常躁動、不同政見的人相對能夠和平地處理，實在不是一件容易的工作。
接下來我想說，大家留意到，在明天傍晚時分，我們將會在政府總部舉行一場與十八區區議員的見面。我在此重申，這場見面並不是我的「四個行動」中所指，我跟司局長會走入社區跟不同階層、不同背景、不同政見的人士直接對話，去聆聽他們的意見；它並不是這種「走入社區」的對話，因為如果是「走入社區」，一定要走入社區，希望跟不同背景、不同政見的人士，直接聆聽他們的意見。這場與區議員的見面是甚麼性質？在此我都反覆說過，過去三個月，我作為行政長官都繼續履行行政長官不同的工作，一方面的工作是當香港社會發生了如此大的紛爭，我有責任聆聽在不同界別中不同背景人士的意見。這些絕大部分的聆聽和會面都是閉門進行，希望他們能夠在無拘無束的環境下向我表達意見；這類工作已經進行了超過一百場，亦見了各界人士，甚至包括有些直接參與在示威中的人士，我都很願意聽他們的聲音。區議員亦是一個很大的組群，這四百多位區議員都是民意代表，尤其是本屆區議會快將結束，民政事務局局長建議應該有一場與區議員交流，所以安排了這場會面。
另一項工作亦在過去這一、兩個月進行，就是籌備二○一九年的《施政報告》。這本《施政報告》是在一個相當困難的環境下籌備，但我很感謝各界仍然樂意出席這些有關《施政報告》的諮詢會，絕大部分亦是閉門進行，到現在已經做了二十場。如果大家留意我昨日的Facebook帖文，昨日那場是有關土地和房屋，是特別熱烈的，一共四小時的會面，三十多位在房屋、土地富有經驗的朋友暢所欲言地向我反映了他們對於香港今日面對土地短缺和房屋不足下，特區政府應該採取甚麼措施。
第三個我想說的是剛才說的「對話」。就對話方式，我們經過了十多日的籌備，今日可以向大家說，這對話平台有幾個大原則——
第一，對象要廣泛，不分階層、不分立場，所以剛才說的兩類都並不可以滿足這大原則，因為很多都是某一個組群去談某一件事；
第二個大原則是我們會盡量公開、透明，讓傳媒可以在現場採訪；
第三，議題亦是開放的，即我們沒有一個特定例如房屋、教育的議題，希望能夠百花齊放。
同時，政府不是唯一可以建設這平台的一方，我們歡迎社會各界可以提供更多平台，鼓勵更多對話，因為對話一定比對抗好，亦可以在對話過程裏能夠互相更加深入了解大家不同的看法。在過去兩個星期，我都聽了很多意見，關於如何構建這對話平台，以滿足到我剛才說的幾個原則。現在我們初步構思，這對話平台將會有以下三種形式，三種形式都會同步進行，不是說三取其一，我們三種形式都會做。
第一種就是在不同地區舉行，讓市民自由報名去參與的對話。這些對話正如我所說盡量是公開，除非屆時有一些很特別的情況，否則一定是公開進行。視乎個別埸地大小，每場對話預計大概一百至二百人；如果報名的市民人數很多的話，我們會透過抽籤分配這些名額。第一場屬於這個形式的社區對話將會在下星期舉辦，稍後我的有關同事會公布詳情。
第二種形式就是隨機抽取不同年齡、階層、背景的市民參與對話，這應該較市民自由報名參加相對更有代表性，因為是代表社會各個階層，務求令這個討論能更多角度、更深入。我們需要做一些準備工夫，因此要稍後才能安排這種對話形式。
第三，儘管我說希望盡量走入社區及開放，但畢竟有些朋友都是來自不同界別，他們很希望與我們進行深度對話，即談得詳細些、談得深入些。這類對話每場人數大約二十人左右。事實上，由六月開始，我們已經試行了這個類似形式的對話，效果是不錯的，因為這二十人都是來自不同背景，他們之間可以互動，亦與我或我的司局長一起交流，幫我們了解社會情況。
除了我剛才說三個形式的對話之外，自從我在八月底公布了會構建這對話平台、在九月四日的「四個行動」裏更具體承諾要做這個對話後，收到不少民間組織，包括學校、社福機構、地區組織主動說，他們都想安排這些不同形式的對話或分享會，希望官員能夠出席。無論是公開或閉門，只要情況許可，我和我的司局長都會積極考慮參與由民間自己籌組的平台。
正如我剛才所說，對話其中一個原則是議題應該開放，所以我們並沒有特定一個議題；但經過三個月的紛爭，大家都有共識或認識，香港社會真是積累了很多深層次的經濟、社會甚至政治方面的問題，希望這些不同形式的對話，能夠提供一個平台，讓我們去討論。我必須在此強調，對話平台並不等如不須要嚴正執法。今日放在我們眼前首要仍然是遏止暴力，我剛才開場白第一點都是說上個周末看到有升級暴力、肆意的破壞，令很多市民非常擔心，所以我們仍然會在遏止暴力方面、嚴正執法方面繼續堅持我們的工作。
對話平台可能只是第一步，但這第一步是很重要的；我們希望透過這第一步，再行下去能夠幫香港走出現在這令人非常擔心的困局，然後再讓香港重新出發，多謝大家。
記者：林太，你好。想問其實剛才或者政府新聞稿或者你剛才的開場白都說到星期日的一些衝突，那你又如何回應，星期日下午其實都有不少市民雖然在沒有不反對通知書下，都走上街要求你回應「五大訴求」，你如何回應這些走上街的市民呢？另外一個問題就是其實你自己剛才都說到，八月二十日你已經提出要建立一個對話平台，其實今日已經是九月十七日，你說下星期會有第一場，其實一個對話是否需要那麼複雜，要用一個月的時間都還未處理好？上星期見到你去探訪老人院的時候，外面亦有一些示威者，你如何評估你現在走入社區時的民情會怎樣？謝謝。
行政長官：第一，在九月四日我作的錄影講話是希望全面、很認真地回應因修例引起的訴求，亦非常徹底回應了最重要、由始至終提出最重要的訴求，就是完全撤回這條條例草案，當然撤回的技術工作將會在立法會復會之後才進行。至於其他訴求，我亦在那個講話中詳細回應了，這是政府考慮了很多因素之後作出的決定。事實上在我們接觸的很多人士中，對於某些訴求，大家都認為和香港的核心價值相違背──譬如有人說完全不需要理會香港的法治精神，不作檢控、不作追究一些違法人士，這未必得到所有社會人士的支持。
我希望我們透過對話平台，能夠向前看如何處理香港的深層次問題。沒錯，我們早前已經提出要建立這溝通平台；我剛才都解釋了，我們的工作可能在八月二十日之前已經開始，就是以某一種形式很深度討論及聽意見。怎樣有效建立這平台的工作其實進行了一段日子，真正走入社區，像剛才所說的很開放、沒前設地去做對話，是需要一些籌備。這亦關於你提出的第三個問題——作為行政長官，我仍然有信心、仍然很堅持去做行政長官多方面的工作，包括關心弱勢社群、包括在節日期間探訪一些老人、包括我們可能要去主禮。雖然在很困難的情況之下——有人會動員來等我——但我都堅持要做，因為我是香港特別行政區行政長官，我要履行我多方面的職能，所以即使下星期這場走入社區的直接對話會引起同樣的場面，我和我的同事都有足夠的心理準備。我真的希望，既然社會上真的有深層次的問題，既然有朋友都認為對話比對抗好，我們就讓這個對話平台能夠相對順利展開。我在此強調，這種直接對話是會持續的，它的「量」和「質」是同樣重要，所以不會只是一次；即使第一次我們未必很成功，並不會令我們卻步，我們會繼續堅持在未來日子裏爭取更多機會與不同背景的市民直接對話。
記者：特首，你好。我們注意到在上周末的非法遊行和暴力的破壞活動中，有參與的黑衣蒙面人被市民扯下面罩，後來就有消息顯示，這位人士是某個政府部門的公務員。想問一下，對於有個別公務員參與非法遊行及暴力的破壞活動，除了警方的嚴正執法，特區政府會有甚麼樣的約束和管理機制？謝謝。
行政長官：非常的遺憾，在幾個月的示威過程裏，據我理解，是有公務員參與——參與示威遊行、非常和平的表達個人意見，對大部分公務員而言是可以的，有部分的其他公務員是受到公務員規例的限制，這也是公開的資料；但是，被警方拘捕的，據我理解，是有個別的公務員，我們對這情況深感遺憾，也肯定會採取有關的行動，我在這裏不太方便公布我們就個別公務員採取的行動。我重申，對於公務員違反法律，這是一定不會容許的，我們會按着公務員規例採取應該採取的行動；但是我必須強調，我們有一個超過十八萬的公務員隊伍，在過去三個月，我的公務員同事無論是在警隊或者是在警隊以外的其他部門，都承擔了大量的額外工作量，我對我的公務員表示非常感謝，也希望他們在這麼艱難的日子裏能堅守他們的工作，為香港市民服務。多謝大家。
Reporter: Mrs Lam, first of all, you talked about starting this dialogue platform with the first session starting next week. So what exactly are you expecting from the dialogue session next week, given the public distrust and public anger towards you and your administration? And my second question is that, you mentioned, you spoke about what happened on the weekend and we witnessed people with different political views engaging in brawls basically, but we don’t really see a lot of government condemnation on those who attacked people, those who believe that they, who are believed to be pro-Beijing and pro-Government or pro-police, so what do you say about, does this constitute to people’s distrust in the police, people’s accusation in the police with regards to allegedly being selective in their prosecution, arrest and treatment of suspects? And my third question is - you’ve repeatedly rejected the demand for the setting up of a commission of inquiry, but aside from addressing alleged police brutality and their handling of the protests is also about the accountability of the Government, investigating the decision making within your administration by senior officials, so how are you addressing that part? Thank you.
Chief Executive: First of all, the first question about the dialogue platform, we are holding the first session next week and this is an open dialogue platform which we will invite people from all walks of life to come to express their views to us. This is because of our conviction that communication is far better than confrontation. I hope there is no doubt by now that after three months of social unrest, after formal withdrawal of the bill which apparently has set off this social unrest, people now realise that it is not just about the bill. The problems go well beyond a bill, so it is important for the Government to listen and engage the community to have a better understanding of those problems. Of course, I understand some of these problems are about housing, about land shortage, about less diversity, less inclusiveness in our economy and so on, but since we are going into a new style of governance that is more open and more people–oriented, I think this sort of dialogue will be very helpful. That is the purpose of creating that dialogue and I can assure you that this is not a one-off gimmick type of function. It is intended to be organised on a very sustainable, and perhaps long-term basis. The volume of having this sort of dialogue sessions is also very important to us.
The second question is about the weekend protest and confrontations and maybe even fighting between groups of people with different political backgrounds or different stances on individual subjects. I have to make it absolutely clear that the Government condemns all forms of violence. Our condemnation is not politically driven. In the same way, police’s arrest and subsequent prosecution by the Department of Justice in an impartial manner are not politically driven. We act in accordance, in strict accordance, with the law based on the facts, so nobody should speculate or allege either my Government or the Police for being selective in the work that we are doing. This is something which is not acceptable in a place like Hong Kong, where we are so proud of the rule of law.
The third question is about the demands. We have already responded to the most pertinent demand from the people. If the social unrest was created by the bill, actually within days, I suspended the bill and stopped all the work. But having listened to the people and to create the necessary conditions for this dialogue, I formally withdraw the bill. Of course the technical legal procedure will have to wait for the commencement of the Legislative Council, but I made it very clear on September 4 as one of the four actions to start a dialogue that we will withdraw the bill, and similarly we have pledged full support to the Independent Police Complaints Council to undertake this very full fact-finding or I’ll now call thematic study to understand the actual situation that has happened over the last three months. As far as the Government’s point of view, I have acknowledged, almost three months ago, of what has gone wrong in promoting this bill or undertaking this legislative exercise. We have fully reflected on the inadequacies of the Government on various fronts and I’m happy to repeat them when an opportunity arises for us to explain what has happened.
Reporter: The people are asking … the administration. It’s not only about your, you being passionate and having, being responsible and leading Hong Kong out of the crisis. People are asking why are you still, why is nobody in the Government, within the Government being punished for what has happened? Hong Kong is suffering. Businesses are suffering. Moody’s and Fitch have downgraded their outlook on Hong Kong.
Chief Executive: I uphold this principle of accountability, but at the moment it is all for us to see that Hong Kong is undergoing a very difficult situation, and sanctions or punishment are not going to help lift Hong Kong out of this very difficult situation. We need to work as a team not only within the Government but also with community and society at large to overcome the current difficulties. And that’s why we all take up the challenge to continue to serve the people of Hong Kong and work even harder in engaging and listening to the people in order to achieve that particular objective.
Reporter: Two questions, actually. First question is Moody’s, the credit rating agency, has downgraded its outlook for Hong Kong from “stable” to “negative”. What’s your comment? And the second question is, according to a number of reports, the Hong Kong Government has sought to hire PR firms to revamp its public image. Is this true? And is it true that the PR firms have rejected these bids and if so, what’s the Hong Kong Government’s plan with regard to restoring its image? Thank you.
Chief Executive: First of all, the Financial Secretary has already issued a very detailed statement about Moody’s decision yesterday. To change the outlook of Hong Kong’s rating from “stable” to ”negative” is something that we find disappointing, and we do not concur, especially if the justification for that sort of change in outlook was premised on whether we are still upholding “One Country, Two Systems”, whether Hong Kong’s institutions are as strong and robust as previously, whether more integration with the Mainland economy will blur the “Two Systems”. Premising on those bases, we do not agree with the “negative” rating. But, as I have commented on a previous rating decision, the continued instability and social unrest in Hong Kong, as we have seen some of these violent acts from time to time, will inevitably undermine and adversely affect international perception about Hong Kong’s business environment.This is something that we have to be very alert to and that’s why I said while creating this dialogue platform, the first priority is still to stop this violence and to restore law and order in Hong Kong as soon as possible.
About your second point, the Government from time to time will have to find some outside help in the form of consultancies to advise us or to actually help us to execute some of our local as well as overseas promotion work, and I could confirm that at one point in time, we did have that idea of approaching some international PR firms to provide some advice. This is something that has happened. The advice we have been given is the time is not right because we are still in this sort of social unrest, disturbance and violent acts and vandalism on such a regular basis. It would perhaps be not the most cost-effective way to use the government resources to launch any campaign to rebuild Hong Kong’s reputation. But sooner or later we will have to do it because I have every confidence in Hong Kong’s fundamentals. Similarly, in responding to Moody’s decision, our statement stressed that Hong Kong’s fundamentals remain very strong, whether it is “One Country, Two Systems”, the rule of law, our connectivity, our many opportunities arising from national initiatives and so on. The time will come for us to launch a major campaign to restore Hong Kong’s reputation given some of the damage done to it as a result of what has happened in the last few months.
