關於 declaration of independence中文 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【《砥鋒挺鍔 傲雪欺霜》－ 大專學界就民主牆爭議之聲明 | “Arming Ourselves in Our Darkest Hour” - Declaration of Students’ Unions of Higher Institutions on the Controversy Surrounding Democracy Wall】

(Please scroll down for English version.)

近日，各大專院校對於學生使用民主牆爆發爭議，舔共傀儡林鄭月娥竟借機指言論自由並非完全沒有限制，更暗指學術自由和院校自主是鼓吹歪論的藉口。大學校園應為思想意見交流之所，民主牆亦是容許學生暢所欲言的公開平台。如今，政權之首竟出言鉗制學生表達自由，企圖向校方施壓，大興文字獄，大專學界予以最強烈之譴責。

在中大校園內，有同學於學生會管理的範圍掛上「香港獨立」橫額及於民主牆上貼上宣傳港獨之文宣。有關港獨之橫額及文宣並無違反香港法律，只是單單內容不合乎中大校方心意、與校方立場有異，校方便指鹿為馬，無理指控其內容違法，圖以法律之名打壓言論自由，更繞過該場地的真正管理者中大學生會，直接指派保安人員拆下橫額，完全無視學生自治的原則。大專學界強調，《基本法》性質類近憲法，而憲法訂明政府權限及人民權利。憲法圈限政府權力，政府卻絕不可借憲法縮窄人民權利。因此，政府及中大校方均不可以「違反《基本法》」為名，禁止學生討論香港獨立。

其後，中大學生會幹事會因是次事件而受到大規模滋擾。然而，校方並沒有就此作出回應並保護學生，反而因立場不同而置學生安危於不顧，有違教育者之原則，再證中大校方已淪為為政權護航的機器。

除此以外，早前有人於香港教育大學民主牆張貼「恭賀」教育局副局長蔡若蓮長子去世，教大校長高調批評該二人「歹毒」，更指若該二人不是教大學生，則「放他上網」。翌日，相關閉路電視截圖流出，實在令人髮指。的確，大專學界認為奚落蔡若蓮之言論確有失當，然而，冰封三尺非一日之寒。教育局多年來接連推出殘害莘莘學子之政策，當中包括全港性系統評估及國民教育，蔡若蓮為其一一護航，年青人對教育局及蔡若蓮的不滿無處發洩，最終訴於不當的情緒宣洩，實在是情有可原。教大校方縱然不滿此等言論，卻絕不可公開閉路電視片段。此等行為不但如同鼓吹社會公審批鬥，更有機會違反《個人資料（私隱）條例》。今日有人因失當言論被公開容貌，他日有學生批評校長，會否亦遭受類似報復？大專學界強烈譴責教大校方借機製造白色恐怖，並要求教大校方就洩露閉路電視片段作出合理交代。

《基本法》第二十七條訂明香港居民享有言論自由，我們的基本人權應受保障及尊重，而院校自主及學術自由更不容港共侵害。大專學界在此重申，言論自由是天賦人權，是不容侵犯之底線。我們將密切留意各大專院校之情況，堅守我們的自由與權利。

二零一七年九月十日

香港城巿大學學生會
恒生管理學院學生會
香港浸會大學學生會
香港科技大學學生會
嶺南大學學生會
香港珠海學院學生會
香港高等教育科技學院學生會
香港教育大學學生會
香港演藝學院學生會
香港大學學生會
香港公開大學學生會
香港樹仁大學學生會
香港中文大學學生會

In the past few days, controversy surrounding students’ use of their democracy wall has broken out and received widespread attention. Communist puppet Lam Cheng Yuet Ngor took the chance and implied that freedom of speech should be limited, and fallacies have been told under the veil of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Universities are where thoughts and opinions are exchanged, and democracy walls are platforms for students to speak our mind. The regime is now making an explicit effort to limit our freedom of expression through exerting pressure on university authorities to punish those whose speech may have intimidated the people in power. Students’ Unions across the higher institutions condemn such atrocities.

In the Chinese University of Hong Kong, students hanged banner advocating Hong Kong independence at a site managed by Student Union of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Related leaflets were also posted to the democracy wall. Staggeringly, while the students by no means breached the law, the university authorities claimed that such advocacies as illegal and overrode CUSU by sending securities to remove the banner, revealing their complete ignorance to the autonomy of CUSU. Students’ Unions now reiterate that the nature of the Basic Law is similar to that of a constitution, which defines the power of the government and the liberty enjoyed by the citizenry. In other words, while the government is bound by the constitution, the government can never restrict the liberty of the people through the constitution. Thus, neither the government nor the university authorities can restrict the freedom of students to discuss Hong Kong independence under the name of the Basic Law.

Due to the controversy, the Executive Committee of CUSU has been suffering excessive nuisance. Yet, neither has there been any response from nor actions taken by the university authorities to protect the students. The authorities, as educators, should feel shameful for not ensuring the safety of students due to differences in opinions.

Apart from this, there were also two persons posting slogans to ‘congratulate’ Education Undersecretary Choi Yuk Lin’s loss of her son on the democracy wall at the Education University of Hong Kong. The President of EdUHK severely condemned the students as ‘vicious’, and claimed that the university would expose those persons on the internet if they were not students of EdUHK. Related shots of CCTV were then released to the media in the following day. Indeed, students’ unions believe the slogans are inappropriate. Yet, it is also important to acknowledge that the Education Bureau has been introducing malicious policies against students, ranging from TSA to national education, and Choi has been an explicitly pro-government person. With no effective channels to express their discontent, young people may have chosen such emotional and even irrational expression. Thus, while such slogans are inappropriate, we also find them excusable. Albeit their discontent, the university authorities should not have released the shots of CCTV to the media. Such action not only stirs up public emotions and ignites mass criticism against the two persons which would be completely out of proportion, but may also constitute violation of Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance. Student may also be aware of similar vengeful acts when they criticise the university authorities again in the future. Students’ unions condemn the authorities of EdUHK for creating white terror and request the authorities to give a proper response regarding the leak of CCTV footage.

Under Article 27 of the Basic Law, we as Hong Kong citizens are entitled to the freedom of speech. Our rights must be protected and respected, while academic freedom and institutional autonomy are values that must not be stripped away. Students’ unions stress that everyone enjoys the freedom of speech, and this is the line that we shall never compromise. We are now paying attention to situation across the higher institutions and we are ready to defend our rights and liberty.

10 September 2017

City University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
Hang Seng Management College Students' Union
Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Students’ Union
Lingnan University Students’ Union
Student Union of Chu Hai College of Higher Education
Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts Students' Union
The Education University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong University Students’ Union
The Open University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Student Union of Hong Kong Shue Yan University
The Student Union of The Chinese University of Hong Kong

【《砥鋒挺鍔 傲雪欺霜》－ 大專學界就民主牆爭議之聲明 | “Arming Ourselves in Our Darkest Hour” - Declaration of Students’ Unions of Higher Institutions on the Controversy Surrounding Democracy Wall】

(Please scroll down for English version.)

近日，各大專院校對於學生使用民主牆爆發爭議，舔共傀儡林鄭月娥竟借機指言論自由並非完全沒有限制，更暗指學術自由和院校自主是鼓吹歪論的藉口。大學校園應為思想意見交流之所，民主牆亦是容許學生暢所欲言的公開平台。如今，政權之首竟出言鉗制學生表達自由，企圖向校方施壓，大興文字獄，大專學界予以最強烈之譴責。

在中大校園內，有同學於學生會管理的範圍掛上「香港獨立」橫額及於民主牆上貼上宣傳港獨之文宣。有關港獨之橫額及文宣並無違反香港法律，只是單單內容不合乎中大校方心意、與校方立場有異，校方便指鹿為馬，無理指控其內容違法，圖以法律之名打壓言論自由，更繞過該場地的真正管理者中大學生會，直接指派保安人員拆下橫額，完全無視學生自治的原則。大專學界強調，《基本法》性質類近憲法，而憲法訂明政府權限及人民權利。憲法圈限政府權力，政府卻絕不可借憲法縮窄人民權利。因此，政府及中大校方均不可以「違反《基本法》」為名，禁止學生討論香港獨立。

其後，中大學生會幹事會因是次事件而受到大規模滋擾。然而，校方並沒有就此作出回應並保護學生，反而因立場不同而置學生安危於不顧，有違教育者之原則，再證中大校方已淪為為政權護航的機器。

除此以外，早前有人於香港教育大學民主牆張貼「恭賀」教育局副局長蔡若蓮長子去世，教大校長高調批評該二人「歹毒」，更指若該二人不是教大學生，則「放他上網」。翌日，相關閉路電視截圖流出，實在令人髮指。的確，大專學界認為奚落蔡若蓮之言論確有失當，然而，冰封三尺非一日之寒。教育局多年來接連推出殘害莘莘學子之政策，當中包括全港性系統評估及國民教育，蔡若蓮為其一一護航，年青人對教育局及蔡若蓮的不滿無處發洩，最終訴於不當的情緒宣洩，實在是情有可原。教大校方縱然不滿此等言論，卻絕不可公開閉路電視片段。此等行為不但如同鼓吹社會公審批鬥，更有機會違反《個人資料（私隱）條例》。今日有人因失當言論被公開容貌，他日有學生批評校長，會否亦遭受類似報復？大專學界強烈譴責教大校方借機製造白色恐怖，並要求教大校方就洩露閉路電視片段作出合理交代。

《基本法》第二十七條訂明香港居民享有言論自由，我們的基本人權應受保障及尊重，而院校自主及學術自由更不容港共侵害。大專學界在此重申，言論自由是天賦人權，是不容侵犯之底線。我們將密切留意各大專院校之情況，堅守我們的自由與權利。

二零一七年九月十日

香港城巿大學學生會
恒生管理學院學生會
香港浸會大學學生會
香港科技大學學生會
嶺南大學學生會
香港珠海學院學生會
香港高等教育科技學院學生會
香港教育大學學生會
香港演藝學院學生會
香港大學學生會
香港公開大學學生會
香港樹仁大學學生會
香港中文大學學生會

In the past few days, controversy surrounding students’ use of their democracy wall has broken out and received widespread attention. Communist puppet Lam Cheng Yuet Ngor took the chance and implied that freedom of speech should be limited, and fallacies have been told under the veil of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Universities are where thoughts and opinions are exchanged, and democracy walls are platforms for students to speak our mind. The regime is now making an explicit effort to limit our freedom of expression through exerting pressure on university authorities to punish those whose speech may have intimidated the people in power. Students’ Unions across the higher institutions condemn such atrocities.

In the Chinese University of Hong Kong, students hanged banner advocating Hong Kong independence at a site managed by Student Union of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Related leaflets were also posted to the democracy wall. Staggeringly, while the students by no means breached the law, the university authorities claimed that such advocacies as illegal and overrode CUSU by sending securities to remove the banner, revealing their complete ignorance to the autonomy of CUSU. Students’ Unions now reiterate that the nature of the Basic Law is similar to that of a constitution, which defines the power of the government and the liberty enjoyed by the citizenry. In other words, while the government is bound by the constitution, the government can never restrict the liberty of the people through the constitution. Thus, neither the government nor the university authorities can restrict the freedom of students to discuss Hong Kong independence under the name of the Basic Law.

Due to the controversy, the Executive Committee of CUSU has been suffering excessive nuisance. Yet, neither has there been any response from nor actions taken by the university authorities to protect the students. The authorities, as educators, should feel shameful for not ensuring the safety of students due to differences in opinions.

Apart from this, there were also two persons posting slogans to ‘congratulate’ Education Undersecretary Choi Yuk Lin’s loss of her son on the democracy wall at the Education University of Hong Kong. The President of EdUHK severely condemned the students as ‘vicious’, and claimed that the university would expose those persons on the internet if they were not students of EdUHK. Related shots of CCTV were then released to the media in the following day. Indeed, students’ unions believe the slogans are inappropriate. Yet, it is also important to acknowledge that the Education Bureau has been introducing malicious policies against students, ranging from TSA to national education, and Choi has been an explicitly pro-government person. With no effective channels to express their discontent, young people may have chosen such emotional and even irrational expression. Thus, while such slogans are inappropriate, we also find them excusable. Albeit their discontent, the university authorities should not have released the shots of CCTV to the media. Such action not only stirs up public emotions and ignites mass criticism against the two persons which would be completely out of proportion, but may also constitute violation of Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance. Student may also be aware of similar vengeful acts when they criticise the university authorities again in the future. Students’ unions condemn the authorities of EdUHK for creating white terror and request the authorities to give a proper response regarding the leak of CCTV footage.

Under Article 27 of the Basic Law, we as Hong Kong citizens are entitled to the freedom of speech. Our rights must be protected and respected, while academic freedom and institutional autonomy are values that must not be stripped away. Students’ unions stress that everyone enjoys the freedom of speech, and this is the line that we shall never compromise. We are now paying attention to situation across the higher institutions and we are ready to defend our rights and liberty.

10 September 2017

City University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
Hang Seng Management College Students' Union
Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Students’ Union
Lingnan University Students’ Union
Student Union of Chu Hai College of Higher Education
Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts Students' Union
The Education University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong University Students’ Union
The Open University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Student Union of Hong Kong Shue Yan University
The Student Union of The Chinese University of Hong Kong

粵語、英語加書面語之聲明。

【《赤禍殘港二十年 抗擊外侮奪主權》－ 大專學界就香港淪陷二十年之聲明｜“Twenty Years of Hardship under China and the Struggle against Enemy for Our Fate” - Declaration of Students’ Unions of Higher Institutions on the fall of Hong Kong Twenty Years Ago 】

(Please scroll down for English version.)

二十年前嘅七月一日，香港再度淪陷。早喺七十年代，港人理所當然嘅自決權已經被無理剝奪。當年中國啱啱加入聯合國，即刻要求將香港剔出殖民地名單，英國亦都袖手旁觀，縱容中國褫奪我哋嘅基本人權。其後，中英談判展開，港人被拒諸門外，港人對未來嘅訴求亦被冷眼相待。之後，中英兩國簽訂《中英聯合聲明》，香港主權將移交中國，港人縱然感到惶恐不安，但係前途命運已經塵埃落定，同砧上之肉一樣，只能夠接受現實。當年港人奢望《基本法》能夠冰封香港五十年，保留當時嘅自由、法治、制度。但係，經歷廿年嘅浩劫，我哋必須認清 － 《基本法》無改香港淪為中國殖民地嘅事實。

二十年嚟，中共扭盡六壬要赤化香港，將香港變成中國嘅一個普通城市，一個為其所用嘅工具。香港政府從來唔向港人負責，不論港督或者特首都只係向宗主國問責。大量中國人以單程證為主要途徑移民香港，港人就對移民數量、審批與否毫無話語權，被逼接受中國人口殖民。香港人身份一再被打壓，港共首先試圖以國民教育荼毒莘莘學子，強行灌輸中國人身份認同，再強推普教中， 貶低港人母語，扼殺港人身份。紅色資本入侵香港，製造經濟依賴，再大舉買地，喺香港構成錯節盤根嘅利益集團。香港正經歷緊二次殖民，但《基本法》同一國兩制未能如願成為保衛港人嘅碉堡。

由此可見，如果港人繼續依賴《基本法》同一國兩制，只係自毀城牆。今時今日，連「一國兩府」亦被港共批評同港獨相關，可以見到中共定必全力打壓一切會威脅佢全權統治嘅主張，落實《基本法》同一國兩制亦都唔能夠成為香港二次前途問題嘅答案，盲目相信《基本法》同一國兩制只係自欺欺人、虛耗光陰，唔會改變中共繼續殖民香港。二零四七距離宜家剩低三十年，分秒必爭，我哋必須要兼程而進，思考現時一國兩制框架外嘅出路，抗擊外侮，光復香港。

二零一七年六月二十七日

香港城巿大學學生會
恒生管理學院學生會
香港浸會大學學生會
香港科技大學學生會
嶺南大學學生會
香港珠海學院學生會
香港高等教育科技學院學生會
香港教育大學學生會
香港演藝學院學生會
香港大學學生會
香港公開大學學生會
香港樹仁大學學生會
香港中文大學學生會
香港專上學生聯會

二十年前的七月一日，香港再度淪陷。早於七十年代，港人理所當然的自決權已被無理剝奪。當年中國甫加入聯合國，即要求將香港剔出殖民地名單，英國亦袖手旁觀，縱容中國褫奪我們的基本人權。其後，中英談判展開，港人被拒諸門外，港人對未來的訴求亦被冷眼相待。隨後，中英兩國簽訂《中英聯合聲明》，香港主權將移交中國，港人縱感惶恐不安，前途命運卻塵埃落定，有如砧上之肉，只能接受現實。當年港人奢望《基本法》能冰封香港五十年，保留當時的自由、法治、制度。然而，經歷二十年的浩劫，我們必須認清 － 《基本法》無改香港淪為中國殖民地的事實。

二十年來，中共扭盡六壬要赤化香港，將香港變為中國的一個普通城市，一個為其所用的工具。香港政府從不向港人負責，不論港督或特首亦只向宗主國問責。大量中國人以單程證為主要途徑移民香港，港人卻對移民數量、審批與否毫無話語權，被逼接受中國人口殖民。香港人身份一再被打壓，港共先圖以國民教育荼毒莘莘學子，強行灌輸中國人身份認同，再強推普教中， 貶低港人母語，扼殺港人身份。紅色資本入侵香港，製造經濟依賴，再大舉買地，在香港構成錯節盤根的利益集團。香港正經歷二次殖民，《基本法》與一國兩制卻未能如願成為保衛港人的碉堡。

由此可見，若果港人繼續依賴《基本法》及一國兩制，只是自毀城牆。今時今日，連「一國兩府」亦被港共批評與港獨相關，可見中共定必全力打壓一切威脅其全權統治的主張，落實《基本法》及一國兩制亦不能成為香港二次前途問題的答案，盲目相信《基本法》與一國兩制只是自欺欺人、虛耗光陰，無改中共繼續殖民香港。二零四七距今餘下三十年，分秒必爭，我們必須兼程而進，思考現時一國兩制框架外的出路，抗擊外侮，光復香港。

二零一七年六月二十七日

香港城巿大學學生會
恒生管理學院學生會
香港浸會大學學生會
香港科技大學學生會
嶺南大學學生會
香港珠海學院學生會
香港高等教育科技學院學生會
香港教育大學學生會
香港演藝學院學生會
香港大學學生會
香港公開大學學生會
香港樹仁大學學生會
香港中文大學學生會
香港專上學生聯會

On 1 July twenty years ago, the advent of the transfer of sovereignty meant the fall of Hong Kong once again. In the 1970s, we were already deprived of our right to self-determination. Once China entered the United Nations, Hong Kong was removed from the list of Colonial Territories. Conniving in the process, Britain stood by. China and Britain then started their negotiations on Hong Kong’s future, and Hong Kong people were barred from participating throughout the course. When the Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed and the sovereignty of Hong Kong was decided to be transferred to China, anxiety spread through society, but our fate had been resolved, and we were left with no choice but accepting the reality. Hong Kong people then put their faith in the Basic Law to freeze Hong Kong for fifty years, keeping the freedom, rule of law and systems at that time intact. Yet, falling to the scourge of the Chinese rule for twenty years, we must now realize the fact – the Basic Law in no way changes the reality that Hong Kong is now a colony of China.

For twenty years, China has been assimilating Hong Kong in an attempt to denigrate Hong Kong as just another city of China and a tool to the communist regime. The government of Hong Kong has never been responsible to Hong Kong people, as the head of the government, be it the Governor or the Chief Executive, is accountable only to the suzerain. The One-way Permit scheme has become the main channel for Chinese to settle down in Hong Kong, and yet, Hong Kong people are denied from our right to determine on the number, vetting and approval on the application. We are thus forced to experience such population transfer. Our Hong Kong identity is perpetually suppressed under the attempts to introduce national education to indoctrinate Chinese identity and Putonghua as the medium of instruction to debase Cantonese that is our mother tongue. Chinese capital are now flagrantly invading Hong Kong and making bullish bids of our land, creating intricate structures with interests in different sectors. While we are suffering from such re-colonisation, the Basic Law and the framework of One Country, Two Systems have never been the bastion protecting us.

If we still cling on to the Basic Law and One Country, Two Systems, we are doomed to self-destruction. As the puppet regime of communist China in Hong Kong condemned ‘One Country, Two Governments’ as related to advocating independence, it is now clear that anything that may undermine the totalitarian rule of China will be oppressed, and even the Basic Law and One Country, Two Systems cannot be the path to a brighter future. In fact, to blindly put faith in the Basic Law and One Country, Two Systems has no difference from deceiving oneself and wasting one’s own precious time to emancipate ourselves from re-colonisation. As 2047 is approaching, we are left with thirty years’ time, and we have no time to lose. To stoutly resist the Chinese regime, we must not restrain our imagination towards our future within the framework of One Country, Two Systems. Together we shall struggle against the enemy and restore the glory of our Hong Kong.

27 June 2017

City University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
Hang Seng Management College Students' Union
Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Students’ Union
Lingnan University Students’ Union
Student Union of Chu Hai College of Higher Education
Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts Students' Union
The Education University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong University Students’ Union
The Open University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Student Union of Hong Kong Shue Yan University
The Student Union of The Chinese University of Hong Kong
The Hong Kong Federation of Students