※ 引述《mmc109815038 ()》之銘言：
: : 顯，中國即便是港獨，也是透過基本法來約束，香港很明顯不用繳稅，有自己獨立的行政
: : 、立法、司法體系，如果這樣子都算違反承諾，我不知道什麼叫做不違反承諾。
: : 倒是英國，你憑什麼違反中英聯合聲明去干涉香港事務，對中國指指點點。
: : 從這些點上面都看的出來，香港的行政、立法、司法權是獨立的。
: 我贊成你的看法
: 祖國已經在最大程度上 維持五十年不變
: 舞照跳 馬照跑
: 至於港獨 那是不可以放縱原諒的
: 香港特區是祖國的領土 不可分割 也不可以搞獨立
: 只要不搞獨立 甚麼事都好商量
: 台灣也是
: 只要回歸一個中國 九二共識
: 也是甚麼都好商量
真的,英國議員連監督中英香港聯合聲明是否違約的機會都沒有 XD
既然連入境都不能入境~就不能說我違規啦 XDD
真是甚麼都好商量啊(陽奉陰違..Orz)
文章蘋果時報也有刊,所以請不要因人廢言 XDD
英保守黨人權領袖被拒入港 英外相要求解釋(圖)
英國外相約翰遜對英國保守黨人權委員會副主席Benedict Rogers被拒入境香港事件表示
高度關注。(圖片來源：Getty Images)
【看中國2017年10月12日訊】(看中國記者鐘靈綜合報導)曾聲援香港「雙學三子」的英國
保守黨人權委員會副主席Benedict Rogers，昨日入境香港時被拒，最終乘機返回曼谷，
事後他透露曾接獲中國大使館告誡指將被拒入境香港。英國外相約翰遜對事件表示高度關
注，要求香港及中方解釋。
《蘋果日報》報導，Benedict Rogers昨日早上從泰國曼谷抵港時被入境處拒絕入境，但
無交代確切原因。昨日記者會上有記者提問有關事件，林鄭月娥拒絕回應，強調入境政策
方面有「很大酌情權」，但不能公開透露「誰可以入境，誰不可以」。
英國外相約翰遜對事件表示關注，英國政府要求香港當局及中方解釋，並指香港應擁有高
度自治、權力與自由，且應得到中方尊重，不能理解有英國國民被拒入港的情況出現。
立法會議員毛孟靜今在保安事務委員會提出Rogers被拒入境一事，情況「令人非常尷尬」
，質疑與港府因他曾聲援「三子」有關。保安局局長李家超被問到有關事件是否按照「中
央指示」行事時，李僅表示「每隔入境檢查，都由入境處按入境法例與既定入境政策，按
實際情況處理」，拒絕回應事件。
《852郵報》報導，前政務司司長陳方安生對事件表示震驚，認為有關舉動「嚴重打擊『
一國兩制』下港人治港的高度自治政策」，並要求政府詳細交代拒絕Rogers入境的原因，
回應是否在中央政府的指使下作出有關決定，以及以後會否再出現關注人權、民主、自由
的海外人士被拒入境的情況。
Benedict Rogers過去一直關注亞洲多國人權狀況，8月曾在倫敦組織聲援「三子」黃之鋒
、羅冠聰及周永康的行動，及要求英國政府應以《中英聯合聲明》簽署國身分為香港發聲
，被中共視為「眼中釘」。他昨日撰文交代事件經過，並慨嘆為香港感到悲哀，希望世界
各國能夠醒覺，關注香港「一國兩制」的制度已經岌岌可危。
***
Benedict Rogers撰文，中文翻譯全文如下（翻譯取自《蘋果日報》）：
20年前的我剛畢業，便來到香港開始我的第一份工作。時值香港回歸幾個月，我從1997年
起當記者直至2002年，在香港過了快樂的5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 afresh graduate,I flew to Hong Kong just afew months
after the handover,to begin my first job.I spent five very happy years
working as ajournalist 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 Ihave 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 aresult,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 afew 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 Ihad realized aweek 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 Ihad that there was aproblem came last Friday,when
Ireceived atelephone call from aBritish Member of Parliament whom Iknow 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 Iwould not be attempting to
visit any prisons.I took afurther step–a compromise,some might say one too
big,but one intended to de-escalate the situation–by voluntarily assuring
them that Iwould not undertake any public engagements or media interviews
while in Hong Kong.I also offered to meet the embassy upon my return,for
aconstructive discussion and to hear their perspectives.These offers were
rebuffed and Ireceived further,increasingly threatening messages from the
embassy,culminating in amessage warning me that Iwould 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 Iam on the Conservative Party’s Candidates List.It appears that the
Chinese authorities misunderstood my status and thought at first that Iwas
aMember of Parliament or asenior 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 aparty
member is aparty member come what may.They perhaps don’t understand that
British political parties are made up of individual,independent minds–and
furthermore there’s adifference between avoluntary party member and aparty
official,and adifference between someone acting on behalf of the party and
someone acting in aprivate,personal capacity.Nevertheless Isought to reassure
the embassy,via athird party,that Iwas absolutely not representing the
party,and certainly not the government,and that my visit was apurely
personal,private visit to meet old friends and new acquaintances in Hong
Kong,as aprivate citizen.Unfortunately,that did not satisfy either.
In consultation with others,I took the view that if Iwere to cave in to
pressure from the embassy,sent through unofficial text messages via athird
party,I would be doing exactly what Ihave criticized others of
doing:kowtowing to China.My conscience would not allow me to do that.How
could Ilook my friends Joshua Wong,Nathan Law,Alex Chow,Martin Lee,Anson Chan
and others in the eye if Icaved at the first hurdle?I decided therefore that
Ihad 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 Iwould 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 Ipresented 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 aprivate room behind the counters,and Iwas asked to
wait.After alittle while aplain clothes official conducted an interview with
me.I assured her that my visit was aprivate,personal visit to meet
friends,and that Ihad lived in Hong Kong for five years.She took details of
my hotel booking,and Ithought 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 Ihad flown
from.
It is important to emphasise that Ido 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 Iwaited to board Iturned gently to the officer standing with me.I
smiled,and Ithanked him for looking after me well.“Is one country,two
systems dead now?”,I asked.“One country,one system,right?”He looked with
ahint 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 Iknew he
was only doing his job,and that Idid not blame him.
A little later,as we shook hands at the entrance to the plane,I said to him:“
This is avery sad day for Hong Kong.It’s sad for me,that Iam unable to visit
my friends in Hong Kong,but it’s particularly sad for Hong Kong,that
aprivate citizen who has committed no crime is refused entry.”He
nodded,again with ahint 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
asolicitor,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
Iwas 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 Iwould 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 Ihad 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
Ibelieve the conduct of the Chinese regime,particularly in Hong Kong,is.