曾德成：校內派單張反殖何罪之有
教育局長吳克儉早前提醒師生勿參與佔中這種違法行為，民政事務局長曾德成指，這是教育局長的職責。
曾德成在讀書時代，曾於六七暴動期間被控「放置煽動性標語」而入獄。有記者問到，他當年也曾入獄，有否影響其前途時，曾德成反問，當時他不過是在學校內派發自己印刷的單張，反對殖民主義，試問這「何罪之有」？
曾德成強調，吳克儉的講法只是事實的陳述，家長、教師及學生可以理性探討。
7. (1) A competent authority may by order prohibit the importation or exportation, or the printing or publishing of any particular publication or of any publication of a particular kind or character, the importation, printing or publishing of which, in his opinion, would be, or would be likely to be or become, prejudicial to the public interest. Such prohibition shall be deemed to extend to any copy or portion of such publication.
........
我在寫《火樹飛花》……讀了之後時在網上找不到上面這條例，有位律師在港大法律圖書館給我找出來並電郵給我，促成我寫了再寫《火樹飛花》。
以曾局長同樣的思維來看佔中，佔中的人只不過想通過這手段去爭取普選，如果因此定罪，又何罪之有？曾德成的言論，是否在鼓勵人去佔中呢？説不定因此而定罪將來也可以像他一様拿個補償，撈一官半職，衣錦還鄉，做徹頭徹尾的共產黨。那些甚麽都撈不到，只撈了定罪紀錄的人，又何罪之有？更甚，當年無辜被炸死，被暴徒燒死，譬如清風街那兩姊弟，播音員林彬，他們又何罪之有？
教育局長吳克儉早前提醒師生勿參與佔中這種違法行為，民政事務局長曾德成指，這是教育局長的職責。
曾德成在讀書時代，曾於六七暴動期間被控「放置煽動性標語」而入獄。有記者問到，他當年也曾入獄，有否影響其前途時，曾德成反問，當時他不過是在學校內派發自己印刷的單張，反對殖民主義，試問這「何罪之有」？
曾德成強調，吳克儉的講法只是事實的陳述，家長、教師及學生可以理性探討。
(明報即時新聞18.5.2014)
曾德成反問記者，他當年在聖保羅校內派反殖民主義傳單何罪之有，記者啞口無言，不如讓我來答，曾德成干犯了現在已廢除了的香港法例第241章的附例Emergency (Principal) Regulations第7條：
7. (1) A competent authority may by order prohibit the importation or exportation, or the printing or publishing of any particular publication or of any publication of a particular kind or character, the importation, printing or publishing of which, in his opinion, would be, or would be likely to be or become, prejudicial to the public interest. Such prohibition shall be deemed to extend to any copy or portion of such publication.
........
我在寫《火樹飛花》……讀了之後時在網上找不到上面這條例，有位律師在港大法律圖書館給我找出來並電郵給我，促成我寫了再寫《火樹飛花》。
以曾局長同樣的思維來看佔中，佔中的人只不過想通過這手段去爭取普選，如果因此定罪，又何罪之有？曾德成的言論，是否在鼓勵人去佔中呢？説不定因此而定罪將來也可以像他一様拿個補償，撈一官半職，衣錦還鄉，做徹頭徹尾的共產黨。那些甚麽都撈不到，只撈了定罪紀錄的人，又何罪之有？更甚，當年無辜被炸死，被暴徒燒死，譬如清風街那兩姊弟，播音員林彬，他們又何罪之有？
I never realized he was convicted under Cap 241. Thank you for the information.
回覆刪除Frankly, It is only my guesswork. These regulations were stipulated in 1967 specifically created to deal with the riot. From what Tsang said, I inferred that the contravention came from S.7 of the Regulations. He distributed pamphlets, which falls within the definition of the law I quoted. He may not even know the specific charge he faced. It gives rise to the question he retorted the reporter. There may be some truth in it. Coincidentally we came from the same secondary school though I was much junior.
刪除So based on what Mr. Tsang said and applying his logic by analogy, there is also no offence for being "anti-CCP".
回覆刪除David,
刪除It is exactly what I am saying.