2017年7月31日 星期一

一場政治性起訴



資深大律師麥高義(McCoy, Gerard, S.C.) 2011香港刑事檢控特稿曾撰文,『公職上行為失當 誰是公職人員?』
在曾蔭權被起訴後,資深大律師Andrew Raffell,也曾在201510月在南華早報撰文探討其義,,『Hong Kong barrister asks: Just what is misconduct in public office?

「公職人員行為不檢」是一條奇怪的法律,源於英國13世紀。在英國,這項罪行至少可追溯至1704年。由於年代久遠,其立法原意和發展已湮滅,但這一普通法是重要的,因為沒有任何成文法可以處理類似問題。其針對的是在重要官職或有權勢的人。(註一)

但由於它是普通法,其牽涉甚廣,有泛民律師擔心其殺傷力太大,令到人人自危。
在香港特別行政區 黃連基 [2011] 2 HKC 409 (CFI)一案中。被告受僱於漁農自然護理署,任職司機。他被裁定酒後駕駛罪名成立,判處罰款和取消駕駛各類車輛的資格六個月。他一直沒有把有關定罪向部門報告,並如常執行職務。被發現後,他被控以六項停牌期間駕駛及一項公職上行為失當的罪行。他被裁定全部罪名成立,並被判處合共監禁15個月。

上訴時,高等法院法官推翻公職上行為失當的判罪。法官在結案時指上訴人並非公職人員,因為他受僱的職位低微;作為一名司機,他並無能力影響公眾利益。法官解釋,上訴人並沒有「行使任何權力,向其他人作出指示,或利用其職位,以影響部門履行工作的方式……」

184年前Henly Lyme Corporation (1828) 5 Bing 91一案中,Wynford勳爵在該案的判詞中寫下:

「那麽,何謂公職? 本席認為,凡被委派履行公務並收取報酬者,不論報酬形式為何,也不論報酬是由官方或其他來源支付,均屬公職人員……」(註二)


在本案開始,資深大律師李柱銘以英國綠皮書的議會特權法和議員在國會內發言不應成為寒蟬效應作抗辯,指法院無權審理,被駁回(2.1)。法院沿用終審法院審理訂立「公職人員行為不檢」必須證實有下述5項元素進行審理:
(1) 犯案者為公職人員;
(2) 在擔任公職期間或在與擔任公職有關的情況干犯罪行;
(3) 藉作為或不作為而故意作出失當行為,例如故意疏忽職守或沒有履行職責;
(4) 沒有合理辯解或理由;及
(5) 考慮到有關公職和任職者的責任、他們所尋求達致的公共目標的重要性及偏離責任的性質和程度,有關的失當行為屬於嚴重而非微不足道。(註三)

而且,舉證的責任在控方。被告不用為脫罪而證明什麼(註四)。但是吳文遠作了證,法官表示,“為了方便”,考慮了他的證供(註五)

吳文遠的供辭表示:

104.我在考慮到所有的證據,並考慮到舉證責任,接納吳文遠的證據顯示:唐女士曾經幫助被告在社民連的新東地區工作。
首先,唐女士協助被告在立法會財務申報的事實,並不表示她不會在社民連方面幫助他。
其次,唐女士是社民連的積極成員,並沒有與其他證據相抵觸。
第三,被告人信任唐女士,不僅在與立法會辦事處有關的事宜;在一定程度上也由下列證據支持,他把第一筆捐款全數轉入她的個人銀行賬戶。』

李柱銘在中途提出無須答辯(no case to answer),其理由是根據立法會議事規則,就算議員在開始辯論時沒有申報利益,他也可以在辯論的過程中申報,而控方無法提供那段時期的所有立法會紀錄,所以應立即放人(6)。但法官指李柱銘的是“錯誤前題”( based on a false premise)(7) 法官表示,由於指控的嚴重性,被告必須答辯(8)

最後,法庭注意到控罪中没有包含貪污的指控,法庭未能在毫無合理疑點的情況下信納控方已證明其案,基於疑點利益歸於被告人。梁國雄獲判無罪。

後記

律政司應明白香港法院對“公職人員行為不檢”的舉證要求很高。律政司無法回應所有疑點,證明了它進行了一場政治起訴。
-------全文完-------







附錄


註一

Superficially, misconduct in public office is a strange offence. It was created by the higher judges in England, apparently in the 13th century. The full reasons for its creation and development are lost in the mists of time. But one issue stands out clearly. There was a need, if one believed in the rule of law, to create an offence to hold those in positions of power and/or carrying out important public duties to account for serious wrongdoing and/or misuse of their positions. There was no statutory offence which would cover such situations. In Hong Kong it seems this remains the case.

註二

城大事件檢控可否引用「公職人員行為不檢」?

2.1


49.  Mr Lee places reliance on a paper presented by the UK Government to Parliament on “Parliamentary Privilege” in April 2012 (“the Green Paper”) where it says:

If the approach of disapplying the protection of privilege were to be followed, the principal consequence of this proposal that would need to be mitigated is the creation of a ‘chilling effect’ to free speech by the possibility of criminal liability from that speech. A ‘chilling effect’ would take place if any participant in proceedings were prevented from making whatever contribution to proceedings the participant felt was appropriate, by a concern that their words would end up being examined in court. In the view of Sir William McKay, a former Clerk of the House of Commons, when talking about the possible disapplication of the protection of privilege when there were allegations of bribery, any chilling effect would be ‘too high a price to pay for the remedying of a very, very serious but very rare mischief’.”
Conclusion on the First Issue

55.  For the reasons given above, I reject the defence argument on the First Issue.  I rule that the present case is not covered by parliamentary privilege and does not contravene any of the protection provided by the Hong Kong provisions.  I rule that this court has jurisdiction to try this case.


註三


In this regard, I note that the charge of misconduct in public office would not be made out unless the misconduct in question was “wilful”, “without reasonable excuse or justification” and “serious”: see Sin Kin Wah v HKSAR.[48]  Applying to the present case, the common law offence would bite only those cases of non-disclosure of interest by members which are so serious as to warrant criminal sanction.  The seriousness of an alleged misconduct would very often depend on its legal and factual context: see the recent comments of the Court of Final Appeal in Chan Tak Ming v HKSAR.[49]


72.  The elements of the common law office of misconduct in public office are stated by Sir Anthony Mason NPJ in Sin Kam Wah & Another v HKSAR,[65] namely the offence is committed when:-

(1) a public official;
(2) in the course of or in relation to his public office;
(3) willfully misconducts himself, by act or omission, for example by willfully neglecting or failing to perform his duty;
(4) without reasonable excuse or justification; and
(5) where such misconduct is serious, not trivial.

The above elements are re-affirmed in the recent case of HKSAR v Hui Rafael Junior, supra.

註四

Misconduct in public office

70.  I bear in mind that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.  The defendant is not required to prove anything.  In the present case, the defendant chose to give evidence.  This is his right and no adverse inference would be drawn from this against him: Lee Fuk Hing v HKSAR.[63]

註五

102.  I am fully alive that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.  However, purely for the sake of convenience I would first consider the evidence of Mr Ng.

104.  Having considered all the evidence and bearing in mind the burden of proof, I find that there is some credence in Mr Ng’s evidence that Ms Tong had helped the defendant in respect of the work of LSD in NTE.  Firstly, the fact that the defendant had claimed reimbursement from LegCo in respect of Ms Tong does not mean that she had not also helped him, with or without pay, in respect of LSD. Secondly, Mr Ng’s evidence that Ms Tong was an active member of LSD has not been contradicted by any other evidence.  Thirdly, that the defendant would trust Ms Tong not only regarding matters relating to his office in LegCo is to a certain extent supported by the agreed bank evidence that he had transferred the whole of the proceeds of the 1st Payment from his bank account to her bank account.

註六

NO CASE SUBMISSIONS

The submissions

82.  Mr Lee made a half-way submission after the prosecution had closed its case.  The sole ground of the submission was that even assuming that the prosecution would be able to show that the defendant had not registered the 1st Payment pursuant to Rule 83 of ROP, he could have done it orally at any of the LegCo meetings under Rule 83A of ROP during the charge period and there is no evidence that he had failed to just do that, the prosecution having failed to adduce records of all of the LegCo meetings during that period.

83.  In reply, Ms Lai for the prosecution submitted that Rule 83 and Rule 83A imposed different and separate duties.  Furthermore, the defendant should have known by reading the paper for the motion debate on 22 January 2014 that the matter about Next Media was to be raised.  That should have alerted him to register his interest pursuant to Rule 83 and also to make an oral declaration at the meeting pursuant to Rule 83A.  However, the defendant failed to do either of those.

The ruling

84.  Having heard counsel submissions, I ruled that the defendant has a case to answer.  I said that reasons would be given if and when necessary.  This, I now do.


83.   個人利益的登記

(1)    除按第(2)款的規定就個人利益作登記的目的外,每名議員不得遲於每屆任期行首次會議當天,以立法會主席批准的格式,向立法會秘書提供其須予登記的個人利益詳情。
(1999年第107號法律公告)

(2)    每名新任立法會議員,須在其為填補立法會議員空缺而成為立法會議員的日期起計14天內,以立法會主席批准的格式,向立法會秘書提供其須予登記的個人利益詳情。

(3)    每名議員須予登記的個人利益如有變更,該議員須在變更後14天內,以立法會主席批准的格式,向立法會秘書提供變更詳情。

(4)    立法會秘書須安排將該等詳情登錄於議員個人利益登記冊內,而該登記冊可供任何人士在辦公時間內查閱。

(5)    在本條中,"須予登記的個人利益" -

(a)    公共或私營公司的受薪董事職位,以及如有關公司有一間《公司條例》(第622章)第13條所指的控權公司,亦包括該控權公司的名稱;
(2006年第73號法律公告;2014年第1號法律公告)

(b)    接受薪酬的僱傭關係、職位、行業、專業或職業;

(c)    客戶的姓名或名稱,如以上所提述的個人利益包括議員向客戶提供的個人服務,而該等個人服務是由於其立法會議員身份所引致或以任何方式與該身份有關者;

(d)    (i)     議員在其當選為立法會議員的選中,以候選人身份或由任何人代表其收取的所有捐贈,而該等捐贈目的為支付該議員在該選中的選開支;或 (1999年第107號法律公告)

(ii)    作為立法會議員時,來自任何人士或組織的財政贊助,而提供詳情時須說明該項贊助是否包括以直接或間接方式付予該議員或其配偶的款項,或給予該議員或其配偶的實惠或實利;
(1999年第107號法律公告)

(e)    議員或其配偶由於與其立法會議員身份有關或由該身份引致的海外訪問,而該次訪問的費用並非全數由該議員或公費支付;

(f)    議員或其配偶因其議員身份從:

(i)     香港以外的政府或組織;或

(ii)    非香港永久性居民的人士

所收受或代表上述政府、組織或人士所收受的款項、實惠或實利;

(g)    土地及物業;

(h)    公司或其他團體的名稱,如據議員所知,其本人,或連同其配偶或未成年子女,或代表其配偶或未成年子女持有該公司或團體的股份的實益權益,而該等股份的數目超過該公司或團體已發行股份總數的百分之一者。
(2014年第1號法律公告)

83A. 個人金錢利益的披露

在立法會或任何委員會或小組委員會會議上,議員不得就其有直接或間接金錢利益的事宜動議任何議案或修正案,或就該事宜發言,除非該議員披露有關利益的性質。

註七

91.  With respect, the sole ground for Mr Lee’s halfway submission is based on a false premise.  It can readily be seen that Rule 83 and Rule 83A are intended to serve very different purposes so that the fulfillment of one does not mean the fulfillment of the other: -

(a)  Rule 83 provides for the general duty of a Member to register all of his “registrable interests” for the purpose of public inspection.  Moreover, there is a formal requirement that the registration of “registrable interests” has to be done by use of a form approved by the Chairman. The latter point was highlighted by PW1 in his evidence when he said that if a Member used a form other than the one approved by the Chairman, the Secretariat would not accept it for registration.  PW1 also said that if a Member notified orally his “registrable interests” to the Secretariat, that oral notification would also be invalid; and

(b)  Rule 83A provides for a Member’s duty to declare his interest at a meeting before moving a motion or speaking in case of a situation which may involve a conflict of interest.[95]


註八


  Lastly, as regards “seriousness” of the alleged breach/misconduct, taking into account the constitutional status and responsibilities of the office of a LegCo Member, the importance of the public trust reposed in legislators and the right of the public to know whether the speech or deeds of their representatives in LegCo are motivated by other interests and the circumstances of the alleged misconduct in the present case, it would be open to a reasonable jury to find that the misconduct, if established, was a serious one.  For the above reasons, I rule that the defendant has a case to answer.  Needless to say, whether the defendant is guilty of the offence charged is a matter to be decided in due course after taking into account all the evidence.

註九

107.  I consider that the defendant’s conduct is not without suspicion.  This is because of the replacement of the original cashier order (in LSD’s favour) with the subsequent cashier order (in the defendant’s favour).  Even according to the defence, the defendant had a role to play in causing that replacement.  However, having taking all the evidence into account, I cannot be sure that the latter cashier order was for the defendant personally as a LegCo Member rather than a payment which he had received on LSD’s behalf.  As such, the benefit of doubt goes to the defendant.  That means that the prosecution has failed to prove the main plank of its case, namely that the defendant had committed a misconduct by breaching his duty of disclosure under Rule 83 of ROP.  As a result, it would be unnecessary for me to consider whether the prosecution has made out the remaining elements of the offence which are in dispute.


註十


CONCLUSION

108.  As the tribunal of fact, despite the suspicions I have of the defendant’s conduct, I am not satisfied that the prosecution has proven its case against  him beyond reasonable doubt.  In the circumstances, the defendant has the benefit of doubt and is acquitted of the charge.




2017年7月30日 星期日

中印衝突冇必要!



中印衝突是一重要事件。中國王毅外長在624,25日訪問了阿富汗和巴基斯坦;26日印度總理莫迪會見美國總統特朗普;同日發生了錫金段越過邊界線衝突。中國同時切斷了印度官方香客經乃堆拉山口赴藏朝聖的路段。

大部份傳媒報導此事帶有政治目的,不符合“邏輯、細節和資料”的要求(註一)。沒有人問:中國為什麼要建這條道路?和不丹的角色。

網誌上沒有文章討論此事。有些黃絲幻想印度打到北京,方便其建國;有些藍絲希望中共打鳩印度。總之,雙方都想打仗,冇想過戰爭的野蠻。

印度外交部

印度政府在630日的聲明(註二)很詳細。它指出:
1.          中國工程人員在不丹邊境強行搬走兩塊不丹基石;
2.          不丹提出抗議;
3.          印度人員一向有駐守那裡,要求中方停止行動;
4.          三方在2012年同意以聯絡小組方式商討那地段的現狀改變。

印度不想激怒中方,它在717日的新聞發佈會用“鄰國”字眼,並表示沒有人員傷亡。

不丹外交部

不丹外交部聲稱(註三):中國的武裝人員在不丹土地興建一條軍事用行車道,通往不丹的軍營附近。不丹對此抗議。其聲明簡短,用詞不想得罪中國。


On 16th June 2017, the Chinese Army started constructing a motorable road from Dokola in the Doklam area towards the Bhutan Army camp at Zompelri.

中國外交部

中方的立場(註四)是:“洞朗地區歷來屬於中國,不屬於不丹,與印度更沒有任何關係”。王毅的答覆是:“解決這個問題也很簡單,那就是,老老實實地退出去。”
中方所持的是1890年《中英會議藏印條約》和1998年簽訂的《關於在中不(中國,不丹)邊境地區保持和平與安寧的協定》。它避談2012年的三方商議解決問題。

two Governments had in 2012 reached agreement that the tri-junction boundary points between India, China and third countries will be finalized in consultation with the concerned countries

第二大經濟實體

習近平沙場閱兵(5),表示「有能力打敗一切來犯之敵」。印度那裡敢來犯呢?印度國家安全顧問多瓦希望在出席金磚安代會期間與中國國務委員楊潔篪討論解決方法。
在洞朗地區的道路施工沒有實質需要,若用來打仗則太少,平常用途則太多,而且那地方如一布袋,只能指向不丹的軍營,和“牧民每年均在此巡邏放牧”似乎無關。
今次事件的目的只有宣示主權。但印度的邊防人員一向在那裡遊走,為何今天才進入中國領士呢?
.In coordination with the RGOB, Indian personnel, who were present at general area Doka La

習近平似乎喜歡用建築物做成既成事實,遠的有在具主權爭議的南沙群島「永暑礁」填海造陸,飛機跑道和停機坪;近的有今次事件。中國作為第二大經濟實體,本應待人以寬。主動挑起事端只會讓鄰國抱介心,不利一帶一路的進展。


-------全文完------

附錄

註一

東方
印度軍隊試圖阻止中方人員進入所謂「印度領土」內,組起人牆阻擋;解放軍官兵則錄影現場情況,並拍攝照片。

明報
中國國防部發言人任國強26日晚表示,近日中方在洞朗地區進行道路施工時,遭到印軍越線阻攔。國防部又稱,中印邊界錫金段已由歷史條約劃定,中方修建上述道路完全是在自己領土上的主權行為,印方無權干涉。外交部發言人耿爽當晚亦稱,印度邊防人員在中印邊界錫金段越過邊界線進入中方境內,阻撓中國邊防部隊在洞朗地區的正常活動,中方已採取相應應對措施。

美國之音
截止記者發稿之時,印度官方尚未對中國的抗議作出回應。然而,印度媒體已經發表了大量為政府出謀劃策的文章,一些人要求以制裁中國產品的經濟手段回應中國的邊境“入侵”,也有人希望政府重新審視印度的“西藏政策”,更有人建議加強與美國、日本等國的軍事聯繫,希望印度購置或研發更強大的武器,同時做好邊境衝突進一步升級的準備。

中時
《不丹新聞網》的報導則表示,對於此次衝突,不丹官方一直沒有作出任何表態。

環球網
隨著北京將不惜“任何代價”保護國家利益,一場戰爭隱約來臨。印度也在加強戰備,但中國顯然在幾乎所有軍事領域都佔有優勢。美國軍控協會近期估計,中國的核武是印度的兩倍以上。若巴基斯坦再加入中國一方,就將演變為印度的災難。從目前情況來看,中國將在這場中印邊境爭端中堅決採取任何措施捍衛主權和領土完整。(作者珀林納·提克霍諾瓦,丁雨晴譯)


香港01
此次印度官員訪華,被看作是中印對峙以來,高層的一個溝通交流機制。但訪華能否達到印度期待的效果,仍有待觀察。目前中方並沒有透露哪位領導人將與其會面。印度方面希望中印雙方同時撤兵,最終實現邊境地區的穩定



註二

Ministry of External Affairs
Government of India

Recent Developments in Doklam Area

June 30, 2017
The Chinese made a statement on 26 June 2017 alleging that Indian border troops crossed the boundary line in the Sikkim sector of the China-India boundary and entered Chinese territory. This has been reiterated since then in other Chinese official briefings.
The facts of the matter are as follows:
i.On 16 June, a PLA construction party entered the Doklam area and attempted to construct a road. It is our understanding that a Royal Bhutan Army patrol attempted to dissuade them from this unilateral activity. The Ambassador of the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGOB) has publicly stated that it lodged a protest with the Chinese Government through their Embassy in New Delhi on 20 June.

ii.Yesterday, the Foreign Ministry of Bhutan has also issued a statement underlining that the construction of the road inside Bhutanese territory is a direct violation of the 1988 and 1998 agreements between Bhutan and China and affects the process of demarcating the boundary between these two countries. They have urged a return to the status quo as before 16 June 2017.

iii.In keeping with their tradition of maintaining close consultation on matters of mutual interest, RGOB and the Government of India have been in continuous contact through the unfolding of these developments.

iv.In coordination with the RGOB, Indian personnel, who were present at general area Doka La, approached the Chinese construction party and urged them to desist from changing the status quo. These efforts continue.

v.The matter has been under discussion between India and China at the diplomatic level in the Foreign Ministries since then, both in New Delhi and Beijing. It was also the subject of a Border Personnel Meeting at Nathu La on 20 June.

India is deeply concerned at the recent Chinese actions and has conveyed to the Chinese Government that such construction would represent a significant change of status quo with serious security implications for India.
In this context, the Indian side has underlined that the two Governments had in 2012 reached agreement that the tri-junction boundary points between India, China and third countries will be finalized in consultation with the concerned countries. Any attempt, therefore, to unilaterally determine tri-junction points is in violation of this understanding.
Where the boundary in the Sikkim sector is concerned, India and China had reached an understanding also in 2012 reconfirming their mutual agreement on the "basis of the alignment”. Further discussions regarding finalization of the boundary have been taking place under the Special Representatives framework.
It is essential that all parties concerned display utmost restraint and abide by their respective bilateral understandings not to change the status quo unilaterally. It is also important that the consensus reached between India and China through the Special Representatives process is scrupulously respected by both sides.
India has consistently taken a positive approach to the settlement of its own boundary with China, along with the associated issue of the tri-junctions.
India cherishes peace and tranquillity in the India-China border areas. It has not come easily. Both sides have worked hard to establish institutional framework to discuss all issues to ensure peace and tranquillity in the India-China border areas. India is committed to working with China to find peaceful resolution of all issues in the border areas through dialogue.

New Delhi
30 June 2017


Official Spokesperson's response to a query about reports emanating from a neighbouring country about casualties of Indian soldiers in the Indian state of Sikkim due to military action with another country

July 17, 2017
Responding to a query about reports emanating from a neighbouring country about casualties of Indian soldiers in the Indian state of Sikkim due to military action with another country, the Official Spokesperson said that such reports are utterly baseless, malicious and mischievous. No cognisance should be taken of them by responsible media.
New Delhi
17 July 2017

註三


Press Release
June 29, 2017
In view of the many queries raised recently in the media regarding the Bhutan – China boundary in the Doklam area the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would like to convey the following:
On 16th June 2017, the Chinese Army started constructing a motorable road from Dokola in the Doklam area towards the Bhutan Army camp at Zompelri. Boundary talks are ongoing between Bhutan and China and we have written agreements of 1988 and 1998 stating that the two sides agree to maintain peace and tranquility in their border areas pending a final settlement on the boundary question, and to maintain status quo on the boundary as before March 1959. The agreements also state that the two sides will refrain from taking unilateral action, or use of force, to change the status quo of the boundary.
Bhutan has conveyed to the Chinese side, both on the ground and through the diplomatic channel, that the construction of the road inside Bhutanese territory is a direct violation of the agreements and affects the process of demarcating the boundary between our two countries. Bhutan hopes that the status quo in the Doklam area will be maintained as before 16 June 2017.



註四


623
問:印度總理莫迪將會在本月26日會見美國總統特朗普,雙方將就一系列問題進行討論。美國白宮發言人表示,雙方會談及印度洋—太平洋合作,這個區域包括南海。中方對此有何評論?
  答:我們已經多次說過,在中國和東盟國家的共同努力下,當前南海局勢正在趨緩降溫。我們希望有關國家特別是域外國家能夠尊重域內國家的努力,為維護南海地區的和平穩定發揮積極和建設性作用。

626
問:據報導,王毅外長剛剛訪問了阿富汗和巴基斯坦,中方對此訪有何評價?
  答:624日至25日,王毅外長應邀訪問阿富汗和巴基斯坦。此訪的主要目的,一是落實中國領導人同阿、巴兩國領導人達成的重要共識,進一步推動中阿、中巴雙邊關係取得新進展。二是應阿巴雙方請求,根據中國領導人指示,進行一次穿梭外交,重點聽取阿巴雙方意見,瞭解實際情況,在力所能及範圍內幫助阿巴改善關係,同時共同推動阿富汗和解進程。
  王毅外長在有關記者會上已明確表示,中國從不干涉他國內政,從不將自己的意志強加於人,但在朋友需要時,我們願伸出援手,助一臂之力。此訪期間,王毅外長同兩國領導人深入坦誠溝通,達成一系列共識。三方發表了聯合新聞公報,其中重要的共識主要有五點:
  一是中阿巴三方願共同維護地區和平穩定,加強互聯互通和經濟合作,促進共同安全和共同發展。
  二是阿巴雙方願意積極改善相互關係,同意建立雙邊危機管控機制,就突發事件進行及時有效溝通。
  三是三方同意建立中阿巴外長對話機制,從務實合作開始,就共同感興趣的領域開展合作。
  四是三方同意重啟阿巴中美四方協調組,致力於阿國內和平與和解,呼籲塔利班早日加入和平進程。
  五是三方支援早日恢復上海合作組織—阿富汗聯絡組工作,為阿富汗和解進程發揮建設性作用。
  可以說,這次穿梭訪問取得了積極成果,巴阿雙方相互釋放善意,朝著改善關係邁出重要一步。


外交部發言人耿爽就印度邊防部隊
在中印邊界錫金段越界事件答記者問
2017-06-26
  問:據報導,近日,印度邊防部隊在中印邊界錫金段越界並與中方邊防部隊發生相持。你能否證實並予以評論?
  答:近日,印度邊防人員在中印邊界錫金段越過邊界線進入中方境內,阻撓中國邊防部隊在洞朗地區的正常活動。中方已採取相應應對措施。
  中印邊界錫金段已由1890年《中英會議藏印條約》劃定。印度獨立後,印度政府多次以書面形式對此予以確認,承認雙方對錫金段邊界走向沒有異議。中方要求印方尊重邊界條約規定,尊重中國的領土主權,立即撤回越界的印邊防人員並徹底調查此事,維護好中印邊界錫金段的和平與安寧。
  與此同時,鑒於上述事件,出於安全考慮,中方不得不暫緩安排印度官方香客團經中印邊界錫金段乃堆拉山口入境朝聖,並已通過外交管道通知印方。

627
問:昨天,中國外交部回應了印度邊防人員在中印邊界錫金段跨界進入中國境內事件。印方是否已經採取措施解決中方的關切?該事件最新進展如何?
  答:關於印度邊防人員在中印邊界錫金段中國界內挑起事端的事情,昨天中國國防部和中國外交部發言人已經先後作出表態。
  我在這裡要強調,印度邊防人員在中印邊界錫金段越界進入中國境內,阻撓中國邊防部隊在洞朗地區的正常活動,我們已經採取了相應的應對措施。就你剛才所提到的問題,中方在北京和新德里都已經向印度方面提出了嚴正交涉,表明了我們的嚴正立場。我在這裡必須指出,中方對發展中印友好關係是有誠意的,同時中方維護自身主權權益的立場也是堅定不移的。我們要求印度方面迅速採取正確措施,立即將非法越界進入中國境內的人員撤回邊界線印度一側。

628
問:昨天記者會上,印度記者問了有關中方何時能夠恢復印度官方香客經乃堆拉山口赴藏朝聖的問題。請問這條朝聖路線是何時開通的?中方是出於什麼樣的考慮?從發言人昨天的表態看,是不是只有非法越界的印度邊防人員撤回邊境線印度一側,中方才會考慮恢復該路線?
  答:昨天我已經說過,長期以來,中方從中印友好關係大局出發,做了大量努力,也克服了很多困難,為印度官方香客赴藏朝聖提供了必要便利。
  根據兩國領導人達成的共識,並基於中印邊界錫金段是中印兩國都承認的已定界這一事實,中方同意於2015年為印官方香客開通經中印邊界錫金段乃堆拉山口赴藏朝聖路線。這條路線過去兩年運行良好。我也可以告訴你,中方有關部門此前也已做好今年接待準備工作。
  我們已經明確告訴印方,現在暫緩有關安排,是中印邊界錫金段由於印度邊防人員非法越界造成形勢變化之後的緊急應對措施。
  我願強調,印度官方香客赴藏朝聖需要必要的氣氛和條件。印官方香客無法如期經乃堆拉山口赴藏朝聖責任完全在印方。這一朝聖路線何時能夠重新開放,完全取決於印方是否能夠及時糾正錯誤。

問:外交部此前表示,中印雙方正在就兩國邊界錫金段對峙事件進行對話,目前有何最新進展?
  答:印度邊防人員在中印邊界錫金段越過雙方共同承認的邊界線進入中方境內,這與以往雙方邊防部隊在中印未定界地區的邊境摩擦有本質區別。中方已經在北京和新德里向印方提出嚴正交涉,要求印方必須遵守歷史界約規定,尊重中國領土主權,立即將越界印軍撤回到邊界線印方一側,切實維護中印邊境地區的和平安寧。

 問:中方將印中邊界發生對峙的地區稱為洞朗,有些媒體稱洞朗是中國和不丹爭議領土的一部分。你能否證實?
  答:洞朗地區歷來屬於中國,不屬於不丹,與印度更沒有任何關係。這是不容質疑的事實,有歷史、法理和現地三方面的充分依據。印度方面如果想拿這個說事,是毫無道理的。
  中方在洞朗地區修建道路,是在自己領土上的主權行為,完全正當合法,其他方面無權干涉。我在這裡要再次強調,不丹是國際社會公認的、獨立自主的主權國家,我們希望各國都能夠尊重不丹的主權。雖然中不兩國邊界也沒有最終劃定,但是雙方一直在通過和平談判努力解決,任何協力廠商都不應當也沒有任何權利介入,更不應當就中不間領土歸屬問題作出違背事實、不負責任的言行。
  問:你剛才表示,希望其他國家尊重不丹主權,你的意思是印度在代表不丹對中方有關活動進行干涉嗎?
  答:印度是不是干涉了不丹的內政,只能從印度方面的言行去判斷。我已經說過,雖然中國和不丹的邊界也沒有完全劃定,但是雙方一直有著非常友好的正常溝通管道。如果有任何協力廠商出於自己的考慮想橫加干涉,這就是對不丹主權的不尊重和干預。我們不希望看到這樣的事情發生,畢竟不丹是國際社會公認的享有完全主權的國家。


629
問:628日,《印度斯坦時報》報導稱,印度陸軍參謀長拉瓦特就近期中印邊防部隊之間發生的對峙事件明確表示,“印領土並未遭受入侵”。這與印媒此前一直報導的“中國軍隊越過錫金段邊界線入侵印度領土”完全不同。請問中方對此有何評論?
  答:我們已經在這裡明確指出過,這次事件的真相是,印度邊防部隊人員非法越過了中印邊界錫金段進入了中國境內。你剛才所說的印陸軍參謀長的表態印證了此前印度媒體有關報導不實。真相是難以持續掩蓋的。我們再次要求印方遵守歷史界約規定,尊重中國的領土主權,立即將越界部隊撤回到邊界線的印方一側,避免事態越演越烈,陷於更大的被動。
  問:中方認為印軍在中印邊界錫金段越界進入中國領土違反了國際法和國際關係的基本準則。請問中方認定印軍越界的法律依據是什麼?
  答:中印邊界錫金段具有明確的法律依據。根據1890年《中英會議藏印條約》第一款規定,西藏與錫金以流入錫金梯斯塔河及其支流的水流和流入西藏莫竹河及向北流入其它西藏境內河流的水流間的分水嶺為邊界。這段邊界線起自與不丹交界的吉姆馬珍山,並沿上述分水嶺行至與尼泊爾邊界。根據這一條約規定,洞朗地區屬於中國領土,印軍越界地區的分水嶺非常清楚。印軍越界進入了中國領土是不可否認的事實。印軍此舉違背了歷史界約,也違反了印度歷屆政府的承諾。
  在這裡,我可以給大家展示一下中方現在掌握的,此次印度邊防人員非法越過中印邊界錫金段進入中國領土的有關照片。可能大家在這裡沒法看得很清楚,我們將在今天記者會後,在外交部網站公佈這些照片,大家注意仔細查看。從圖中可以清楚地看到,印度士兵和車輛越過了作為邊界線的分水嶺,進入到中國境內。



(印度邊防人員在中印邊界錫金段越過兩國承認的邊界線進入中國境內)

(示意圖)
  問:不丹駐印度大使昨天稱,不丹政府已經向中方提交了表示抗議的外交照會,要求中方停止在洞朗地區修路。中方能否證實收到了不方提交的外交照會?
  答:洞朗地區歷來屬於中國領土。這個昨天我已經在這說過,是不容置疑的事實,在歷史、法理和現地三方面都有充分依據。中方在洞朗地區開展的一些活動是在自己領土上的主權行為,完全合法,完全正當。
  問:中印雙方就解決此事作了什麼樣的溝通,雙方是否會通過外交管道解決此事?
  答:印度邊防人員非法越界事件發生以來,中方已經在北京和新德里多次向印方提出嚴正交涉。雙方外交溝通的管道是暢通的。我們敦促印方立即將越界的邊防人員撤回邊界線印方一側,這是解決此次事件的前提,也是雙方進行任何有意義對話的基礎。





630
 問:在昨天外交部例行記者會上,你展示了可以證明印度邊防部隊越界進入中國領土的照片。照片是何時何地拍攝的?
  答:昨天在外交部網站公佈的照片,是於618日印度邊防人員在中印邊界錫金段多卡拉山口附近越過邊界線進入中方一側後拍攝的。為了讓大家更加清楚地瞭解事實,我們在外交部網站昨天記者會實錄上還補充配發了一張地圖,請大家注意查閱。

問:不丹方面抗議中國人民解放軍在錫金段修路。不丹外交部發表聲明稱中方違背了不中1998年簽訂的《關於在中不邊境地區保持和平與安寧的協定》,即直至爭議解決之前,雙方要共同維護邊界安寧。你對此有何回應?
  答:中方多次強調,洞朗地區屬於中國領土,不存在爭議。中方施工地區完全位於中國-不丹傳統習慣線中方一側,也完全在中方管轄之下,不存在違反協定、破壞現狀的情況。
  既然印度記者不止一次提到不丹,為了以正視聽,我就花點時間在這裡詳細向大家介紹一下洞朗歸屬的相關證據。
  第一、從歷史上看,洞朗一直是西藏亞東地區邊民的傳統牧場,中方對該地進行良好管轄。上世紀60年代之前,不丹邊民如要進入洞朗過牧,必須征得中方同意,也都向中方交納了草稅,西藏檔案館目前仍保留有部分草稅收據。清朝駐藏大臣還曾在洞朗南端中不邊界傳統習慣線上設立過界標。
  第二、從法理上看,1890年歷史界約明確規定了吉姆馬珍雪山是中印不三國交界點,洞朗地區在中印、中不邊界的中方一側。
  第三、從現地上看,中方對洞朗地區有完全的管轄,中方邊防部隊和牧民每年均在此巡邏放牧,並修有眾多生產生活設施。
  以上證據不丹方面是非常清楚的,也是認可的。
  中國與不丹雖然尚未建交,但兩國始終保持傳統友好關係。雙方多次確認兩國是大小國家平等、友好相處的典範,從來不存在中國以大欺小的情況。中國民眾對於不丹民眾的友好善意沒有變,但中方維護領土主權的決心是堅定和不可動搖的。
  現在中印邊界事件的性質十分清楚,是印方越過中印邊界進入中方境內阻撓中方正常施工。目前當務之急是印方立即將越界人員撤回邊界線印方一側。

王毅:印軍應老老實實地退出去
2017-07-25
[字體:大 ] 列印本頁
  當地時間2017724日,王毅外長在曼谷就中印對峙事件接受記者採訪時表示,這個問題是非曲直十分清楚,就連印度的高官也公開表示,中國軍人並未進入印度領土。也就是說,印方承認進入了中國領土。解決這個問題也很簡單,那就是,老老實實地退出去。

註五

今天(30日)上午9點,在內蒙古朱日和訓練基地舉行慶祝中國人民解放軍建軍90周年閱兵,中共中央總書記、國家主席、中央軍委主席習近平檢閱部隊並發表重要講話。
與以往閱兵地點選在天安門、長安街不同,這是解放軍歷史上首次沙場閱兵。據悉,朱日和訓練基地由沙漠、草原、山地等組成,佔地1066平方公里,與香港陸地面積相若,是亞洲最大的軍事訓練基地。

他又表示,有信心軍隊「有能力打敗一切來犯之敵」