July 4, 2009

http://www.chrlcg-hk.org/?p=442

By Albert Ho and Patrick Poon

Translated from the original Chinese article published in the “Forum” section of Mingpao on 25 June 2009

At the 20th anniversary of the 4 June Massacre, at least about 20 mainland human rights lawyers could not pass the annual “assessment and registration”. Some lawyers even revealed that about 90 law firms and a thousand lawyers in Beijing had not yet passed the “assessment and registration”, which meant that they could not get their practising license renewed. They believed that their failure to pass the “assessment” was due to their representation in human rights cases. Meanwhile, several Beijing human rights lawyers who did not pass the “assessment”, including Tang Jitian (唐吉田), Li Xiongbing (黎雄兵) and Jiang Tianyong (江天勇), were unreasonably detained or under surveillance in a few days. These lawyers were seemingly regarded as “undesirable elements” against the government.

Lawyers play an important role in advancing the rule of law; this is particularly true for lawyers who are concerned about human rights cases and public interests. They often represent peasants who lose their lands without reasonable compensation, petitioners, workers, dissident writers, Falun Gong members, Tibetans and other human rights defenders who are involved in “politically sensitive” cases. They also provide legal support to parents of victims in the tainted milk powder scandals, and to families of victims in Sichuan Earthquake. Furthermore, they requested a direct election in the Beijing Lawyers Association, as they felt that the association has not fulfilled its duty in protecting its members’ rights. In April this year, Beijing lawyers Cheng Hai (程海), Li Chunfu (李春富) and Zhang Kai (张凯) were beaten up by local public security officers when they were working on their cases. These lawyers were deprived of their right to practice because they were involved in right defense activities. They were currently in very dangerous situations. Yet, the Chinese government turned a blind eye to the situation, and let local officials suppress these lawyers. The authorities even marginalized them by consolidating other lawyers who had closer relationships with the government.

According to Beijing lawyer Jiang Tianyong, there were more than 20 lawyers who were affected by the “annual assessment”, and a few Beijing law firms were also under rectification. It was estimated that more than a hundred lawyers were affected, although the deadline of passing the “annual assessment”, 31 May, had passed, they were still demanding the authority to renew their practicing licence. Facing such unreasonable suppression, lawyers showed great self-restraint, and had been taking lawful means to urge the authorities to respect their rights, and to support other lawyers who were affected. Although the executive committee of the Beijing Lawyers Association was not elected by the lawyers, the lawyers still tried to lobby the committee, hoping that the committee could persuade the judicial authorities to let them pass the “annual assessment”.

“Annual Assessment” Fails to Protect Lawyers’ Right to Practice

According to Section One of Article 46 of the Law on Lawyers of the People’s Republic of China and Article 1 of the Constitution of the All-China Lawyers Association, which were about the duties and responsibilities of the Lawyers Association, the Lawyers Association should protect the lawyers in performing their duties according to law, and protect lawyers’ lawful rights; but it seemed that the judicial authorities had never listened to the lawyers’ requests and totally ignored their lawful rights. This fully reflected that the so-called “annual assessment and registration” scheme only restrained lawyers, but completely failed to protect lawyers’ right to practice, and was wholly against the spirit of the rule of law.

The more worrying fact was that, according to an article entitled “Re-forging Millions of Chinese Officials, Training Crucial Positions in Beijing” (Zhongguo Baiwan Guanyuan “Zaiduanzao”, Yaohai Gangwei Kuaji Jiniing Shouxun) published in the Southern Weekend in Guangzhou on 4 June, only about half of mainland law firms had party branch secretaries last year, but the figure suddenly increased to over ninety per cent this year. The party cadres received a so-called “training” from 12 to 26 May in the Central Institute for Judicial Police in Baoding, Hebei Province. The report said that this was the first time that the Ministry of Justice trained the party branch secretaries in law firms. Most surprisingly, in a speech that he gave during the training sessions, Zhao Dacheng, the Vice-Minister of the Ministry of Justice, quoted from Mao Zedong’s speech which summarized the experience of the “Struggle in Jinggang Shan”. “Building party branches on the company level is an important reason for the Red Army to be able to defy hardship and danger instead of disperse in defeat,” he said. In the era that China stressed reform and opening-up, the Vice-Minister’s “Red Education” signified the authorities’ increasing control over lawyers, which was definitely a great regression of China’s rule of law development.

The constraint on lawyers’ practice reflected the threat to rule of law. China needs an independent legal profession to protect the integrity of the legal system, and to develop the rule of law. Since 2000, in each year there were thousands of collective actions like petitions, strikes, and protests against expropriation of land. Lawyers can actually play the role of helping citizens to solve such problems through lawsuits, and this will in turn help relieve the problem of social instability by preventing the explosion of civil discontents. But if lawyers are severely suppressed, social stability would be less guaranteed, let alone the advancement of rule of law and democracy.

Albert Ho is the Chairman of the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group; Patrick Poon is the Executive Secretary of the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group.

June 26, 2009

http://www.chrlcg-hk.org/?p=439

2009年6月25日發表於香港《明報》論壇版

何俊仁、潘嘉偉﹕落實法治 保障律師執業權

【明報專訊】「六四」20周年之際,至少近20名內地維權律師無法通過本年度的「考核」,甚至有律師透露,至今北京有90多家律師事務所、千多名律師仍沒有通過「考核」,意味他們無法繼續取得執業資格,他們認為未獲通過「考核」是與他們接辦多宗人權案件有關。與此同時,幾名未獲通過「考核」的北京維權律師,包括唐吉田、黎雄兵、江天勇,在幾天之內遭到公安無理扣押或被嚴密監視。這些律師好像被看成與政府作對的「不良分子」。

律師在推動法治方面扮演非常重要的角色,特別是關注人權案件及公共利益的律師,往往是促進社會法治進步的捍衛者。他們經常為失地農民、上訪民眾、民工、異見作家、法輪功學員、藏民及其他維權人士等等所謂的「政治敏感」案件當辯護律師。他們亦有為去年底毒奶粉受害者家長、四川大地震死難者家屬索償提供法律援助。另外,他們因感到自己所屬的律師協會沒有履行維護會員權益而要求律師協會直選。今年4月,北京律師程海、李春富及張凱在處理案件期間遭到地方公安人員毆打。這些律師因為參與這些維權行動而被剝奪繼續執業的權利,處境異常險惡,中國政府卻一直無視這種情況,放任地方官員打壓這些律師,甚至促使與政府關係密切的律師同行,把他們邊緣化。

據北京律師江天勇透露,受影響的不單止有20名律師,有幾間北京律師事務所亦有受到整頓,估計受影響律師近100名,雖然已經過了5月31日的規定時限,他們還在努力與當局爭取。雖然面對這樣無理的打壓,律師們都非常克制,一直採取合法的途徑,理性地發表呼籲,互相支持受影響的同行,而且,雖然律師協會的理事並非由他們選出來,他們仍努力向理事游說,希望透過理事能說服司法部門讓他們通過「考核」。

考核制度不能保障執業權

據《中華人民共和國律師法》第46條第1項及《中華全國律師協會章程》第6條第1項關於全國律協的職責清楚說明,律師協會應當「保障律師依法執業,維護律師的合法權益」,但司法部門卻好像對律師們的要求充耳不聞,完全無視他們的合法權益。充分反映這個所謂年檢考核制度只會規範律師,卻完全不能保障律師執業權利,完全有違法治的精神

更令人擔憂的是,據廣州的《南方周末》6月4日一篇題為〈中國百萬官員『再鍛造』要害崗位跨級進京受訓〉的報道中提及,去年只有大概一半的內地律師事務所設有黨支部書記,今年卻突然增至超過九成,這些黨幹部剛於5月12日至26日於河北保定的中央司法警官學院接受所謂的「培訓」,據稱是司法部首次培訓律師事務所支部書記。最令人驚訝的是,司法部副部長趙大程在培訓班上的講話中,引用毛澤東總結井岡山鬥爭經驗的講話:「紅軍所以艱難奮戰不潰散,『支部建在連上』是一個重要原因。」於此中國強調改革開放的時代,司法部副部長卻向律師事務所的黨幹部作出這樣的「紅色教育」,意味着當局正逐步擴大對律師的控制,這絕對是中國法治發展的大倒退。

律師執業受限反映法治受威脅的問題,中國需要有一個獨立的律師團隊使法制得以健全,使法治得以發展。自2000年以來,每年發生數以千計上訪、罷工、抗議徵地等群體事件,律師正好可以扮演幫助民眾透過法律訴訟去協助調解,幫助政府解決社會不穩定的問題,以免民怨一觸即發,若律師也受嚴重打壓,則更無法確定社會穩定,更別說推進法治與民主。

作者何俊仁是中國維權律師關注組主席,潘嘉偉是中國維權律師關注組執行秘書

June 19, 2009

目前已有9849位网友提交签名,来签下您的名字,喊出我们的声音
签名地址:http://www.lssw365.org/

2009年6月21日發表於香港《公教報》專欄《義筆容辭》:記者成為鐵幕北韓與國際社會博弈犧牲品

May 12, 2009

1. 1989年春天,我在唸小學六年級,當年我正忙著一般人認為決定小孩前途的學能測驗,而且又剛剛領洗,對一個12歲的小孩來說,確實無法再有精神接收其他訊息。

2. 1989年5月份,小學六年級大考將至,實在非常緊張,在溫習休息的時候,聽見爸媽在看電視新聞,說甚麼北京大學生太緊張了,並說絕食會壞身子的,絕食的感覺是怎樣?我當年12歲,實在無法理解和感受。

3. 將近5月底,聽爸媽和老師說,北京有越來越多大學生到天安門廣場參加集會,曾在文革時代到過大陸旅遊的爸媽說,以前大陸民眾連說一句批評政府的話都不敢說,現在居然有那麼多人出來,真的沒想過會這樣。我當時看見大學生們在電視螢幕上,以沙啞的聲音向民眾發言,覺得他們太辛苦了。

4. 過了幾天,六四早上起床,突然聽見電視機開了,全家人在大聲叫嚷說著這一下完了,開槍了,還有坦克,不知在廣場的學生怎麼樣了?驚愕、惶恐、不知所措,這是真的嗎

5. 嫁了到加拿大的姨姨打電話回來,她看了六四的新聞,媽媽跟她講完了電話後,雖然她沒說甚麼,但好像感覺家人有閃過移民的念頭,我問媽媽香港可以獨立嗎?我真的很害怕。她說香港那麼小,不能獨立,叫我不要怕,很多香港人以前熬過了文革逃到香港,我們應該可以熬得過的,不怕。

6. 六四後回到學校上課,感覺很恐怖呀,老師派了一些黑色的絲帶和黑底白字上面寫著「毋忘六四」等等標語的貼紙,我的班主任見我們一班小學生就像不明白,說道:「你們確實出生得太晚了,不明白中國歷史。」

7. 拿到那些黑色貼紙回家,我把它們貼在床頭的木板上,細聲唸著那些標語,想起媽媽的話,不禁懷疑,真的不用怕嗎?

8. 爸爸有時候會跟我和哥說一些時事政治話題,媽媽一般不願多說,但89年的百萬人大遊行,我們卻一起參加了,如果沒有記錯,我們是在紅磡體育館外面等著開始遊行的,跟著其他人一起唱歌,喊口號,那是我第一次參加遊行。

9. 隨後多年的六四集會,我只是遇而參加,從以前那些打倒誰誰誰的口號,變成悼念六四,感覺很唏噓,唸大學和剛出來工作當記者的時候,自覺要客觀看六四事件,不敢有太深感受。

10. 五年前機緣際會的情況下,涉足了人權工作,慢慢又因為在接觸國內的種種人權問題而又再次認真看看六四的資料,並且因工作關係而接觸了當年參與和見證六四的國內外人士,不禁要問,現在六四已經二十年了,究竟甚麼時候才是某些人所謂「適當的時候」平反六四?難道要等到當年參與六四的人全都白髮蒼蒼,才能所謂給歷史一個定論?由誰來定?不是人民嗎?雖然可能有人會譏笑我,但我希望是人民決定。

May 3, 2009

2009年5月3日發表於香港《公教報》專欄《義筆容辭》:落實「宗教信仰自由」

March 12, 2009

2009年3月15日發表於香港《公教報》專欄《義筆容辭》:拒人入境的意義何在?

January 29, 2009

「我們要回家」
http://news.sina.com.hk/cgi-bin/nw/show.cgi/2/1/1/1020089/1.html

因為家人 流亡是一種折磨
http://news.sina.com.hk/cgi-bin/nw/show.cgi/3/1/1/1020088/1.html

子彈長埋皮肉 賣烤鴨過活
http://news.sina.com.hk/cgi-bin/nw/show.cgi/3/1/1/1020087/1.html

白髮蒼蒼 也想與學生重聚
http://news.sina.com.hk/cgi-bin/nw/show.cgi/3/1/1/1020086/1.html

明報社評:本着人道主義精神 讓政治異見者回家
http://news.sina.com.hk/cgi-bin/nw/show.cgi/7/2/1/1019984/1.html

這個專題及評論文章寫得非常好!希望不會再聽見有朋友說:「六四都過了那麼多年了,還提來幹甚麼?現在中國發展的多好!我們不要活在過去吧!」每次聽見類似的話,總覺得心寒、悲哀及忿忿不平。

January 24, 2009

快要去日內瓦開會,然後到德國大肆遊玩一番!懇切期待!一定要吃盡德國的美食,遊盡波恩與科隆附近的景點!真的很期待呀!快點到二月吧!農曆新年快樂!

January 17, 2009

回看08年,真的是太忙了,參加了太多組織,參與了太多活動,工作日漸忙碌,同時差不多完成第二個碩士學位,感到有點疲累,少了許多單獨靜思的時間,每天都要處理大量文字,跟不同的朋友聯絡,甚至寫blog亦感到有點力不從心。希望今年完成一些工作及學業後,能有多些時間靜下來想想將來的路。

剛剛過去的台灣之行令有我有點充電的感覺,謝謝台灣的好朋友! ^-^