英聖公會報章刊鄺保羅致函支持立國安法,一封疑似代中國外交部寄出的署名信

英聖公會報章刊鄺保羅致函支持立國安法,一封疑似代中國外交部寄出的署名信

願主審判!萬不以有罪的為無罪,必追討他的罪,自父及子,直到三、四代!

======

英聖公會報章刊鄺保羅致函支持立國安法
管浩鳴：相信國安法不如外界渲染般恐怖

2020年7月14日

【時代論壇訊】香港聖公會教省主教長鄺保羅回函英國聖公會報章Church Times，表明歡迎支持訂立《港區國安法》，認為該法例有助在香港擴展的暴力中重建法治與秩序（restore law and order），「我歡迎此法例，雖然我希望這並非必要。」他又批評英國提供居留權和美國變更香港特殊地位的做法，並呼籲海外國家停止插手干預。他又以澳門為例，指國安法不會影響宗教自由，形容聖公會仍能進行崇拜、查經、祈禱會等，相信反對國安法的宗教領袖只是少數。

本報就報道聯絡聖公會教省祕書長管浩鳴牧師，他指出此信是鄺保羅回覆Church Times對有關查詢《港區國安法》的信件，同時鄺保羅亦有致函予一些英國聖公會主教討論對《港區國安法》的查詢。管浩鳴亦表示認同鄺保羅的說法，指雖然不一定必須要立法，但他相信《國安法》不會如外界所渲染般恐怖，社會各界可慢慢適應。管浩鳴表示往後他和鄺保羅不會就《國安法》這類敏感議題作公開回應，而他又相信面對現時香港社會的撕裂，日後教會亦有一定修和工作需要進行。

據Church Times於七月十日的報道，公開鄺保羅回覆該報的信件。鄺保羅在信中認為自反送中運動以來的社會不穩，轉化成針對警察、特區政府、中央政府的暴力，衍生出暴徒攻擊異見者或破壞親政府建築的行為，表示自己支持和平表達意見，但否定暴力以及反中國的政治立場。因此，鄺保羅表示《國安法》對於維護港人的福利（well-being）是必須的，他希望該法能夠恢復香港的法律和秩序。

呼籲外國勢力停止干涉   為生活在中國感驕傲

鄺保羅提到有示威者舉起英國旗和美國旗，宣傳香港獨立，邀請外國勢力介入，他形容這些行為在任何社會都不被允許。他表示自己的立場和西方國家的或有對立，但他相信實施《國安法》是對香港最好的選擇，故希望外國不去干涉並理解他們。他批評美國變更香港的特殊貿易地位，或英國提供居留權的做法，是損害香港並支持暴力示威者的做法，不能體現基督教的美善，更是反中國情緒的表達。

他認為許多批評者只重視「兩制」而忽略「一國」，不願接受香港作為中國的一部份。他指自己為「能生活在中國感到驕傲」（I am also proud to be living in China）。

鄺保羅指英國美國常被塑造成香港的保衛者和救贖者，而中國被塑造成邪惡的一方。他認為中國一直都在幫助香港，他寫到：「我們是中國的一部份；我們依靠中國，而且從中國得著好處。我們各方面都得著好處，包括貿易地位、糧食供應、公用事業，以及於中國政體中的特殊優越地位。」（We are part of China; we are dependent on China, and we benefit from China. We benefit in everything — from our trading status, to our supply of food and utilities, to our special and preferential place within the broader Chinese polity.）他又提到中國的大灣區計劃在未來將給予香港巨大的利益。

宗教自由不受限制

鄺保羅又提到《國安法》不會影響宗教自由，指過去香港聖公會依然能夠繼續崇拜、教育工作、社會工作、神學訓練等，而澳門的聖公會在當地的國安法之下亦未被削減宗教自由。然而，Church Times 在其報道中引述天主教緬甸籍司鐸級樞機主教貌波，指出在過往沉重的經驗中，當整體的自由受到影響，宗教信仰的自由亦遲早會被干預，認為國安法將會規管宗教自由，要求中國政府不因主教和牧師的講道而拘捕他們。

鄺保羅的回覆Church Times的英文信全文如下：

10 July 2020

Thank you for soliciting my views about our situation in Hong Kong. We continue to grapple with the Covid-19 pandemic, but Hong Kong has handled this rather well. The new element we have been discussing in recent weeks is the National Security Law, so allow me to share my views with you on this subject.
In June, I was in Beijing as a delegate to the yearly session of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, a national body which advises on issues and legislation before the National People’s Congress. Because of ongoing concerns about the Coronavirus, the session had been postponed and was shortened.
Among the many things we discussed was the proposed National Security Law for Hong Kong. There are more than 200 Hong Kong delegates, and we reviewed and discussed elements of the proposed law, although the legislation itself was not at that time finalised.

The law has now been promulgated and went into effect on 1 July, the 23rd anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to Chinese sovereignty.

I welcome this law, although it is one that I wish were not necessary. The introduction of this law follows months of unrest started in June of last year, triggered by a Bill to amend the Hong Kong extradition law.

The unrest changed into wider violence, not only against the police and local government, but against the central government, with rioters attacking people of different political views, vandalising pro-China business buildings, smearing the national flag and emblem. The riots continued even after the Bill was officially withdrawn in October last year.

The Hong Kong Legislative Council failed to enact a national security law, which has been shelved since 2003 because opposition lawmakers sabotaged it. Now, we will still have to draw up our own law, but the National Security Legislation is listed in Annex 3 of the Basic Law, the mini-constitution of the city. The law covers subversion, sedition, secession, terrorism, and foreign collusion in Hong Kong affairs.

This law is necessary for our well-being. Many critics do not accept the fact that we are part of China. They only emphasise two systems, not one country. I cherish our Hong Kong freedoms — in particular the freedom of religion and way of life — as much as anyone, and I don’t think this law will change any of that. I am also proud to be living in China.

What I hope the new law will do is diminish the agitation against the government that last year brought things to a standstill, and to restore law and order.
Many of the protesters and rioters on the streets have carried British or American flags advocating independence of Hong Kong, inviting foreign nations to interfere in local affairs; and, as we have seen, they have committed acts that cannot be tolerated in any society. I support the right to peaceful demonstration, but I cannot condone violence, nor can I support anti-China political views.

The new law targets only law breakers, and it does not undermine any freedom of Hong Kong, in particular the freedom of religion. It does not affect the Church or any other religious organisation.

In the Anglican Church, we continue to gather together for worship, mindful of the need for social distancing. We continue our work in education and social service. We hold committee meetings, usually by Zoom. We do Bible studies, and have prayer meetings and conduct theological training.
This is pretty much the same as Anglican Churches in other places. Our Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui has churches, schools, and welfare organisations in Macau also. Macau is, like Hong Kong, a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, and it has had a National Security Law since 1999. In these 21 years, Macau has not experienced any curtailment of religious freedom.

There are people in the churches, including our Church, who are against the new law, but they are still held accountable to it. I can say that most religious leaders have not taken a position of opposition to the National Security Law. I know that our position about this law contradicts that of many in the West, but we believe this is what is best for us, and we ask countries overseas not to interfere in our affairs and to try to understand us.
In Western countries, and particularly the United States, governments have criticised the National Security Law, and have taken steps to change Hong Kong’s special trading status. In Great Britain and other countries, the government has offered passports or right of abode to those fearing “persecution” if they remain in Hong Kong.

These actions hurt Hong Kong and support those who have supported or committed acts of violence in protests last year. Such actions are not expressions of Christian charity but of anti-China sentiment.

China is consistently portrayed as evil, trying to destroy everything that is Hong Kong, in much of the Western media and by western politicians, whereas the British or American government is praised as the benevolent protector and saviour of Hong Kong.

In fact, China has been helping and supporting Hong Kong and our people all these years. We are part of China; we are dependent on China, and we benefit from China. We benefit in everything — from our trading status, to our supply of food and utilities, to our special and preferential place within the broader Chinese polity. Now Hong Kong and Macao are part of the Greater Bay Area Development Project, which will be of enormous benefit to us in the years to come.

Thank you once again for your continuing interest in and prayers for Hong Kong.

Yours,

++Paul Kwong

Archbishop of Hong Kong

https://christiantimes.org.hk/Common/Reader/News/ShowNews.jsp?Nid=162709&Pid=102&Version=0&Cid=2141&Charset=big5_hkscs