47人案求情信｜余慧明：仍認為通過投票改變秩序沒不對 也許唯一錯誤是我太愛香港

分享：

 

 

47 名民主派被控「串謀顛覆國家政權」罪一案，參與九西初選及功能界別的被告周四（11 日）續求情，余慧明的代表大狀石書銘，庭上讀出她親自撰寫的求情信。

余在信中表示，由於政府未能及時採取措施預防新冠疫情爆發，因此希望進入政治體制、參選立法會，增加對政府議價的能力，「但被指控為顛覆國家政權，這在其他民主國家中聞所未聞」。

她指，法庭的裁決「指五大訴求是空中樓閣，但其中的一項訴求，是實現《基本法》所承諾的雙普選」，反問若政府認為落實「23 條」是它的憲制責任，「那麼實現雙普選難道就不是？」

她續指，至今仍認為，通過在立法會投票以改變現有秩序「並沒有甚麼不對」，又稱「也許我犯下的唯一錯誤，就是我太愛香港」。法官陳慶偉此時打斷石書銘，指這並非求情信，而是政治論述。

47人案求情、判詞分析、裁決日報道一覽

余慧明（資料圖片）

以下為余慧明求情信節錄（中文為記者翻譯；庭上讀英文原文見文末）：

如我作供所述，我認為一切由 2019 年反修例運動開始。那時，超過 100 萬名香港市民和平地走上街頭反對修例。很遺憾，他們的聲音未獲聆聽，最終引發了激烈的街頭抗爭。在這場民主運動 5 年多後的今天，政府將參與的市民視為暴徒，並將整場運動標籤為「黑暴」。

在 2020 年，我相信就算有持續的街頭抗爭，政府仍會對社會的不滿充耳不聞。我最不想看到有更多示威者犧牲和被捕。此外，由於政府未能及時採取措施預防新冠疫情在社區爆發，因此我希望進入政治體制，參選立法會議員，去增加對政府議價的能力，改變當時的死局，但被指控為顛覆國家政權，這在其他民主國家中聞所未聞。

法庭的裁決指「五大訴求」是空中樓閣，但其中的一項訴求，是實現《基本法》所承諾的「雙普選」。如果政府認為落實「23 條」是它的憲制責任，那麼實現「雙普選」難道就不是？到這一刻，我仍然認為，通過在立法機關投票來改變現有秩序並沒有甚麼不對。也許我犯下的唯一錯誤，就是我太愛香港…（法官陳慶偉打斷）

As I have stated in my evidence, for me everything stemmed from the Anti-Extradition Bill movement in 2019. Back then over a million Hong Kong citizens took to the streets and expressed their opposition to the amendment peacefully. Regrettably, their voices went unheard and eventually triggered off vigorous street protests. And now, more than 5 years after the democratic movement began, the government regards those citizens who took part in the movement as thugs and labels the whole movement as “Black Riot”.

In 2020, I believed that even with continuous street protests, the government would still turn a deaf ear to public grievances. The last thing I wanted to see was further sacrifices and arrests of the protestors. Moreover, since the government failed to take timely measures to prevent the community outbreak of COVID-19, I thus wanted to enter our political institution – to stand for election in the Legislative Council, to increase the bargaining power and bring changes to the deadlock at that time. Yet it was accused as subverting the State Power.  This is unheard of in other democratic countries.

The Verdict stated that “Five Demands” were castle in the air. Yet among those demands was the implementation of dual Universal Suffrage as promised by the Basic Law. If the government deemed implementing Article 23 a constitutional duty, isn’t implementing dual Universal Suffrage the same? Even now, I am still of the view that there is nothing wrong in bringing changes to the established order through voting in the legislature, perhaps the only wrong I have committed was that I love Hong Kong too much…

余慧明的代表大狀石書銘（資料圖片）

HCCC69/2020、HCCC70/2020

文章来源：法庭线