<轉載自2017年12月15日 明報 社評>
特區政府與內地公安機關簽署通報機制新安排，就不同種類案件註明通報時限，擴大通報範圍。去年銅鑼灣書店事件，李波「以自己方式返回內地」，多月不知所終，政府多番循通報和協作機制聯絡內地，遲遲未獲告知詳情。新通報機制落實後，從技術層面而言，對避免兩地執法部門出現溝通斷層，相信有一定幫助，然而要釋除港人的政治疑慮，恐怕並不足夠，若有內地人員跨境執法，即使有了新通報機制亦屬徒然。
通報機制減少含糊 實際執行切勿走樣
2001年，本港與內地建立通報機制，若有港人在內地遭刑事拘留調查，特區政府可以得知具體情况，盡快通知當事人家屬，提供適當協助。過去10多年，內地部門向特區作出超過1.5萬次通報，可是在銅鑼灣書店事件中，通報機制卻有形同虛設之感。李波等人失蹤，惹來市民關注，特區當局一再表示已按照通報機制向內地查詢，可是遲遲沒有收到確切消息，直至去年夏天，事件主角之一林榮基在港召開記者會，外界才知道原來他們一直被寧波公安機構拘留。執法部門溝通明顯存在不足，促使兩地檢討通報機制。
廣東省公安廳是本港警方主要聯絡的直接對口單位。銅鑼灣書店事件曝光後，本港警方多次向粵方了解，然而廣東省公安廳並未拘留書店中人，僅僅告訴港方，「經了解」知道李波身處內地，後來又只空泛提到，數名當事人即將「取保候審」，間接證實他們涉及刑事案件，可是既未提到他們身處哪兒，又未提及所犯何事。查詢要「託上託」，回覆又語焉不詳，情况絕不理想，亦肯定不是通報機制的原意。今次特區政府與公安部簽署新協議，主要目標是改善透明度，增加通報渠道，將對口單位明確化，減少含糊之處。
新安排訂明，公安機關、國家安全機關、海關緝私部門和檢察機關，若對身處內地港人採取刑事强制措施又或提出刑事檢控，均需通報，內地主要通報單位是公安部港澳台事務辦公室，並將上海市公安局納入直接對口單位，理論上可以減少溝通混亂；新機制將反恐和國家安全相關案件加入通報範圍，並且首次引入通報時限，內地機關採取刑事行動後，要按照案件類別，在7日、14日或30個工作日內通報，列明涉事港人涉嫌罪名、相關法律依據、刑事拘留地點等資料，理論上亦有助提高透明度，避免再有資料含糊情况。
新機制對於理順兩地執法部門信息交流，有一定幫助，然而一旦遇上敏感政治事件，機制會否在關鍵時刻「失靈」，未能發揮應有功效，仍然是最令人關心的問題。舊安排有訂明通報渠道，由公安部警務合作聯絡官與本港警方對口，可是現實執行卻明顯走樣，銅鑼灣書店事件可見一斑。如果無法確保通報機制執行「不走樣不變形」，就算將所有內地「強力部門」白紙黑字寫入文件之內，實際效用恐怕也會大打折扣。
港人憂慮跨境執法 改善通報只是枝節
「一國兩制」的存在，本身便承認了兩制存在極大鴻溝，多數港人不了解內地制度，內地也未必清楚香港的一套，信任問題油然而生。以銅鑼灣書店事件為例，雖然事後公安部門堅稱，由始至終是寧波市公安局成立專案小組，查辦林榮基等人，可是一些港人懷疑，會否還有一些不為人知的神秘執法部門，諸如所謂「中央專案組」，暗中辦理案件。又例如新機制訂明了通報時限，可是內地如何界定刑事調查的起始點，也令港人心存疑惑。港人並不了解內地法律，自然擔心內地執法機關正式採取刑事行動前，會否又有一些「特殊措施」，「邀請」當事人「自願」配合調查，變相拘留軟禁。
很多港人對內地黨政機關的分別認識不深，近年內地反腐，中紀委的名字時有所聞，卻未必人人清楚中紀委是黨機關，只能對共產黨員執行家法，諸如「雙規」（在規定時間、規定地點接受調查）。雖然「雙規」意味軟禁監視，最長可達半年，可是就連內地也有聲音質疑，中紀委並非國家執法機關，「雙規」限制人身自由，缺乏法律依據。內地打算明年成立國家機關監察委，與中紀委合署辦公，正是要解決相關問題，令反腐調查名正言順。相比起中紀委未有見諸通報機制，監察委何時納入通報機制，更加值得特區政府關心和跟進。
銅鑼灣書店事件挫損了港人對一國兩制的信心，改善通報機制，有助減少「不明不白」情况，然而對港人來說只是枝節，擔心跨境執法才是問題核心。內地與香港關係是敏感課題，需要雙方慎重處理。中央強調要依法治國，確保一國兩制不走樣不變形，內地當局不僅需要明確承諾不會跨境執法，更要說到做到；至於香港社會亦需要時刻保持理智冷靜，將合理憂慮和杯弓蛇影加以區分，有利對症下藥，解決問題。
A new notification mechanism but worries remain
THE SAR GOVERNMENT and mainland public security authorities have signed
new arrangements on the reciprocal notification mechanism. Time limits have
been set for the notifications of various kinds of cases and the scope of cases
to be covered has also been widened. In the Causeway Bay Books saga last year,
bookstore owner Lee Bo went missing for many months after he had "returned
to the mainland using [his] own methods". The government had tried many
times to contact the mainland authorities by means of the notification and
collaboration mechanism but after a long time it still got no detailed replies.
Technically speaking, implementing a new notification mechanism will, to a
certain degree, help avoid a communication gap between law enforcement
departments of the two sides. But still it may not be enough to dispel Hong
Kong people's political doubts. If mainland officers cross the border to
enforce laws, even a new mechanism in place would only be futile.
The notification mechanism established between Hong Kong and the
mainland in 2001 has prescribed that the SAR government can obtain detailed
information of Hong Kong residents who have been detained for criminal
investigation in the mainland. In this way, the government will be able to
inform their families as soon as possible and provide appropriate assistance to
them. In the last ten or so years, more than fifteen thousand notifications
have been made by the mainland authorities to the SAR. However, in the case of
the mysterious disappearances related to Causeway Bay Books, the failure to
receive notifications from the mainland has given people the feeling that the
mechanism has existed in name only. Now the SAR government and the Ministry of
Public Security have inked a new deal of arrangements, whose main purposes are
to improve transparency, increase the number of notification channels and
reduce ambiguity by clarifying the counterpart units for getting connection.
According to the new arrangements, agencies including public security
authorities, state security authorities, customs and anti-smuggling departments
or prosecuting authorities are required to notify the SAR of cases of imposing
criminal compulsory measures on or instituting criminal proceedings against
Hong Kong residents inside the mainland. On the mainland side, the key unit in
charge of making notifications has been the Office of Hong Kong , Macao and
Taiwan Affairs of the Ministry of Public Security in Beijing. But now the
Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau is also included as a counterpart
unit. Theoretically this can reduce miscommunication. Cases related to
anti-terrorism and national security have become notifiable and a set of
notification time limits has also been introduced for the first time. After
criminal detention by mainland authorities, the agencies concerned should make
notification within a period of seven, fourteen or thirty working days
depending on the category of the case. They have to state clearly the suspected
offence committed by the Hong Kong resident(s) involved, the legal basis and
location of the detention. Theoretically this can also help heighten
transparency and avoid further circumstances of disclosing ambiguous
information.
The new mechanism will certainly help straighten out the exchange of
information between law enforcement agencies of the two sides. However, what
remains people's utmost concern is whether or not the mechanism will be
"out of order" at critical moments and fail to perform its function
in case something politically sensitive has happened.
The Causeway Bay Books incident has dealt a blow to Hong Kong people's
confidence in "one country, two systems". Modifying the notification
mechanism can help lessen the chance of matters being handled in a cloak-and
dagger manner, but in the eyes of Hong Kong people this is only a side issue.
The core of their worry is about mainland officers crossing the border to
enforce laws. The relationship between the mainland and Hong Kong is a
sensitive issue that needs to be handled with care by both sides. The central
government has emphasised ruling the country by law and has guaranteed to keep
"one country, two systems" from losing shape or being deformed. Not
only should the mainland authorities unequivocally pledge that they will not
send their officers across the border to enforce laws, but they should also
keep their word. On the other hand, Hong Kong society should also remain
rational and calm at all times and differentiate between reasonable worries and
self-created suspicions. Only by this can we find the right antidote to the
disease and really solve the problem.
新通報機制理順溝通 跨境執法疑慮未釋除
特區政府與內地公安機關簽署通報機制新安排，就不同種類案件註明通報時限，擴大通報範圍。去年銅鑼灣書店事件，李波「以自己方式返回內地」，多月不知所終，政府多番循通報和協作機制聯絡內地，遲遲未獲告知詳情。新通報機制落實後，從技術層面而言，對避免兩地執法部門出現溝通斷層，相信有一定幫助，然而要釋除港人的政治疑慮，恐怕並不足夠，若有內地人員跨境執法，即使有了新通報機制亦屬徒然。
2001年，本港與內地建立通報機制，若有港人在內地遭刑事拘留調查，特區政府可以得知具體情况，盡快通知當事人家屬，提供適當協助。過去10多年，內地部門向特區作出超過1.5萬次通報，可是在銅鑼灣書店事件中，通報機制卻有形同虛設之感。今次特區政府與公安部簽署新協議，主要目標是改善透明度，增加通報渠道，將對口單位明確化，減少含糊之處。
新安排訂明，公安機關、國家安全機關、海關緝私部門和檢察機關，若對身處內地港人採取刑事强制措施又或提出刑事檢控，均需通報，內地主要通報單位是公安部港澳台事務辦公室，並將上海市公安局納入直接對口單位，理論上可以減少溝通混亂；新機制將反恐和國家安全相關案件加入通報範圍，並且首次引入通報時限，內地機關採取刑事行動後，要按照案件類別，在7日、14日或30個工作日內通報，列明涉事港人涉嫌罪名、相關法律依據、刑事拘留地點等資料，理論上亦有助提高透明度，避免再有資料含糊情况。
新機制對於理順兩地執法部門信息交流，有一定幫助，然而一旦遇上敏感政治事件，機制會否在關鍵時刻「失靈」，未能發揮應有功效，仍然是最令人關心的問題。
沒有留言:
張貼留言