就行政長官於5月14日在立法會答問大會上，回應吳靄儀議員提問是否支持「平反六四」的言論，引起公眾嘩然；何秀蘭撰文Letter to Hong Kong回應，指

” His remark was outrageous…

Twenty years had gone by. Both the Central government and the HKSAR administration tried to lure Hong Kong people into gratefulness and forgetfulness, in return for economic favours given by Beijing, and they want Hong Kong people to drop vindication for June 4th.  Some people might be persuaded by this quibbling of killing justified with economic success, but more is not convinced.

…

When the rope is tightened, it is really up to Hong Kong people to decide what to do. Do we want to trade our conscience off for the blood money? Or do we want to speak our conscience?

My choice is simple. I want to tell the right from wrongs. And I urge you to spread the message to friends and ask them to come along to light a candle on the June 4th vigil. Let us stand united to tell Beijing and the Chief Executive, we will speak our conscience, with pride and dignity.”

隨函附上文本乙份，敬希查閱。收聽錄音片段，煩請登入下列網址

Letter to Hong Kong, RTHK
http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/radio3/lettertohongkong/20090517.html

Dear Alex,

On 14th May, the Chief Executive insulted Hong Kong people in the question and answer session in the Legislative Council. When asked by the Honourable Margaret Ng if he would support to vindicate the patriotic movement in 1989, the Chief Executive kept repeating that the country had made significant economic progress in the past twenty years, Hong Kong had been benefitted from the prosperity, and people would weigh June 4th with a fair hand. And when pressed further, he claimed that his view was representative of  Hong Kong people, and his view was formed under the influence of Hong Kong people.

His remark was outrageous.

Leaders in Zhongnanhai ordered the army to fire shots at common folks on June 4th, 1989, when they could have pacified student protestors with dialogue, or even moved them away from the Tiananmen Square by force. But leaders chose to kill. People were murdered. Sons and daughters died because they were patriotic. It was a crime. No matter how much economic progress the country had achieved, it doesn’t change the fact that the leaders ordered to murder. Right and wrong shall not be confused in time, nor should our eyes be blinded with dollars and cents. A crime cannot be cleansed with economic progress. How can we let the murderer off just because he’s making good money in the past 20 years? Justice cannot be compromised. Conscience is not for trading.

An argument has proliferated in the last few years to justify the massacre. The Beijing government and its supporters claimed that without the bloody suppression, the way to economic progress would be blocked by the students’ movement, because the protest undermined stability. It is unacceptable quibbling.

There is no cause and effect between killing and progress. In the contrary, the rule of law is the fundamental to prosperity. Stability is upheld only when people could have a fair share of economic return. Hard working people must be fairly rewarded with a decent living. For that end, the government must commit to fight corruption, and itself, must be abided by law, that people would be well protected from abuse of power and corruptive practice. Prosperity for all is precisely the goal of the students’ patriotic movement in 1989. They urged the administration to stop corruption, and had no plan to bring an end to the Communist Party regime. But their well wish for the country was deemed threatening by leaders in Zhongnanhai, the movement was brutally aborted by tanks, machine guns and blood bath.

One high official didn’t think that way. He was the late Mr. Zhao Tzi Yang. He was detained shortly after his sympathetic visit to the Tiananmen Square in 1989.  He made a thirty minutes recording during the detention. It was released on 14th May. He looked to the future in his recordings, praising western parliamentary democracy, “If the country wishes to modernize, not only should it implement a market economy, it must also adopt a parliamentary democracy as its political system. Otherwise, this nation will not be able to have a market economy that is healthy and modern, nor can it become a modern society with rule of law.” He also warned, “If we don’t move toward this goal, it will be impossible to resolve the abnormal conditions in China’s market economy.”

I agree. Only democracy could bring genuine modernization to China, otherwise, it is only prosperity under a 21st century feudalistic economy.

Ironically, Hong Kong people, in general, not quite ready to identify ourselves as Chinese, were privileged with satellite broadcasting to watch the happenings in Beijing all the way from March to June in 1989. We know the history better than our fellow countrymen in the Mainland. Knowing the massacre, we are closer to China.
A million people marched on the street to unleash our anger and sorrow.

Twenty years had gone by. Both the Central government and the HKSAR administration tried to lure Hong Kong people into gratefulness and forgetfulness, in return for economic favours given by Beijing, and they want Hong Kong people to drop vindication for June 4th.  Some people might be persuaded by this quibbling of killing justified with economic success, but more is not convinced.

The democrats in the Legislative Council are not the only ones repulsed by the Chief Executive. When he repeated the logic distorted for the first time, a man sitting in the public gallery threw a word clearly heard to everyone in the chamber including the Chief Executive. He commented, “disgusting”. Another citizen gave a stronger response, audible to every Hong Kong citizen via live broadcasting. He shouted at the Chief Executive from the gallery, named him ‘shameless’. When the Chief Executive made his point for the third time, more than ten people up in the gallery booed. That was the spontaneous response of common folks, when the Chief Executive claimed to represent Hong Kong people with his ill logic of killing leads to prosperity, citizens told him right in the face that his view was not shared.

In the recent months, the Central and HK government has been testing the persistence of Hong Kong people on our core values. Institutionally and morally, the Central government tried to tighten the rope on two systems and force the one country on Hong Kong. First, it was the ten-points-agreement, asking the SAR government to appoint more delegates of the Chinese Peoples’ Political Consultative Conference to public office. When people responded strongly against it, the Beijing government denied the discussion of such agreement. Then it’s the article of Mr Cao Erbao on a second governing team for Hong Kong, comprised of Mainland officials dealing with Hong Kong affairs. Then, the SAR government stopped activists from setting sails to the Diaoyu Islands after years of no intervention. And we question, is one country two systems still in effect?

When the rope is tightened, it is really up to Hong Kong people to decide what to do.
Do we want to trade our conscience off for the blood money? Or do we want to speak our conscience?

My choice is simple. I want to tell the right from wrongs. And I urge you to spread the message to friends and ask them to come along to light a candle on the June 4th vigil. Let us stand united to tell Beijing and the Chief Executive, we will speak our conscience, with pride and dignity.

- THE END -