Source : GovHK Press Release (2019.09.05)
以下是行政長官林鄭月娥今日（九月五日）上午會見傳媒的開場發言和答問內容：
行政長官：各位傳媒朋友、各位香港市民，昨天我發表了錄像講話，詳細和完整回應了有關修例工作中社會的「五大訴求」，更重要的是提出了四項行動，希望能夠讓我們從今日香港面對的困局走出一步。
我們的四項行動：第一，特區政府會正式撤回條例草案，完全釋除市民的疑慮，做法將會由保安局局長在立法會復會後宣布撤回條例草案。我留意到有些疑慮指保安局局長這舉措會否有其他目的，我在此非常清楚、明確表示，這議事程序只有一個目的，就是撤回這條條例草案，而且它只涉及由保安局局長作宣布，並不需要議員發言或辯論，亦不需要在立法會投票通過。
第二，我們會全力支持監警會的工作。我向大家承諾，政府會認真跟進監警會日後提交的報告建議。我留意到就我提及監警會委聘國際專家，昨天監警會亦已發出新聞公布，詳細介紹了這五位國際專家小組成員，他們分別來自英國、加拿大、澳洲和新西蘭，都是非常富有經驗的專家，肯定可以為監警會的審視工作注入客觀性和公正性。
第三，由本月開始，我和我所有司局長──當然包括我身邊的政務司司長和民政事務局局長──會走入社區與市民對話，讓社會各階層、不同背景、不同立場的朋友都可以透過這個對話平台，把他們種種不滿直接說出來，讓我們可以一起探討解決方法。
第四，經過了兩、三個月因為修例而引起的衝突，其實社會大眾都意識到我們眼前的矛盾是反映了長期積壓的政治、經濟和社會問題；我們亦具體聽到這些深層次問題是涉及房屋和土地供應、貧富懸殊、社會公義、青年人的機遇，以及公眾參與政府決策等。我希望我們建立的對話平台可以讓大家更深入、更直接地與我們一起探討這些問題；我亦會邀請社會領袖、專家和學者就這些深層次問題進行獨立研究和檢討，向政府提出建議。
各位市民、各位傳媒朋友，我和我的團隊很希望我昨天提出的四項行動可以為打破困局行出第一步，為香港社會帶來積極的改變。
Chief Executive: In my statement last evening, I provided a detailed and comprehensive response to each of the “five demands” raised in society over this legislative amendment exercise. More importantly, I outlined four actions, which the Government will take in order to help Hong Kong to move forward.
Action no. 1 is for us to formally withdraw the bill in order to fully allay public concerns. Since my announcement, I noticed that there are still some worries about this particular procedure. I want to reiterate here that the sole purpose of the LegCo procedure is to withdraw the bill. This involves the Secretary for Security, as the responsible Government official, to announce in the Legislative Council that the bill will be withdrawn. There will be no debate and no voting.
The second action is we will fully support the work of the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC). I noticed that IPCC has announced yesterday details of the members of a panel of international experts, which will help in the assessment and recommendations in the fact-finding study. These international experts are really renowned experts in their respective fields and they come from the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I pledge that the Government will seriously follow up recommendations made in the IPCC’s report.
Third – from this month onward, I and my Principal Officials, including the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Secretary for Home Affairs, will reach out to the community to start a direct dialogue. People from all walks of life, with different stances and backgrounds, are invited to share their views and air their grievances. We must find ways to address the discontent in society and look for solutions.
The fourth action really requires us to have a better understanding of our society. This is because after more than two months of social unrest, it is obvious to many of us that the discontentment in society extends far beyond the bill. It covers political, economic and social issues, including the oft-mentioned housing and land supply, income distribution, social justice and mobility, and opportunities for our young people, as well as how the public could be fully engaged in the Government’s decision-making. We can discuss all these deep-seated, fundamental issues in our dialogue platform to be established. And I will, in addition, invite community leaders, professionals and academics to independently examine and review society’s deep-seated problems and to advise the Government on finding solutions. My team and I, we hope very much that these four actions can help our society to move forward. Let’s look for solutions.
記者：林太，你好，想問其實香港人由三月開始已經叫你撤回修例，你六月十五日才宣布暫緩；市民六月中叫你答應「五大訴求」，你便等香港人失去八條人命、三隻眼、過千人被捕之後，你昨天才宣布撤回，為甚麼你永遠都是後知後覺，要等夠三個月才會改變立場一次？你現在這個做法是否為緊急立法鋪路？另外，你說會支持監警會的工作，但其實連監警會主席梁定邦已經說過，監警會無權力傳召證人和搜集證據，亦覺得政府不應該排除成立獨立調查委員會，為甚麼你昨天還是要否決？最後，你之前閉門見商界的時候，你自己都說自己對香港犯了不可原諒的浩劫，即是引起了這個不可原諒的浩劫；民調亦顯示你已經成為香港歷來民望最低的特首，為甚麼你至今仍然覺得自己有能力管治香港，是否違反了當年你對香港人說，主流意見認為你不能夠擔任行政長官你會辭職這個承諾？謝謝。
行政長官：多謝，三個問題。昨天我公布的四個行動，只有一個目的，就是希望為今日香港從這個困局走出一步。在八月十八日，如果大家記得，我曾經說過，我們抓緊一個相對平靜，即是說不是在周末時有很多暴力、很多衝突、很多互相襲擊情況下，我們抓緊了那個機會公布構建一個對話平台。自從公布之後，這兩個星期，我們亦見過很多人，這些人本身來自不同背景、不同政治立場；我們聽得非常清楚，要展開對話都要有基礎，所以昨天所公布的四項行動是為對話提供一個基礎。這是唯一目的，其他揣測為甚麼在這時候做某一個行動都是不正確。
第二方面，監警會是一個法定和獨立的機構，亦是專責去處理有關警方的問題，無論對於個別警員投訴或是警務處在處理一些事件的方法，所以政府立場由始至終都認為我們應該用好這個既定的法定和獨立機制，而不是另設一個調查委員會來調查警隊在今次作出的行動。大家留意到，監警會自從七月初決定做審視工作，他們都盡了很多努力，讓這工作現在擺在大家面前，是一個非常客觀、認真、持平的工作，包括為這審視工作成立了一個專責組──這個專責組亦要向督導委員會交代──委聘了我剛才說的五位國際專家，亦不斷呼籲社會大眾向監警會提供他們見到的事情或一些資料。所有這些工作肯定讓監警會今次的審視工作如我剛才所說是認真、客觀和公平。而我亦在很早階段已承諾，當監警會向政府──事實上是我本人──提交這報告的時候，報告會全面公開；昨天的講話亦承諾，監警會在這個報告裏提出的建議，特區政府一定會認真跟進。
至於我本人的立場，我已於這幾個月說了很多次。我和我的團隊仍然有這份熱誠和承擔，在香港現正處於一個非常困難的時期，繼續做我們可以做的事，幫香港盡早能夠止暴制亂，回復社會秩序，讓我們的經濟和民生可以繼續向前。
記者：特首，你好。你剛才提到將邀請社會各界人士就社會深層次各種問題進行獨立的研究與探討，能不能請你更加詳細跟我們介紹一下，將邀請哪些人士就哪些社會問題進行怎樣的探討？謝謝。
行政長官：其實我們在過去一段日子也參考了在其他地方它出現了一些大型社會行動，尤其是牽涉一些比較暴力的事件，往往都是反映它背後有很多可能過去一段時間沒有積極解決的問題。你剛才問是甚麼問題，當然這個「是甚麼問題」要經過跟社會大眾討論、對話，我們才掌握得更好，但是我也舉了一些例子，包括我們現在面對的房屋問題、土地供應不足的問題、香港的青年機會的問題、向上流動以及社會公義或者是一般的公眾能否參與政府決策問題。我相信經過這個對話平台，我們非常努力去聽大眾的意見，可能問題的清單更長，還有其他問題。有關是甚麼人士參與這個獨立的研究，現在我覺得最好還是先把對話平台建立起來，我們到社區裏多聽意見。第三，這個做法我們也參考早前有一些朋友提出、我本人也研究過，就是在英國二○一一年發生了很大的暴亂後都委任了一個四人小組，研究各方面的深層次問題。目前我覺得我們不應該再由政府把所有的事情都訂下來，我們必須要展示非常願意、很積極地跟社會各界去共同研究香港的問題。
記者：想問就着昨日提出的四項行動，其實是你向北京爭取回來，還是北京的指示？以及想問剛才說監警會是有效的制度，為甚麼今次加入的兩個人都是沒有泛民背景的人士？其實這兩個人是否政府的唯一人選？其實有沒有人曾經拒絕過邀請？以及最後想問，很多人都批評撤得太遲，會否覺得今次政府是做了一些無謂的堅持才會令到現在示威越演越烈，會否為此向公眾致歉？謝謝。
行政長官：我再重複一次，我昨日公布的四個行動，只有一個目的，都是希望為香港尋找出路，希望能夠打破今日的困局，但這四個行動都需要廣大市民合作。至於第一個行動──正式撤回這條條例草案，它的重要性是為我們展開日後行動和展開對話提供一個基礎。正如我們早前說過，我今日亦不斷重複，自我宣布暫緩或宣布所有有關修例工作已經完全停止，到撤回這條條例草案，大致上的內容都是一樣的，我們是完全沒有計劃再在本屆立法會重新做這項工作；但既然認為它是一個有用的基礎，我昨天公布了我們將會全面撤回這條條草案，為對話提供基礎。
就中央政府的參與，我剛才已經說過，在「一國兩制」之下，我是要尊重「一國兩制」，包括我們自己的制度，中央亦非常堅定地支持、維護「一國兩制」在香港的實施。在整個修例工作中，大家可能都聽我說過，在最初我們為了要堵塞漏洞或者處理一宗個案，我們提出這個修訂，中央政府是表示理解、尊重和支持。到六月中，我們看到社會真的有很大爭議，我們亦在解說方面未能夠做得最好，便宣布要暫緩，當時中央政府的立場亦是理解、尊重和支持。今日為了讓香港走出這個困局，希望能夠進入下一階段以便有一個對話、有一個探討社會問題的基礎，我昨天宣布撤回這條條例草案，中央政府的立場仍然是理解、尊重和支持。
關於監警會，監警會是一個獨立法定的機構，監警會每一位成員被委任後都要履行法定功能，就是很客觀、很獨立、很持平地處理有關警方的事項，包括處理有關個別警務人員的投訴，以及在今次運用監警會的法定職權去做一個全面審視的工作，所以我們不應該去懷疑監警會每一位成員的客觀性和中立性。大家都記得我早前說過，由於今次這件事件真的引發了大量工作給監警會，無論在處理個別投訴或在這個非常客觀、全面、認真的審視工作，我與監警會主席商量過，在這個時候如果能夠增加一些成員是有幫助的，所以在昨天就公布了委任兩位新成員。
在這個時候，社會已經非常對立，亦往往有所謂立場先行的情況，委任的成員應該是更中立、沒有政治背景或立場是比較適合，但這並不等於往後在政府的各個法定機構或諮詢組織中，政府不會用一個更包容的取態來委任成員。事實上，如果大家有留意的話，在我擔任行政長官的過去兩年，我都是希望我們的委員會能夠更多元化，無論在年齡組別的多元化──我們有青年自薦計劃──或是在少數族裔朋友方面的多元化，我們都注入了很多這類新成員，這仍然是我們未來幾年如何讓更多不同背景、不同立場的公眾人士可以參與政府決策的指引。
記者：林太，兩個問題。第一，其實你期望落區的時候，市民會向你說甚麼？因為民調現在主流最大的要求就是成立獨立調查委員會，會否落區只是另外的一個show，去一些建制派比較支持者多的地方所謂去聽取民意，然後甚至乎如學者所說，是為十月《施政報告》做一個「白手套」──即是為你的《施政報告》背書？第二個問題，你都提到止暴制亂，有人質疑你是否以退為進，即是拋出一個這樣的讓步，如果再有任何暴力示威，你就會推出緊急法，你可否澄清一下？謝謝。
行政長官：第一，在四個行動裏，其中一個就是我和我的司局長會落區直接聽取民意，並不存在只是去某一部分的市民那裏聽取民意。我昨天的講話清楚講明我們去聽意見，市民是來自不同階層、不同政治背景、不同立場，我們是非常願意去聽他們的意見，是直接去聽意見。事實上，自從我們提出要有一個對話平台，我們都收到有些團體、組別很主動表達想有一個對話，我們每一個都會認真考慮和研究，並不存在偏聽。這時候特區政府要爭取市民的信任和支持，一定不可以偏聽，所以我們一定和不同階層的人士作溝通和對話，亦不存在特別為了某一項工作，例如《施政報告》做動員工作。不過，當然我相信在和市民對話的過程中，或多或少都一定會涉及一些令他們今日有些不滿的政策；如果市民在對話期間與我們談政策問題，我們當然要認真考慮給一個政策的回應。政策的回應可以在《施政報告》做，可以在《施政報告》以外做，例如大家留意到因為知道經濟下行已經出現了，財政司司長先後兩次公布了兩批「保就業、撐企業」的措施。這些政策的回應，只要有需要，我們一定會積極考慮及盡快作出回應。
至於有人揣測昨日的四個行動的目的，我在此再重申一次，四個行動只有一個目的，或者只是為了一件事來做──就是希望能夠走出困局，令我們的香港社會回復秩序，令香港變回一個我們很熟悉的香港，不是像過去兩、三個月出現了很多情況令市民非常焦慮。當然要走出困局，現時放在眼前最重要的是停止暴力，嚴正執法以恢復平靜；但是如果沒有這個環境，我們是否完全不做事？我們都會做，但我希望市民明白，市民亦一定支持，如果每日仍有這些暴力進行，事實上亦會廣泛地影響香港這個城市的正常運作，以及市民的正常生活。
記者：林太，其實想問關於獨立調查委員會，其實有建制派議員都公開講到現在成立委員會是解決困局的唯一方法，其實可否說一下現在北京和特區政府就獨立委員會是否已「落閘」，是絕對不會考慮，可否清楚講？因為昨日你的發言只是說不應該另設一個委員會，這方面是怎樣呢？還有，就你那四項行動裏說到會落區及會找專家研究一些深層次問題，會否其實根本沒有對準現在問題的焦點？民意很清楚就是那「五大訴求」，是不是顯示餘下的四大訴求，你們根本沒有辦法再處理，只會聽四個訴求以外的意見呢？最後就是剛才都沒有回答的，為甚麼會委任林定國和余黎青萍加入監警會？有否找過民主派人士加入，是他們拒絕還是根本沒有邀請過？謝謝。
行政長官：最後這條題目三個問題。第一，昨天就「五大訴求」的回應是相當全面和清楚。針對獨立調查委員會，政府的立場是因為所有涉及警方執法的行動已經有既定的法定和獨立機制；我時常都強調，它是法定和獨立的機制，而且在今次它亦在它的職權範圍內以一個最客觀、最持平和最廣泛吸納意見的方法來做，包括呼籲公眾可以提供資料、包括委聘五位海外專家，這種嚴謹性、認真性、客觀性是不容置疑的，所以政府的立場就是這個工作必須交由獨立法定的監警會進行，我們不認同另外找一個獨立調查委員會調查警方的工作。
第二就是你說「五大訴求」中是否其他不可以做，亦在昨日的答覆中已經詳細回應了。大家要知道，我們已經完全、全面、具體回應了第一個訴求──就是撤回這條例草案。就其他訴求，我希望大家都留意到我昨日的回應，有些是違反了法治精神，特區政府不能夠做一些違反法治精神、不符合《基本法》的決定的；因為要我們在今日將所有被捕人士釋放，不追究、不檢控一些犯了刑事罪行，甚至是嚴重刑事罪行的人士，這是偏離了香港的法治精神，是不能接受，這點是很清晰的。至於在落區方面去聽社會的問題，正如我剛才轉述，外國很多經驗都是，每次發生這些大型的騷亂，它一定有一些遠因、近因；我亦聽到很多意見，指既然我們於六月中已經停止了修例工作，為甚麼由六月中到現在仍然有這麼多示威、衝突呢？它一定反映有很多深層次問題和社會各界的不滿，所以對症下藥，特區政府都要處理這些問題，否則即使今次能夠止暴制亂，下一次又激發了這些問題浮現時，香港又會承受一次很大的衝擊，所以我覺得這工作是非常值得去做，我們亦希望透過對話平台和社會各界一起去做。
至於每次委任入這些法定機構或諮詢架構的過程，我們不方便向大家公開，但昨天公布委任的這兩位成員都有豐富經驗，相信亦會有助監警會工作。多謝大家。
Reporter: Thank you, the Chief Executive. After three months of protests, what has made you change your mind to withdraw the extradition bill? And was this your own initiative or was it from the Central Government? Thank you.
Chief Executive: It is not exactly correct to describe this as a change of mind. You will remember on June 15 and that is only within a few days, I announced the suspension of the bill, and I also said that the legislative work on this bill will come to an end. And then in early July, in light of the worries about what is going to happen to this bill, I said “the bill is dead”. So, as far as the substance is concerned, there is simply no plan to take forward the bill in light of the controversy. But since my announcement of a dialogue with society last month, about two weeks ago, we have been meeting a lot of people from different backgrounds with different political positions, and they gave me this piece of advice, which I now feel that was a very pertinent piece of advice, is that if the Government wanted to start a dialogue, the Government should also take the initiative to provide a basis for the dialogue, and the withdrawal of the bill to fully allay public concerns is one of those important bases for a dialogue. I’m sharing with you the developments over the last two months on how I have come to that decision. The decision is one of the HKSAR Government in the same way that the bill was introduced. The bill was initiated, introduced and taken forward by the HKSAR Government. I’m sure you want to ask about the position of the Central People’s Government, so may I just also supplement that throughout the whole process, the Central People’s Government took the position that they understood why we have to do it, they respected my view and they supported me all the way. Whether it is in the earlier stages of processing the bill and then suspension of bill and then withdrawing the bill yesterday, this is the same position.
Reporter: Mrs Lam, you still haven't answered the question of why you are making this decision at this juncture because lawmakers from across the political spectrum have said it's too little and too late. So why did you only make this decision now? What went wrong with the government decision making? Because, in your previous answer, those comments that were raised to you in the dialogue were raised in March and April, but you insisted on using the word "suspend" and "the bill is dead", and insisted on not using the word "withdraw", so that was indeed a turning point in your decision making. So can you further elaborate on that?
And on Beijing's role, you haven't answered the question as well because on Tuesday, you showed no sign of backing down on any demands when my media friend asked you the question about “five demands”. But on Tuesday afternoon, HKMAO spokesman said we must separate the demands of the peaceful protesters with the violent radicals, and then yesterday you made this U-turn. So does it show that Beijing was pulling the strings behind the Hong Kong Government? Or are you causing more trouble for Beijing when there is all this geopolitics going on?
And thirdly, the question on the Police. A lot of people have said that it could have been a good idea for you to make the withdrawal in June or July but now this movement is really about the police’s role in Hong Kong, and people have lost confidence in the Police. So what would you do to really mend this problem? And even with the appointment of two new members, the IPCC is still a body dominated by pro-establishment voices. Would you do anything to change the composition of members? Thank you.
Chief Executive: There are several questions. To answer your question about whether my announcement on actions yesterday was too little, too late, I suggest, and I hope very much, that this will be looked at in context. I have announced the package of four actions. Each of those actions requires a process of deliberation, and taken together I hope that they would provide a basis for a dialogue and help Hong Kong to break the current impasse. It is not looking in isolation at one of the measures, but we have to look at the four actions together.
Secondly, about the timing of the decision made in the four actions, particularly the formal withdrawal of the bill, I have said that for a while, we were bothered by a lot of disruptions and disturbances and violent acts in society, but two weeks ago, there was a relatively peaceful moment and seizing that particular moment, the Government announced that we should move on to having a dialogue with the people with a view to finding a way forward. And since then, we have been meeting with different groups of people, including people from different political backgrounds or having different views on this particular subject, and we have been given the advice, which I accepted, that if we were to have a dialogue, the Government should be the first one to come out to provide a basis for that dialogue, and this formal withdrawal of the bill, although it doesn't make a difference in substance because there has been no plan whatsoever since my earlier announcement to resume the bill, so despite being no different in substance, this is going to be a useful measure for creating that basis for a dialogue. Yesterday was the best timing to do it and there should be no further speculation about why we are doing it.
The third point is that it has always been our intention and our plan to stop violence. While Hong Kong respects the freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and marches, violence is not to be condoned. If you ask anybody in society, including ourselves, of course we would like the peaceful demonstrators not to go together with the protesters or not to provide a legitimate basis for the really violent protesters who have been attacking our public infrastructure, blocking the roads, storming into buildings and disrupting the normal operations of the airport and the rail. This, I suppose, is a consensus of many people.
Finally on IPCC, it is not fair to describe IPCC as being dominated by certain people with certain political backgrounds. It is a credible and independent statutory body and everyone being appointed by me onto IPCC is taking very seriously their independent and statutory function. The appointment of two new members is really to help with IPCC in a period which they are shouldering almost unprecedented workload arising from the last two, three months, both in terms of dealing with individual complaints - and there are now quite a large number of such complaints - and also to conduct this very wide-ranging and detailed fact-finding study.
Reporter: …(about role of the Central People’s Government)
Chief Executive: I have answered that in English, actually, to a preceding question. The Central People's Government throughout this exercise of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance amendments as always respects “One Country, Two Systems” in the same way as the Chief Executive with constitutional responsibilities under the Basic Law, I have to operate under “One Country, Two Systems”. So specifically the Central People's Government's position on this bill at various stages is they understand why the Government, the HKSAR Government, wanted to do it. They respect my decision and they support it at every stage. Whether it is in the very early process of taking forward the bill or two, three months ago in suspending the bill or yesterday in formally withdrawing the bill - that is the same position of the Central People's Government.
