754 怎能忘記?

89年六四改變了不少人的人生軌跡。

中國政府在其後進行「失憶治療法」把89、64這兩個數字從中國社會中除去, 到今天也算是「成功」, 因為中國的新一代或是不知道又或是把它歸類為與自己無關的歷史事件。香港卻因為六四發生那時, 仍為英國人管治, 港人從得到的信息, 認定六四是愛國的民主運動, 每年都有悼念活動, 直到今天8964仍存在大部份的香港人心中。兩週前, 在香港支聯會被政府控告違反國安法案件中, 同為被告的支聯會副主席鄒幸彤為案件作出有理有節的結案陳詞。鄒幸彤提出的論據, 到今天我仍在深思, 在腦海中無法揮去。這一期的專題,  我邀請在澳洲的讀者一起去思想這件同樣影響著海外華人移民生命的重要事件。

鄒幸彤在六四事件發生時仍是小孩子, 卻是與父母一起每年在維多利亞公園參加支聯會舉辦的悼念活動, 這些活動曾經過百萬的香港人都參加了。這每年的六四維園集會, 呼籲結束一黨專政及平反六四, 一直沒被有被視為危害國家安全。香港回歸後, 直至2020年, 中國政府及國家領導人從未指出這些悼念活動會危害國家安全。這表明當時中國領導人覺得這樣的悼念, 是可以在香港發生及進行。不過, 自2020年後, 這些悼念活動已經被香港政府視為不合乎國家安全法。

香港政府當然可以立法, 或解釋法律把某一些在香港發生的行為視為非法。不過在澳洲生活的我,要是在這裏繼續對六四事件有個人的看法, 或是在墨爾本的家中, 或是在生活的社區中, 要行個人或群體的悼念活動,  又或是編寫有關的專題及悼念文章, 只要不在香港進行, 相信也不違反香港或中國的國安法。在澳洲質疑政府施政, 或是對政府在今天或歷史中曾作出的政策及行為持相反意見, 只要不以暴力違法方法表達, 都是公民的基本權利。所以我們有Mabo的原住民土地權益的法庭訴訟, 有修訂白澳移民政策, 有對「被盜世代」政策的改弦易轍及其後陸克文總理的國家道歉等。這是澳洲政府把爭取執政機會的政黨、施行的政策、掌握管治權的政府及由向人民組成的國家這些不同概念及從屬關係分開。

來到澳洲定居, 我最珍惜的是我仍有權利去持守我相信的事實, 我慶幸今天我們仍有勇氣刊登有關鄒幸彤在支聯會案件中的結案陳詞的專題。

周偉文 社長

How Can We Forget?

What had happened in Beijing on 4 June 1989 altered the course of many people’s lives.

In the aftermath, the Chinese government implemented a ‘memory-erasing therapy’ strategy to remove the numbers ‘89’ and ‘64’ from Chinese society; to this day, this can be considered a ‘success’, as China’s younger generation either remains unaware of this incident or regards it as historical incident with no bearing on their own lives. Hong Kong, however, was still under British rule at the time of the 4 June incident. Based on the information they received, Hongkongers came to regard 4 June as a patriotic democratic movement, and commemorative events have been held every year. To this day, 8964 remains in the hearts of the majority of Hongkongers. 

Two weeks ago, in the case where the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China was charged by the government with violating the National Security Law, Tonyee Chow Hang-tung, the Alliance’s vice-chairperson and a co-defendant, delivered a well-reasoned and measured closing statement. The arguments put forward by Tonyee Chow continue to weigh heavily on my mind; I cannot shake them from my thoughts. In this issue’s feature, I invite readers in Australia to reflect together on this significant event, which has similarly shaped the lives of overseas Chinese communities.

Though still a child when the June Fourth incident occurred, Tonyee Chow has attended the commemorative events organised by the Alliance in Victoria Park every year alongside her parents; these gatherings have once drawn crowds of over  millions of Hong Kong residents. These annual June 4th gatherings in Victoria Park, calling for an end to one-party rule and the vindication of the June 4th incident, were never regarded as a threat to national security. After Hong Kong’s handover in 1997, right up until 2020, the Chinese government and national leaders never suggested that these commemorative events posed a threat to national security. This indicates that, at the time, Chinese leaders considered such commemorations to be permissible in Hong Kong. However, since 2020, these commemorative events have been deemed by the Hong Kong government to be in breach of the National Security Law.

The Hong Kong government is, of course, entitled to enact legislation or interpret the law to deem certain acts occurring in Hong Kong to be illegal. However, as someone living in Australia, if I were to continue to express my personal views on the 4 June incident here, or to hold individual or collective commemorative activities in my home in Melbourne or within my local community, or to write feature articles and commemorative pieces on the subject – provided these are not carried out in Hong Kong – I believe this would not contravene the national security laws of either Hong Kong or China. In Australia, questioning the government’s administration, or holding opposing views on policies and actions taken by the government today or in the past, is a fundamental right of citizenship, provided it is not expressed through violent or unlawful means. Hence, we have the Mabo court case on Indigenous land rights, the amendment of the White Australia immigration policy, the reversal of the ‘Stolen Generations’ policy, and the subsequent national apology by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. This is because the Australian government maintains a clear distinction between the political parties vying for power, the policies they implement, the government that holds executive authority, and the nation itself, which is composed of its people.

Having settled in Australia, what I cherish most is that I still have the right to stand by what I believe to be true. I am grateful that we still have the courage today to publish this feature on Tonyee Chow’s closing statement in the Hong Kong Alliance case.

Mr. Raymond Chow, Publisher