孟晚舟護照真相大白 陰謀論橫行應當反思

<轉載自2018年12月13日 明報 社評>

華為副董事長孟晚舟被捕，加拿大法院批准保釋申請，法官批評美方一些說法純屬猜測，澄清孟晚舟只有兩本分別由香港和中國大陸簽發的有效護照，否定「持有很多本有效護照」之說。美國司法部為阻保釋，有選擇地鋪陳資料，製造孟晚舟可能潛逃印象，將香港扯入其中，市民欲知真相可以理解，遺憾是不少人先入為主，聽信美方一面之詞，以訛傳訛，甚至上綱上線，對於美國司法部文件明顯未有說出事實全部，全無戒心。自由開放社會可貴之處，在於可以監察政府權貴，可是後真相時代成見事實混淆不清，同樣需要警惕，孟晚舟護照爭議值得反思。

美方陳述事實欠全面 有識之士應審慎看待

美國指控孟晚舟違反美國制裁伊朗禁令，利用香港公司Skycom出售通訊設備給伊朗，孟堅稱無辜，事件真相尚待查明。美方官員一再聲稱孟案與中美貿易談判無關，可是總統特朗普卻直言，如果「關乎國家安全及有助達成美中貿易協議」，他會介入案件，若有機會他會跟中方討論。特朗普的說法如同公開承認，孟晚舟案這宗官司，可以成為中美貿易談判的一部分，外界認為美方欲以孟晚舟作為談判籌碼，屬於合理懷疑。

美國司法部向加拿大提交文件，渲染孟晚舟有很多護照，過去7年獲得中國大陸和香港特區發出至少7本護照，「完全有可能」還有其他護照，設法放大孟晚舟潛逃的可能，呼籲法院駁回保釋申請。美方說法迅即在香港發酵，有人質疑孟晚舟是否違法持有多本有效特區護照，要求政府解釋。雖然港府表示，入境處核查確認孟晚舟任何時候只有一本有效特區護照，可是仍然有人認定事件有詐，直至加拿大法院公開孟的3本特區護照相片，澄清她的特區護照只有一本有效，雜音才戛然而止，各方一哄而散，彷彿沒事發生過。

國際社會信任香港簽證制度，美方文件製造疑惑，損害特區護照國際聲譽，長遠或影響港人免簽證待遇，鑑於事件獨特，政府確須盡快回應釋除疑慮。香港是自由社會，人人有權提出疑問，孟晚舟特區護照有否問題、特區護照簽發制度是否完善，本身都是合理提問，可是部分質疑聲音已不屬合理懷疑，而是捕風捉影炒作陰謀論，例如有人質疑特區政府是否與內地「勾結」，因為某些人有權有勢就不跟規矩發出護照；有人則拿印製特區護照公司的背景做文章，政治黑手論繪影繪聲。當有人指他們說法欠缺憑據，隨時換來「媚共」一類帽子，理性討論無從展開。

法庭上控辯雙方各為其主，將最有利己方的事實鋪陳出來，遊戲規則如此，本亦無可厚非，然而令人失望是一些有法律知識的人，對於美國司法部文件有選擇陳述事實，似乎全無戒心。美方文件列出孟晚舟7本中港護照號碼，惟從未提過7本護照是否全部仍然有效，可是一些人未待加拿大法院跟進，已急不及待表示，美方文件「隱含」孟晚舟3本特區護照有不妥當之意，質疑辯方為何未有力反駁「同時持有3本有效特區護照」一事，彷彿不大張旗鼓澄清也是罪過；特區政府說證件沒有問題，則被視為給孟晚舟「辯護」，彷彿只有證明到孟晚舟護照有問題，才算說出「真相」。

合理懷疑與陰謀論 專家應助市民分辨

在香港，同時持有中國和特區護照並無問題，中國《國籍法》亦無明文禁止。誠然，加拿大警員供辭提到，孟晚舟過境用的特區護照，其號碼是第二本而非最新的第三本，令人產生疑竇，然而法院已在處理保釋申請，各界大可等待法官審視所有證據，先行弄清事實。一開始便隱然將孟視為證件欺詐嫌疑犯，要求特區政府徹查，未免有未審先判之嫌，這類說法不應該出於法律界中人之口。

今次加拿大法院的決定，總算在護照問題還孟晚舟清白。美國司法部文件聲稱，孟晚舟知道美國司法部正調查華為，所以自2017年3月起「刻意避免」赴美，法官更批評是「全無可靠基礎」、「純屬揣測」。若說本港一些有識之士在孟晚舟護照問題上有何不足，恐怕就是少了這份客觀批判平常心。

何謂陰謀論，何謂合理懷疑，有時只有一線之隔。陰謀論一大特點是難以證偽、訴諸個人偏見，總之信者恒信，不信者恒不信，像今次護照風波般能夠有清晰證據判別真偽，實屬少數。大膽假設小心求證是孿生兄弟，缺一不可，正如美國水門案，《華盛頓郵報》兩名記者憑着過人新聞觸覺，嗅出事有蹺蹊，然而發掘真相過程絕不馬虎，未有證據前不會妄下判斷。後真相年代，事實與成見愈來愈難區分，很多人將陰謀論與合理懷疑混為一談，專家角色應該是發揮定海神針作用，一邊提出問題，一邊講清楚哪些說法有相對充分證據支持，哪些屬於揣測或假設，協助公眾區分陰謀論與合理懷疑，促進理性討論。如果專家也參與陰謀論炒作，長遠只會影響公眾信任，將有識之士的話當成「狼來了」。

The conspiracy theories about Meng Wanzhou's passports

HUAWEI's deputy-chairperson Meng Wanzhou, who was arrested earlier, has been granted bail by a Canadian court. The judge has criticised some claims of the US as speculative. He has clarified that Meng has only two valid passports, which were issued by Hong Kong and mainland China, and has also dismissed the suggestion that Meng possesses "multiple valid passports". To prevent Meng from being released on bail, the US Department of Justice created the impression that Meng posed a flight risk, and Hong Kong was drawn into the incident as a result. It is understandable that Hong Kong people wanted the truth. But it is regrettable that many people had preconceived ideas and believed the one-sided claims of the US. What is valuable about a free and open society is that one can monitor the government and the rich and powerful. However, one should also be vigilant about facts being conflated with prejudice, which is not uncommon in the age of post-truth. The controversy over Meng's passports is worth reflecting upon.

The US accused Meng of violating its sanction against Iran, while Meng insisted that she is innocent. The truth of the matter is still to be found out. To urge the court to deny bail to Meng, the US Department of Justice emphasised in its documents to Canada that Meng had many passports. The claims of the US immediately smouldered in Hong Kong. Some people queried whether Meng had violated the law since she possessed multiple valid HKSAR passports. Although the Hong Kong government responded by saying that the Immigration Department confirmed after reviewing its records that Meng had only one valid HKSAR passport at all times, some people continued to determine that fraud and misconduct was involved.

Hong Kong is a free society and everyone has the right to raise their doubts. It is reasonable to ask whether Meng's HKSAR passport has any problems and whether Hong Kong's passport issuing system is sound. However, some of the sceptical voices can hardly be considered reasonable doubts. They are instead wild guesses and speculations based on conspiracy theories. For example, some people queried whether the SAR government had been "colluding" with the mainland and, in violation of the law, issued multiple passports to someone because they are rich and powerful. Others made a fuss about the background of the company commissioned to print HKSAR passports and made up a story of "the political mastermind" with a lot of graphic details.

The decision of the Canadian court has at least cleared the name of Meng with regard to her passports. Documents of the US Department of Justice claimed that Meng had been avoiding the US on purpose since March 2017 because she knew that they were investigating Huawei. The judge has criticised this argument for being "speculative and without any reliable foundation". If there are any inadequacies in those learned people in Hong Kong commenting on the issue of Meng's passports, it is that they lack the objective, critical and unbiased mind of the Canadian judge.

Sometimes there is only a very thin line between conspiracy theories and reasonable doubts. A major characteristic of conspiracy theories is that they are based on personal bias and it is often difficult to prove that they are fallacious. In fact, it is getting more difficult to distinguish between facts and bias in the age of post-truth. The role of experts should be to raise questions on the one hand and, on the other hand, to explain clearly which arguments are supported by relatively adequate evidence and which arguments are speculative or hypothetical. In this way, experts can promote rational discussion by helping the public to distinguish between conspiracy theories and reasonable doubts. If the experts themselves participate in speculation based on conspiracy theories, it will only undermine the public's trust in them, and what they say will only be treated as "crying wolf" in the long run.

孟晚舟護照真相大白 陰謀論橫行應當反思

華為副董事長孟晚舟被捕，加拿大法院批准保釋申請，法官批評美方一些說法純屬猜測，澄清孟晚舟只有兩本分別由香港和中國大陸簽發的有效護照，否定「持有很多本有效護照」之說。美國司法部為阻保釋，製造孟晚舟可能潛逃印象，將香港扯入其中。市民欲知真相可以理解，遺憾是不少人先入為主，聽信美方一面之詞。自由開放社會可貴之處，在於可以監察政府權貴，可是後真相時代成見事實混淆不清，同樣需要警惕，孟晚舟護照爭議值得反思。

美國指控孟晚舟違反美國制裁伊朗禁令，孟堅稱無辜，事件真相尚待查明。美國司法部向加拿大提交文件，渲染孟晚舟有很多護照，呼籲法院駁回保釋申請。美方說法迅即在香港發酵，有人質疑孟晚舟是否違法持有多本有效特區護照。雖然港府表示，入境處核查確認孟晚舟任何時候只有一本有效特區護照，可是仍然有人認定事件有詐。

香港是自由社會，人人有權提出疑問，孟晚舟特區護照有否問題、特區護照簽發制度是否完善，本身都是合理提問，可是部分質疑聲音已不屬合理懷疑，而是捕風捉影炒作陰謀論，例如有人質疑特區政府是否與內地「勾結」，因為某些人有權有勢就不跟規矩發出護照；有人則拿印製特區護照公司的背景做文章，政治黑手論繪影繪聲。

今次加拿大法院的決定，總算在護照問題還孟晚舟清白。美國司法部文件聲稱，孟晚舟知道美國司法部正調查華為，所以自2017年3月起「刻意避免」赴美，法官更批評是「全無可靠基礎」、「純屬揣測」。若說本港一些有識之士在孟晚舟護照問題上有何不足，恐怕就是少了這份客觀批判平常心。

何謂陰謀論，何謂合理懷疑，有時只有一線之隔。陰謀論一大特點是難以證偽、訴諸個人偏見。後真相年代，事實與成見愈來愈難區分，專家角色應該是一邊提出問題，一邊講清楚哪些說法有相對充分證據支持，哪些屬於揣測或假設，協助公眾區分陰謀論與合理懷疑，促進理性討論。如果專家也參與陰謀論炒作，長遠只會影響公眾信任，將有識之士的話當成「狼來了」。