各位同學：
《逃犯條例》的修例事件，在香港引起了大型社會運動，你們都參與在其中。在6月13日，我請一位同學替我聯絡你們，請你們把心聲傳送給我，由我轉交特區政府。
感謝各位同學當天迅速的回應，你們都很坦誠地把意見和感受寫出來，表達了你們對香港的自由和法治的珍惜，又解釋了你們參與這次反對修例行動的原因，包括對這次修例的程序以致法案的內容的不滿，對於中國內地的司法制度的疑慮，以至你們對於警方的行動的批評。
你們這些信息是在6月13日發給我的，事後看來，在這次修例過程中，當天是最關鍵的一天，從傳媒報道可以看到，當時政府內部有兩種意見，一種意見認為，如果因為示威人數眾多或甚至發生暴力事件而讓這項立法半途而廢，這將嚴重損害特區政府的管治威信，而建制派亦將受到重創。相反的意見是，在民情洶湧的情況下強行立法，無助於政府威信，特區政府必須以理服人，爭取民心，有這麼多市民不了解這項立法或對它有很大的恐懼和抗拒，那麼政府便須停一停、想一想。
行政長官林鄭月娥在這兩種意見針鋒相對的情況下，選擇了後者，不失為一個明智和勇敢的抉擇。無論她在這次修例過程中有何不足之處或出錯，我認為她最後作出無限期暫緩立法的決定，並成功爭取中央理解和支持這個決定，這個做法是正確的，而且正如她所說的，是為了香港的最大福祉，和令社會回復平靜。在6月18日，林鄭承認參加遊行的市民是熱愛香港的。在7月1日，她明確表示會汲取教訓，並承諾政府的施政風格將會改變，變得更開放，更包容，更貼近民情。所謂聽其言觀其行，我們期待這個願景的實現。
理性地看修例
你們都是唸法律的同學，我希望你們能從理性的角度去看這場爭議。理性對待一個問題，就是盡量客觀、全面地了解和分析它，小心求證，不先入為主，不人云亦云，不以偏概全。法律人的理性，在於看到很多問題都可以同時存在正反的論點，正如在辯論比賽或模擬法庭，都有正反或控辯雙方的觀點與角度，雙方在辯論中擺事實，講道理，真理愈辯愈明。
理性地去看這次修例，《逃犯條例》的修訂是否一條惡法，並不宜簡單化和政治化。國際和區際刑事司法合作有其合理需要，試想有人在台灣、中國內地以至170個沒有和香港簽訂引渡條約的國家，犯了殺人、巨額詐騙、巨額貪污等刑事罪行，然後逃到香港，而可以在香港逍遙法外，無須引渡至在其犯案的國家或地區接受審訊，又無法在香港予以繩之於法，這顯然是有違公義的原則的。當然，引渡制度的設計，必須防止無辜人士的自由和人權受到損害。問題是怎樣建立一種法律制度，既保證罪有應得者得到懲治，又確保這個制度不會被濫用來針對無辜者，這是你們作為法律系的學生值得研究的課題。
以上是關於引渡的法律問題的理性思考，至於各位同學的參與社會事務，理性也可以提供指引。正如亞里士多德指出，雖然人有理性和非理性的兩面，但如果我們讓理性來指導我們的行為和生活，我們便能培養德行，從而邁向善和幸福。他指出，德行是一種中庸之道或中道，就是不走極端，而是在過分與不足之間的適中行為。舉例來說，勇敢作為一種德行，便是在懦弱和魯莽這兩端之間的中道。我們面對每一個情況，作出每一個行為上的抉擇，都應該以理性所啟示給我們的中道為依歸。這個道理可以應用於各位同學的日常生活以至社會參與。例如，對社會和政治漠不關心，是一個極端，用違法或暴力的手段去追求自己認為正義的目標，也可能是過於激進，中道在這個情況下，可以理解為通過參加和平的集會和遊行表達政治訴求，或作為公民在選舉中投票，或通過參與公民社會中的社團或政黨來參與政治生活，甚至作為候選人參選。
《逃犯條例》事件大致上已經告一段落，所謂雨過天晴，我希望我們能盡快放下關於《逃犯條例》事件的爭議，重新出發，為更美好的明天建設香港。雖然香港社會嚴重撕裂，但正如英文有所謂 what unites us is greater than what divides us，我們同坐一條船上，全體香港市民是一個命運共同體，必須同舟共濟，同甘共苦，榮辱與共。大家在一場嚴重的爭執後，理應冷靜下來，嘗試修補關係，各方和解，互相寬恕，重建信任和合作。就讓我們本着這種精神，一起守護這個自由、法治、多元、開放、寬容、和平及仁愛的我城香港，這顆發出一國兩制的光芒的東方之珠。最後，我在這裏為這場風暴中犧牲的死者致以哀悼，為傷者致以慰問，並與大家分享一段祈禱文，以此共勉。
「上主，求你用我成為你的和平使者，
去有仇恨的地方，傳播愛；
去有傷害的地方，傳播寬恕；
去有猜疑的地方，傳播信任；
去有絕望的地方，傳播盼望；
去有幽暗的地方，傳播亮光；
去有憂愁的地方，傳播送喜樂。」
（引述自祈禱文Prayer of St Francis）
陳弘毅上
2019年7月6日
附錄：
參與6月12日反「修例」行動的十位學生的意見（2019年6月13日）
A：從小到大，香港於我來說都是一個民主，法治的地方。可是到了6月9日，遊行過後，我們得到的答案是如期二讀。在公眾有如此多疑問的時候，市民最低限度也需要更多的時間去理解這一件事。由於廣大的訴求未能得到回應，市民唯有再度岀來表達訴求和不滿。當天（6月12日）在夏愨道，我看到的是市民和平理性，團結地在一起。由幫忙收集物資到把物資分給有需要的人甚至靜坐在地上的所有市民都井然有序。大家依然希望透過和平理性的方式表達訴求，但是到了最後卻演變成了一齣悲劇。催淚彈落在人群之中，落在充滿人的商場中；警棍打在了人的身上，也打倒大家對香港的希望。我希望能透過這次機會詢問一下政府堅決不撤回修例，甚至堅決不延遲修例的原因。
B：I wannaemphasise my concerns on police forces exploiting their rights and the abuse of power. The police just shot the innocent citizens even if they are leaving the venue without provoking the police. There are tons of videos showing the violent behavior of the police and I hope that the government would take a look at the videos. The responsibilities of the police is not to stand against the citizens, but to protect them. However, even citizens, especially youngsters passing Admiralty are treated by police impolitely. There are more and more recent news showing that the police has been abusing their power, including they are staying at the Hospitals to arrest teens if they have been suffering from Admiralty, they arrest the group administrator who did nothing in the protest but just help spread the messages to each other. Please take this seriously.
And i think people are just very angry due to what the police acted. Provocating the protestors by words and conduct, head-shooting the protestor, beating up people without any weapons in hand. How can you tell this force applied was proportionate and necessary and use this as a defence?
C：希望政府唔好漠視民意我地並唔係製造暴動從來都唔會係一班手無寸鐵嘅人去製造暴動我地只係想政府可以聆聽我地嘅聲音撤回條例。
D：我是一個法律系學生。一路以來，我都覺得自由和法治是香港不可或缺的核心價值。先不論《逃犯條例》的詳細條文。是次政府推出《逃犯條例》完全跳過慣例程序，違反程序公義；警察濫用職權，公然對手無寸鐵的示威者使用不必要的武力，企圖利用武力逼使示威者屈服。自由誠可貴，我相信示威者會不惜一切推倒惡法。公民抗命，無畏無懼。請政府不要一意孤行，否則後果自負。
E：修訂草案當中法庭權力僅限於確保引渡申請符合程序，對引渡國司法水平毫無限制內地「審判委員會」有權審批、覆核內地法庭判決，內地法官向黨負責，任命升遷由黨決定，國際公認司法不獨立，而李家超又不願接納建議將無罪假定等人權要求清晰列於條例之上，到底現有草案下如何確保港人被引渡內地得到公平審訊？假若港府豪不擔心內地司法水平，又何須顧慮商界，豁免九項商業罪行？是否自相矛盾？？李家超嘗試回應指條例需要「保留彈性」，到底於港府眼中，於何種情況下人權要求不必被保障，以致非要保留此彈性不可？又有建議派觀察員到引渡國跟進案件，請問區區一個觀察員如何左右內地司法程序或判決？
F：
Dear Professor Chen,
I am an LLB year three student who have heard from my schoolmate that you are willing to hear the voice from the youngster in regard to the extradition law (I am sorry I do not identify the original source). Your openness to ideas and thoughts are appreciated. I would like to share some personal thought in related to this issue of the law and the governing style of the HK government.
First, in regard to the extradition law itself, all we want is to avoid the HK or central government from availing of the amended extradition laws as a tool to control the freedom of speech in Hong Kong. I was glad I could hear your discussion with other scholars in Tuesday’s conference held by Cora. I agree partially with Professor Ian Grenville Cross that the current amendment is beneficial to criminal justice. However, freedom of speech and other sorts should not be compromised even to the slightest given that they are the things which make us love Hong Kong. I acknowledged the advancement in Chinese Legal System, but we cannot understand why the HK government could not offer more protection as requested (such as expressly includes court’s supervisory power in the provisions, and allow Hong Kong people to be tried in Hong Kong under double criminality.) Urgency is no longer an issue as Taiwan have already refused to resolve the murderer’s case via the amended law. We sincerely wish the government to offer more protection to give confidence to Hong Kong people that the law would not wind up being a merger of two jurisdictions in disguise, which is a concern for not just our generation but also all other HK people who are against the law.
Second, in regard to the government’s response, we are merely wishing for a government accountable to HK people. The total disregard to the demonstration on last Sunday (with disputable figures) is infuriating. I cannot be certain, but it may be the reason why yesterday’s incident happened. Given the number of people who have stepped out to voice their thought, we earnestly wish the government to allow more time for consultation in a wider context (such as allowing discussion with legal professions) even though the government insisted on the importance of the amendments.
I am sorry that I give a long and clumsy message to you, probably with grammatical mistakes. I would be grateful if you could pass the voice of our generation to the authorities. Thank you, professor Chen.
G：
最根本問題係香港人唔信中央。對於《逃犯條例》修訂，冇人唔知現行法例實在係有漏洞，但係我哋仍然強烈反對，係因為我哋冇辦法相信政府同中央。
草案入面冇對人權嘅保障，即使有，我哋都係冇辦法信任政府。雖然政府話侵犯自由嘅罪行會唔包括在內，但係人人都知道，中央起訴維權人士所用嘅罪，唔一定係政治罪行，可以係撞車強姦咩都得。
修例前，已經有銅鑼灣書店事件。修訂咗條例之後，中央唔需要再用銅鑼灣書店嘅洗頭艇。佢哋可以冠冕堂皇咁利用《逃犯條例》，引渡人上去。政府點樣叫市民相信我哋嘅人權會得到保障？對於香港人嚟講，我哋寧願香港有千千萬萬個逃犯，都唔想我哋嘅自由從此就冇晒。
即使政府強調特首會幫到手把關，其實冇人會相信。不論係咩人做特首，我哋都好清楚中央先係final boss，特首從來都唔係向香港人問責。就算係法庭，喺咁多次釋法之後，香港人都對香港司法冇晒信心。一個咁樣嘅修訂，實在說服唔到香港人。
佔中之後見到中央政府對香港態度變咗好多，由梁游，去到一地兩檢，修改議事規則，國歌法等等都係例子。我哋知道要撒回修訂好難，身邊好多朋友都覺得冇希望。一班有外國國籍嘅人已經打算走，就算冇外國國籍，都諗住拎到training contract就去英國qualify，放棄香港。對政府嚟講，呢班人可能係搞事份子，但佢哋個個都喺香港受教育，係由香港培育出嚟嘅精英，將來要擔當起建設香港嘅責任。冇咗佢哋，社會的確可能少咗反對聲音，但香港就從此會冇咗一班精英，一班由上一代香港人培育嘅人。
H：
有時一國兩制維唔維持到，除咗條例同官員舉動之外，都好睇市民嘅信心。今次民意好清晰反映香港市民根本信唔過大陸嘅司法體系，從百萬遊行人數可略知一二，我識嘅人幾乎全部去晒示威，當中甚至有blue ribbon嘅朋友。硬推嘅話，恕我直言，真係百害而無一利。律師會大律師公會，前高官，其他專業團體，宗教界，社會福利界別今次都認為應該擱置修例。再者，眾所周知，包括林鄭特首以內嘅高官嘅屋企人根本全部都有外國護照，反應出佢哋對香港政制根本冇信心，佢哋講嘅嘢試問又點會有說服力？即使成功修改條例，台灣方面已經講到明唔會接受引渡，因此無法處理台灣殺人案。所有嘅factors都point towards 政府唔應該倉猝修改條例。
I：
The extradition bill must be withdrawn pending further discussion. Yesterday’s protest was a clear sign that young people, the future generation, oppose the bill and express deep concerns about their freedom. By rushing the bill, Beijing and SAR governments risk losing the entire generation. Most of them are not planning to overthrow the regime. It is wrong for Carrie Lam to label them rioters and say things akin to “teaching them a lesson”.
If the officials are truly concerned about the constitutional relationship between Beijing and Hong Kong, they should stop and listen.
J：
Dear Prof. Chen,
Please convey the following messages to the Chinese/ Hong Kong officers:
As you have mentioned too, the Bill is highly flawed. While the government rejected ALL constructive suggestions from the people. All demonstrators were just doing their job as citizens to protest against any intending attack to our legal and political system. The confrontations between the police and youngster stemmed from the defiance of the government.
Yesterday, the Hong Kong Police Force used lethal force to suppress armless citizens. Demonstrators in Hong Kong are the most peaceful and rational among all in history. The force we used were minimal, we were trying to protect ourselves and one another. However, we faced the most brutal and cold-blooded attack from Police. What they have done may well be war crimes. They are no longer legitimate law enforcement officers of Hong Kong, but rioters and murders.
We pose 3 demands:
1. The Amendment Bill MUST be withdrawn and it should not be introduced again unless and until the PRC develops rule of law.
2. Carrie Lam, John Lee and Teresa Cheng MUST step down due to their serious misuse of their power and office.
3. All police officers who used excessive force MUST be tried before the court for the crimes.
