英國劍橋大學打算撤回頒發予林鄭月娥的榮譽學位。
坦白說，這類名譽學位無實質作用，只是錦上添花的政治賞識，不要也罷，但對當事人而言，被人褫奪擁有的名譽是公開羞辱的事情，另人難堪。
劍橋大學的決定是追隨五國 (Five Eyes) 聯盟的政治取態及策畧，全力打壓中國，從而涉及香港。 但在英國劍橋大學的領導人是否明瞭及理解香港的實際情况及有否被褊頗的西方傳媒誤導而作出公正、公平、理智、學術上的決定，實屬疑問。
有Philip
Yeung (相信是英藉港人) ，寫了一封公開信予劍橋大學校監，闡述事件的真相，寫得很好，附下作參考：
“An
Open Letter to Prof Jane Clarke, President of Wolfson College, Cambridge
University
Dear
President Clarke,
I
understand that your College is inclined towards revoking Carrie Lam’s honorary
fellowship over her support of Beijing’s enactment of the national security law
for Hong Kong.
Frankly,
I am disappointed, not because your College wishes to punish one of your
alumni, but because it is doing so as a knee-jerk reaction without a careful
examination of the evidence. Politicians in the West are jumping on the
anti-Beijing bandwagon. But I expected a lot more from a world-leading academic
institution that teaches students to be critical and independent thinkers.
Shouldn’t you at least acquaint yourself with the facts before you jump to
conclusions ?
America
wants the world to be united in its hatred of China. But before you swallow its
anti-China propaganda whole, please revisit the situation on the ground.
This
chain of events has been triggered by the proposed extradition bill whose
withdrawal forms part of the five “non-negotiable” demands. That bill has since
been killed. Of the other four demands, violent street protestors want immunity
from prosecution, that the protest not be classified as “riots”, that Hong
Kong’s current leader be dismissed and that there be an independent inquiry
into the protests and alleged police brutality. These are the five demands that
propel the endless violent protests. This is their fight to the finish. Does it
deserve their crash and burn all-out war ?
Speaking
of police brutality, what the boys in blue do in Hong Kong is child’s play.
Throughout 10 months of violent streets protests and provocations, there has
not been a single fatality due to police action. By contrast, in Iraq, over 300
protestors were killed with nearly 15, 000 injured. The police here don’t use
live ammunition, and only once or twice use rubber bullets. They use water
cannons and tear gas to disperse the troublemakers, with officers reduced to
chasing protestors around, and the rioting youths playing a cat-and-mouse game
with them. Prior to any action, they hoist warning flags. The force has strict
rules about the use of firearms. Show me another police force in the world that
acts with such restraint before you cry “police brutality”. For a taste of real
police brutality, go to America. The Hong Kong police are fighting violent
flash mobs with their hands tied behind their backs.
As
for protestors, there is something else afoot here. The organizers are cunning
in the extreme. They push 11-year- and 12-year-olds to the frontlines. As
underage participants, they face only limited liability. These teenagers hardly
know their own minds, much less social issues like freedom of expression and
rule of law. They disguise other teenage protestors as journalists to give them
maximum mobility and a shield of immunity.
Of
the five demands, none refers to protecting the rule of law, only that
protestors be above the law. It is the essence of civil disobedience that
advocates accept the legal consequences of their actions. These immunity
demands undermine their claim to moral legitimacy.
Demanding
that Carrie Lam step down is no different from demanding that Boris Johnson
vacate No. 10--part of the political game played around the world. What is so
non-negotiable about that ?
Do
the street protests qualify as ‘riots” ? You be the judge. Shops, malls, banks,
even restaurants have been wantonly destroyed without provocation. Businesses
are now either labelled “yellow” or “blue”, with the former patronized and the
latter vandalized. Subway stations facilities are repeatedly and massively
trashed; several universities have their labs and expensive facilities smashed
to smithereens, costing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage, with the institutions
of higher learning under siege for months. These halls of education are the
last bastions of free speech, yet the trouble-makers have terrorized their
occupants, especially if they are of mainland origin. Anyone who utters a
dissenting word risks bodily harm. The President of HKUST had his home
vandalized simply because he did not do as protestors demanded. Would you
tolerate such destructive behavior by your students ? One dissenter was burned
alive, in full view of media cameras.
For
Hong Kong, it has been 10 months of terror and lawlessness. This is our land of
freedom and democracy ?
The
old Hong Kong, much admired for its civility and rule of law, is no more. It is
now bitterly color-divided into “yellow” and “blue”, with nothing between them
except hatred. It reminds me of the saying that “The disease has been cured,
but the patient dies.” Your utopia is our dystopia. Our way of life is dead.
Through
it all, Beijing has let the situation simmer. It did nothing except helplessly
gnashing its teeth on the sidelines. Beijing kept its end of the bargain,
letting Hong Kong people run themselves. But the lawlessness is out of control.
Would your government tolerate the Union Jack being desecrated while
brandishing the Chinese national flag or God Save the Queen being booed in
football games ? The economy is hemorrhaging, and social media is rampant with
hate messages and incitement to violence. This is democracy in action ? This is
supposed to promote our human rights ?
Beijing
has given the city 23 years to enact its own national security legislation. But
it got nowhere. Would London or Washington have allowed the destructive unrest
to fester ? We know Trump’s answer when he called in heavily armed police to
disperse peaceful protestors with rubber bullets.
We
must ask one inevitable question: Why is Macau in peace, and Hong Kong in
turmoil ? Because Macau has accepted the one-country-two-systems concept,
enacting its national security law soon after returning to Chinese sovereignty.
So, it is not the system that is broken, it is there are fomenters of unrest in
the former British Colony, with the US Agency of Global Media funneling at
least $3 million US in the last few years to the protestors. America sees Hong
Kong’s strategic value as part of its China containment policy. The unpopular
Taiwan leader was down to 12% of voter support, yet she was politically
resurrected by stoking groundless fears in the Hong Kong chaos, thereby winning
re-election. Hong Kong people have been free to organize and take part in
anti-Beijing protests, even calling for the downfall of the central government.
Protestors want two systems without one country. Playing both sides of the
equation, they are the ones who have breached the agreement.
The
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman is right. China is run with great
rationality like a corporate board. It may not be run on the Western model of
democracy—but given the bizarre behavior of Trump in the US and Boris Johnson
in the UK, who is to say that democracy has an edge over the Chinese model of
governance ? After all, this is the government that has lifted 750 million
people out of poverty. Despite American demonization, China has behaved
responsibly in world bodies and arenas. It is time to judge the country by its
actions, not by America’s propaganda and false narrative.
Chinese
international behavior is best understood as moves to counteract the
never-ending US encirclement—its South China Sea actions are not about
territorial gains but to ensure freedom of navigation in the vital sea lanes to
keep its commerce flowing freely to the world. Its Belt-and-Road Initiative is
also an anti-encirclement economic move. The China Dream is wrapped around in
its an economic power, not its military might. But neither does it want a
repeat of its Hundred Years of Humiliation.
The
UK is offering residency rights to Hong Kong “freedom fighters”. Australia and
even Taiwan, will soon follow suit. I say, please take them all off our hands.
These arsonists, vandals and robotic rampaging street rioters are our “gift” to
democracy. Good riddance. They will soon be your headaches as they descend on
your quiet neighborhoods. Enjoy.
With
best wishes,
Philip
Yeung
Speechwriter
to university presidents”
我也將此信寄給英格蘭及蘇格蘭的外藉朋友作為參考之用。
他們皆𠄘認此信件讓他們了解到事實的真相，也明瞭到中國在今次事件的手法及克制。 他們肯定英國人民不會無條件接收BNO護照的持有者，特別是參予示威及暴亂人士。
