Yuen Kwok-yung, D Lung: Pandemic Originated from Wuhan; Lesson from 17 Years Ago Forsaken

Pandemic Originated from Wuhan; Lesson from 17 Years Ago Forsaken

on 18 Mar 2020 (Ming Pao Daily); translated by JL@HKCT, written by Yuen Kwok-yung, David Christopher Lung
Original: link 

Winter of Jihai (2019), a virus began in Wuhan. Comes spring of Gengzi (2020), an epidemic broke out in Hubei. Within China, there were 80,000 confirmed cases, and 3,000 deaths. People were confined in their homes and the epidemic only began slowing down towards the end of the month, yet the virus had leaked to the world outside before it could be stopped. In March, it was a pandemic, only it was announced too late by the World Health Organization (WHO). Countries lacked measures and reserves, and the pandemic swept across the globe. Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan were spared from the pandemic with continuous sprinkles of overseas imported cases and small groups, but have not yet fallen.

This pandemic came from a virus, shaped like a crown (corōna in Latin), hence named Coronavirus. Since 2015, WHO has avoided using names of people, places, animals, food, culture, occupation, etc., to name illnesses. For this one, the “year” was used for differentiation, COVID-19. In the naming of viruses, International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) analyses only the genome sequencing meticulously and disregards the other aspects. Since the genome sequence of this Coronavirus was “not novel enough”, it belongs in the same sisterhood with the SARS Coronavirus, also known as SARS 2.0 (SARS-CoV-2). Local and international media call it the Wuhan Coronavirus or Wuhan Pneumonia, simple and straight-forward, which is not incorrect.

Much controversy has resulted in society regarding the name of this pandemic. In fact, the illness was named by WHO, while the virus was named by ICTV. Nicknames are conventional, as long as they are clear and understood. In scientific discussions or academic exchanges, COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 must be used. In daily public communications or media wordings, Wuhan Coronavirus or Wuhan Pneumonia are both conventional, easy to understand, and great for communication purposes.

The Pandemic of Gengzi, an Origin in Wuhan

Around 75% of the newly discovered infectious diseases originated from wild animals. Among the few that could infect mammals is the Coronavirus, whose ancestral virus originated from bats or avians. Both have the ability to fly thousands of miles to the place the virus was first discovered, therefore the naming of a virus would also include its place of origin. To investigate the origin of a virus, the correct and objective way is to isolate the virus from the animal host. Unfortunately, since Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was eradicated early on, the wild animals in the market were already gone by the time researchers had arrived to collect samples. The identities of the natural host and the intermediate host became a mystery. According to the locals, the wild animals sold within the Market came from all over China, Southeast Asia, and Africa (smuggled) to be distributed from there. The ancestral virus of the Wuhan Coronavirus cannot be determined.

Using genome sequencing to determine its origin, a bat Coronavirus stand (RaTG13) was found to be extremely similar to the Wuhan Coronavirus, with a sequencing similarity of 96%, therefore it is believed to be the ancestral virus stand of this Wuhan Coronavirus. This particular virus strand was obtained and isolated from Yunnan bats (Rhinolophus sinicus), and bats are believed to be the natural host of this Wuhan Coronavirus. Epidemiology clearly indicated Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market as the amplification epicentre, where there was a huge possibility that the virus had cross-infected between the natural host and the intermediate host, and then mutated within the intermediate host to adapt to the human body, followed by human-to-human infections.

The identity of the intermediate host remains unknown, but genome sequencing indicated that the Spike Receptor-binding domain of the Wuhan Coronavirus has a 90% similarity to that of the pangolin Coronavirus strand. Although the pangolin could not be confirmed as the intermediate host, it is highly possible that this pangolin Coronavirus strand donated Spike Receptor-binding domain DNA (or even the entire sequence) to the bat Coronavirus strand. Though gene shuffling recombination, the novel Coronavirus was born.

Wild Animal Market, the Origin of Innumerable Viruses

The 2003 SARS virus originated from Heyuan, became an epidemic in Guangdong, and passed to Hong Kong. The SARS Coronavirus was found in civets, and China clearly banned the trading of wild animals afterwards. 17 years on, the wild animal market has run amuck. The Chinese have outright forgotten the lessons from SARS and have allowed a live wild animal market to exist within the centre of a highly developed city, with wild animals being cooked and eaten in brought daylight – simply astonishing. The faeces of the animals within a live wild animal market contain a large amount of germs and viruses. With a crowded environment, vile hygiene, and a mix of wild animal species, gene shuffling and mutation could easily occur in viruses, therefore these markets must be banned.

Reform of the wet markets should be a focus of epidemic prevention. The mainland Chinese and Hong Kong governments must quickly improve these environments by enhancing ventilation and pest control. Before the complete elimination of live-animal markets, animal faeces must be well handled to minimise the chances of gene shuffling in viruses.

The online rumour that the virus originated from the US was absolutely groundless, delusional. Stop spreading the falsity before we expose ourselves to ridicule. To remain calm before a pandemic, informational transparency is of the utmost importance. With calm and objective analysis, refrain from parroting others and spreading hearsay. Not strictly enforcing the closure of all wild animal markets after SARS was a grave mistake. In order to defeat an illness, one must own up to the mistakes and face the truths. Stop committing the same mistakes and putting the blame onto others. The Wuhan Coronavirus was a product of the inferior culture of the Chinese people: excessive hunting and ingesting wild animals, inhumane treatment of animals, disrespecting lives. Continuing to devour wild animals for human desires, the deep-rooted bad habits of the Chinese people are the real origin of the virus. With this attitude, in a dozen years, SARS 3.0 is bound to happen.

(Dr Lung graduated in 2004 from the University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Medicine with distinction in Medicine. He currently works in the Hong Kong Children’s Hospital, where he built up the microbiology team and lab. Yuen Kwok-yung is a Professor and Chair of Infectious Diseases of the Department of Microbiology of the University of Hong Kong)

***

00:07 19 Mar: Yuen Kwok-yung & Disciple Withdraw & Apologise over Article "Pandemic Originated from Wuhan; Lesson from 17 Years Ago Forsaken"

Ming Pao Daily, which printed the article written by renowned biologist Yuen Kwok-yung and disciple David Christopher Lung, withdrew the article tonight.

They said they are scientists chasing after science and truth, and knew nothing about politics. They said they never intend to be involved in politics. They apologised that the expression was not appropriate and words used were wrong. This was not their intention, and they stressed that the article has nothing to do about politics. They are sorry for causing the misunderstanding due to the "typos". They did not mention what were the words and expressions involved.

However, their article did place Singapore, Malaysia and other countries together with the Republic of China. Later they changed the words to Taiwan. Now they decided to withdraw the article.

***
2020年3月18日 星期三 《明報》觀點版

龍振邦、袁國勇：大流行緣起武漢 十七年教訓盡忘

己亥冬，疫發武漢。庚子春，湖北大疫，國內疫者八萬餘，死者三千。民不出戶月餘始遏，惟疫未止已外傳。三月，全球大疫，世衛後知，未及宣布大流行。諸國欠措施缺儲備，迅大疫。星、港、澳及台暫免於大疫（原文為「星、港、澳及中華民國皆免於大疫」，作者其後訂正為「星、港、澳、台暫免於大疫」），惟零星海外輸入之症及小群組不絕，尚未失守。

此疫由病毒所致，因其形如冠，故名曰冠狀病毒。世衛由2015年開始避免用人名、地名、動物、食物、文化、職業等為疾病命名。故是次以「年份」為此病冠名以資識別，稱此病為冠狀病毒感染-19（COVID-19）。國際病毒分類委員會（International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, ICTV）以病毒基因排序為命名標準，每段基因逐一細心分析，其他因素不作考慮。蓋因此冠狀病毒基因排序「未夠新」，屬沙士冠狀病毒的姐妹，故稱之為沙士冠狀病毒2.0（SARS-CoV-2）。民間及國際媒體則稱之為武漢冠狀病毒或武漢肺炎，直接簡單，亦無不可。

社會上就此疫之命名爭議甚多，事實上疾病之名由世衛起，病毒之名由ICTV起，而俗名則是約定俗成，清楚明白便可。科學研討或學術交流，必須用官方名字COVID-19稱此病或SARS-CoV-2稱呼病毒。市民日常溝通及媒體用語，則可以武漢冠狀病毒或武漢肺炎稱之，通俗易明，方便溝通。

庚子大疫  始於武漢

約75%之新發傳染病源於野生動物，而數隻能感染哺乳類動物的冠狀病毒，其元祖病毒（ancestral virus）則源於蝙蝠或雀鳥。兩者皆能從數千公里外飛抵發現病毒之處，故病毒之命名系統亦會以發現處名之記之。欲查病毒之源，準確客觀之法乃從動物宿主身上分離出病毒。可惜華南海鮮批發市場早被清場，研究人員抵達蒐證取樣本之時，場內之活野味早已不知所終，病毒之天然宿主（natural host）及中間宿主（intermediate host）身分成疑。據當地人員述，華南海鮮批發市場內之野生動物從中國各地、東南亞各國及非洲（走私出口）運抵此處集散，武漢冠狀病毒之元祖病毒源於何地則無從稽考。

以基因排序之法尋源，查得一隻蝙蝠冠狀病毒株（RaTG13）與武漢冠狀病毒極為相近，其排序高達96%近似，故相信此病毒株為武漢冠狀病毒之始祖。此病毒株於雲南的中華菊頭蝠（Rhinolophus sinicus）身上分離得之，故相信蝙蝠乃武漢冠狀病毒之天然宿主。流行病學研究明確顯示華南海鮮批發市場為初期擴散點（amplification epicenter），病毒很大機會在場內由天然宿主交叉感染中間宿主，再於中間宿主體內出現適應人體之突變，繼而出現人傳人之感染。

中間宿主身分未明，但基因排序顯示武漢冠狀病毒S蛋白受體（Spike Receptor-binding domain）與穿山甲冠狀病毒株近似度高達90%。雖然未能確定穿山甲為中間宿主，但此穿山甲冠狀病毒株極可能捐出S蛋白受體基因（甚至全段S蛋白基因）給蝙蝠冠狀病毒株，透過基因洗牌重組成為新的冠狀病毒。

野味市場  萬毒之源

零三沙士，疫發河源，廣東大疫，傳香港。沙士冠狀病毒於果子狸身上尋得，其後中國明確禁絕野生動物交易。十七年矣，惟野味市場禁而不絕，而且愈趨猖狂。中國人完全忘記沙士教訓，讓活野味市場立足於先進城市之中心，明目張膽售之烹之吃之，令人側目。活野味市場內動物排泄物多含大量細菌病毒，環境擠迫、衛生惡劣、野生動物物種交雜，病毒易出現洗牌及基因突變，故須禁之。

改革街市為防疫重點，中國政府及港府必須迅速改善環境、加強通風、滅蟲滅鼠。在完全淘汰活禽市場前，必須妥善處理禽畜糞便，減少病毒洗牌機會。

網傳病毒源自美國之說，毫無實證，自欺欺人，勿再亂傳，以免貽笑大方。臨大疫而不亂，首重資訊透明，冷靜理性分析，勿人云亦云，以訛傳訛。沙士後沒有雷厲風行關閉所有野味市場乃大錯，欲戰勝疫症，必須面對真相，勿再一錯再錯，諉過於人。武漢新冠狀病毒乃中國人劣質文化之產物，濫捕濫食野生動物、不人道對待動物、不尊重生命，為滿足各種欲望而繼續食野味，中國人陋習劣根才是病毒之源。如此態度，十多年後，沙士3.0定必出現。

作者龍振邦是香港大學李嘉誠醫學院微生物學系名譽助理教授，袁國勇是香港大學李嘉誠醫學院霍英東基金（傳染病學）教授

***

「追求科學真理　無意捲入政治」　龍振邦袁國勇撤回文章 (23:38)

本報觀點版今日刊登香港大學李嘉誠醫學院微生物學系名譽助理教授龍振邦，及香港大學李嘉誠醫學院霍英東基金（傳染病學）教授袁國勇來稿〈大流行緣起武漢 十七年教訓盡忘〉，龍振邦及袁國勇現撤回文章。

龍振邦及袁國勇表示，他們是科學家，終身追求科學真理，不了解政治，也從來無意捲入政治。「文章表達不適當，用詞甚至有錯誤，並非原意，希望外界不要把我們捲入政治，留給我們一個空間研究。」

他們稱，該文與政治無關，旨在提出尊重真相、移風易俗。若當中的手民之誤引起任何誤會，龍振邦及袁國勇表示歉意。
***
2020年3月22日 蘋果日報

〈大流行緣起武漢〉文言版 - 馮睎乾

昨天邵頌雄教授撰文，評龍振邦、袁國勇的〈大流行緣起武漢 十七年教訓盡忘〉，點出了不少人皆忽略的問題：文風。邵兄評它「文筆風格夾雜」，開場白是「無厘頭的半白話」，「初看還以為是引用網上流行好幾篇以『荊楚大疫』為題的文言潮文」。龍、袁為什麼用這種表達方式？寫法是否恰當？從文學角度談這篇文，大概比政治角度有意義得多。

先看〈大〉文開首數句：「己亥冬，疫發武漢。庚子春，湖北大疫，國內疫者八萬餘，死者三千。」一般白話固然不這樣寫，當作文言也有問題，如「疫者」兩字就有點怪，似是生造詞，文言通常寫「民疾疫者」、「疾者」、「感癘者」之類，以「疫者」指稱染武肺的人，有點語病。但邵兄說〈大〉是把網上文言潮文「改頭換面」，我則不敢苟同。我認為這篇文的寫法，根本是其中一位作者龍振邦向來的文風。

龍、袁合撰文章已有多年，我看過他們在《灼見名家》發表的作品，處處見「半文言」風格。據我推測，〈大〉的風格是龍振邦的，他在《灼見名家》的簡介這樣寫：「龍振邦，香港大學醫學院畢業。傳染病及微生物科醫生，專研小兒科傳染病。愛憶舊懷古，以史為鑑。」尾句的描述，完全符合那「民國穿越而來」的筆法。我印象最深的，是在龍醫生有份寫的〈白文信：我只是巧匠凡醫！〉中，把十九世紀蘇格蘭醫生白文信（Sir Patrick Manson）的英語筆記引文，一律譯為文言，還把外國學者評論白文信的話翻成打油詩：「醫學會上觀奇文，方知世事如斯神。白君如非驚世才，定是醉鄉夢裏人。」可惜他沒提供原文。

龍醫生以「己亥」、「庚子」紀年，跟文言潮文的確偶合，但意義不一定相同。熟悉歷史者均知道，陶淵明的「甲子書年法」不是隨意的。《宋書·陶潛傳》說：「（淵明）所著文章，皆題其年月。義熙以前，則書晉氏年號；自永初以來，唯云甲子而已。」「義熙」是東晉末年號，「永初」是劉宋第一個年號。《宋書》所言，表示陶潛在晉代所作的詩文，會書晉氏年號（有時也書甲子），但入宋後淵明也許「恥復屈身後代」，則決不書宋氏年號，只以甲子紀年。

龍醫生到底是致敬陶淵明的「唯云甲子」，抑或翻炒大陸人的無聊潮文，見仁見智，我沒特別看法。但如果有中共人認定是前者，我建議「批鬥」龍醫生之餘，也千萬不要忘記揪出始作俑者陶潛——中國士人所有優良文化傳統，黃俄共黨都會看不順眼，這就叫「逢中必反」。

最後，朋友認為〈大〉的文風既不統一，建議我整篇譯成文言，但逐字翻譯只會不倫不類，也沒太大意義，所以我姑且撮要地「超譯」這篇〈大流行緣起武漢〉，以誌此「文壇」盛事：


己亥冬，疫癘初發於武漢，府官弗問，黔黎弗知。及庚子春，湖北之疫大興，吏民始怵然而懼。政府見疫將大行，遂禁民出戶。唯害氣已流行荊楚，播越四方，罹之者不可勝數，或猝死溝壑，或頓踣康衢，或闔門而殪，或覆族而亡。一月之內，民疾疫者八萬餘，歿者三千。荊楚民眾雖絕足月餘，然癘氣不止，其流播乎赤縣，遠及海外，為害亦大矣！世衛失官，昧昧焉不知預警，致諸國無備。三月，大疫熾於寰宇，唯臺灣、香港、澳門、星國免焉。若乃疫疾之源，為冠狀病毒，此病學名冠狀病毒感染-19，俗稱武漢肺炎。病毒之命名，每據病毒宿主之所在。今冠狀病毒之能感染哺乳類動物者，其宿主或蝠或鳥，俱可千里而來。欲究病毒之源，莫若取宿主樣本於疫氣始發之所，即武漢華南海鮮批發市場是也。然學者未及蒐證，市場已為吏曹洗濯一空，故元祖病毒之發源地，無從稽考。或以基因排序法溯源，則蝙蝠蓋病毒天然宿主，而華南海鮮市場為疫氣始發之處，庶幾可知。或曰病毒源於美國，其為無稽之談，愚氓之論，自不待言。疫癘橫行，傷人實多，其治本之策，一曰求真，二曰教民。求真則反求諸己，知疫起之因，在市場不潔，風俗乖戾。教民，使之去野膳之陋俗，返文明之正道，則可防疫癘於未然。若官府政教失所，庶民冥頑不靈，則沙士大疫，必再三發矣！可不慎乎？

[Historical files] Sir MacLehose's Statement on 5 Nov 1977 on Partial Amnesty of Police Officers

港督麥理浩昨夜發表重要聲明

今年以前所犯貪污廉署不再受理投訴

＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊ 

成立兩個特別委會監管廉政公署工作

簡悅强爵士任主席　另一個高登任主席

1977年11月6日 星期日 華僑、工商日報綜合
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊

（特訊）港督麥理浩爵士昨晚在一項聲明中宣布：廉政公署將不受理任何在一九七七年一月一日之前所犯罪行的投訴及證據。但那些經已被接見、通緝及逃離本港的人士則不包括在內。

而一個由簡悅强爵士任主席的委員會將會成立，以監管廉政公署處理其屬員的投訴。

港督在昨晚八時四十五分由港督府發出的聲明如下：本人在昨日錄影及於今晚播出的一個電視訪問節目中曾指出，在對付貪污問題方面，已有重大的進展，而警隊目前的情況是大部份的警務人員均無需感到恐懼的，我可以說，所有公務員的情況亦是一般無異。

我認為如果能在此闡明一下本人的意思以及含意是有幫助的。這是因為顯然有眾多皇家香港警務人員現正感到恐慌。他們恐怕現時可能會因很久以前所犯的輕微過失而被追究。其他以前從未有牽涉貪污的人對於其同僚所受的威脅，無論其觀感正確與否，則均感到關注。

但我相信所有警務人員及公務人員都認為必須維持大有改進的誠實標準，他們認為此舉是有利於全體公務人員及整個社會，而且他們對於不論任何性別之人士，在處身於這個新環境下，仍然濫用他們的地位，都感到不應予以寬恕。當然也會有人不同意這種看法，他們就是那些小數有罪者，他們最關心的是要逃離檢控，或回復他們以往的陋習。

你們都知道，姬達須直接向本人負責。鑑於目前的進度，我們本來準備要宣布廉政公署，將集中處理現時的貪污事件，而大致來說，現時已達到肅清所有貪污公務人員的階段，而對於過去犯法的投訴，在普通情形下就不會予以受理。我們認為這項宣布，將會大大減輕公務員的憂慮。我們已準備在明年春作此項宣佈。但由於近日發生的事件，而且只有數個月的差別，我認為立即宣佈是會有助於現時的情形。

因此我要向所有有關人士說：今天廉政公署對於有關一九七七年一月一日之前所犯罪行之投訴或證據，在普通情況下將不予受理，惟那些經已被接見之人士，已被通緝之人士以及現時不在香港之前任公務員則屬例外。我不將那些經已被接見之人士包括在內，是因為認為執行法例之工作（無論是由警務人員或廉政公署人員負責執行），是不應該受到未經法律規定之行動所阻礙的。

我說：「在普通情況下將不予受理」，因為間或會發現嚴重的罪行，如不受理就會受到非議，而且如不採取行動，則市民定不能容忍。但遇到有此類案件時，必會先與本人諮商。

對於廉政公署在進行調查對所採用之方式及程序，有人感到關注，而這些方式及程序曾被指稱為不適當及不合法的，現時已設有一個以高登爵士為首之行政立法兩局非官守議員所組成之委員會，負責監管有關處理市民對警務人員之投訴。

現時政府又正在設立另一個由簡悅强爵士任主席之委員會，負責監管廉政公署處理對其屬員之投訴。。任何人士如認為收到不適當的待遇時，可向行政立法兩局非官守議員辦事處投訴。本人已訓示律政司對該委員會在執行職務時給予所需之協助。

律政司於下星期四立法局施政報告辯論會時，將會對此等問題作進一步之闡述。
*****************

7 November 1977 - Statement from Governor at LegCo
"Government and community cannot yield to the corrupt says Governor"

I would like to make a statement.

On the Saturday evening I announced a new policy with regard to ICAC operations. I did say in the following terms: ‘all concerned may take it that as from now the ICAC will not normally act on complaints or evidence relating to offences committed before 1 January 1977 except in relation to persons who have been interviewed, persons against whom warrants have been issued, and persons now outside Hong Kong. I except persons who have already been interviewed because I do not think that anyone would accept that law enforcement operations, whether by the Police or by the ICAC, should be halted by extra-legal action. I say ‘will not normally act’ because occasionally an offence may come to light which is so heinous that it would be unthinkable not to act and the public would not tolerate failure to act. But in any such case I will be consulted first.’

This, of course, applied to the members of all public services, and to the public, and not just to the Police Force.

Our object has always been to cleanse the public service and to continue prosecutions for past offences until acceptable standards had been achieved. We had never envisaged prosecuting everybody who had ever committed any offence. In view of the great improvement in the standards of honesty achieved, particularity over the last two years, I had expected before long to take a step of the sort announced last Saturday. This would make it possible to concentrate on maintaining standards for the future, rather than to continue to impress the need for honesty by prosecuting people for offences committed in the past, and thus turn over a new leaf in the history of the public services. However, in the circumstances that had arisen, I judged that this relief should be granted immediately. Apart from these exceptions, it has removed all cause for fear from all who keep straight.

The exceptions were deliberately intended to be very small. One was – and I quote – ‘persons who had already been interviewed’. This does not mean anybody to whom an ICAC officer has spoken at any time. It means only persons who have been interviewed by an ICAC officer, whether or not following arrest, and to whom during that interview allegations had been made that they had committed an offence. The number of such people is small, probably not more than 200 within a force of 20,000.

Another exception was an offence committed before this year, which came to light, and was so heinous that it would be unthinkable not to act. To ensure that in no circumstances would this exception be used to undermine my general intention, I stated that if there was such a case it would have to be referred to me. And this made clear that I expected the number of cases to be negligible, and in fact none is known at this moment.

Other exceptions related to the obvious cases of persons for whom warrants had been issued or person now outside Hong Kong.

Although there was nothing in the statement that would inhibit ICAC from ensuring that the improvement achieved would be maintained, or that suggested that our determination to maintain a clean public service was abandoned or diminished, I think its timing and its content came as a shock to the public. Although the reasons for it have been sympathetically understood, many were worried that it had been made at all, or that it went too far. But certainly, no one has suggested that it should have gone further – quite the contrary.

My statement has been under consideration by the different associations of the Police Force. Honourable Members and the public will be concerned to learn that informally it was suggested that it did not go far enough; that pressure should be maintained on the administration by demonstrations and progressive refusal of law enforcement until all current interviews, charges and court proceedings now in course were dropped.

I have no doubt that these ideas were propagated by the less than one per cent who under the exceptions I have mentioned remain in fear of prosecution, and insofar as they are supported by others it is because of a mistaken sense of temporary euphoria or solidarity. I assure them it is time very soberly to consider their position. It is for the Police to answer to lawful authority and to enforce it − not to answer to a small self-interested group.

The idea that pressure can achieve further concessions of this sort would result from a complete misconception of the mood of the Government and the community. It would also ignore the true interests of at least 99 per cent of the Police Force itself. Needless to say it totally ignores the true interests of Hong Kong where the enforcement of law and order and the achievement of acceptable standards of honesty have made such strides in recent years. Concessions to such demands under pressure would invite pressure on other issues; next, it would be the suppression of ICAC itself, possibly to have persons in prison released, and so on, until we had a situation in which the law was being administered in the interests of the corrupt. I know this is not what most of the Force and their families want, but this is where they would be led if the Government were to give any further ground. To do so would yield to anarchy and to anarchy there can be no concession. I am confident in this I am speaking for the entire community, young and old, rich and poor.

I hope that wiser counsels will now prevail. But it is as well that all should realize now, before irrevocable action is taken that we cannot accept that policemen who do not accept lawful authority, or who support others in not doing so, or continue to dominate lawful authority by means of pressures, should remain in the Force, and be paid by the public. In the present circumstances powers available are too slow and ponderous. Honourable Members will therefore be invited this afternoon to amend the Police Force Ordinance to grant powers of summary dismissal.

I very much hope it will not be necessary to use these powers. I hope, as I say, that wiser counsels will prevail and that the dialogue proceeding will continue. I can also ensure all concerned that these powers will not be used in respect of anything that has happened so far, and they will not likely be used in the future.

I am glad to say in conclusion that a meeting was held between the Deputy Commissioner of Police and representatives of the various Police associations during most of today. The meeting agreed that the Commissioner should issue a statement that will be made shortly, recording a pledge of full loyalty to the Commissioner and a pledge that in future all issues would be pursued through established constitutional channels, and by no other means, and certainly not by the process of any protest public gatherings.

As I have only just heard this statement I am unable to comment on it, but I feel it right that Honourable Members should know of it before passing to the Bill before them. I still think that the powers that the amendment will confer and desirable, though the outcome of this meeting does offer additional hope that they will not need to be used.

********************

警聲特刊，一九七七年十一月八日一九七七年十一月七日立法局會議港督麥理浩爵士演詞＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊

上星期六傍晚，本人就廉政公署之行動發表了一項新政策，其內容如下：「我要向所有有關人士說：今天廉政公署對於有關一九七七年一月一日之前所犯罪行之投訴或證據，在普通情況下將不予受理，惟那些經已被傳訊之人士，已被通緝之人士以及現時不在香港之前任公務員則屬例外。我不將那些已被傳訊之人士包括在內，是因為認為執行法例之工作（無論是由警務人員或廉政公署人員負責執行），是不應該受到未經法律規定之行動所阻礙的。我說：「在普通情況下將不予受理」，因為間或會發現嚴重的罪行，如不受理就會受到非議，而且如不採取行動，則市民定不能容忍。但遇到有此類案件時，必會先與本人諮商。」

此點當然是適用於全體公務員及社會人士，並非單指警務人員而言。

我們的目的一直都是清理政府部門及繼續對過往的罪行提出檢控，直至達致可被接納的標準為止。我們從未想過要檢控每一個曾有任何違法行為的人。鑒於廉潔誠實的標準已有顯著改善，尤以過去兩年為然，本人曾估計不久即可採取與上週六所宣布者類似的措施。

此舉能使我們今後能集中力量去保持標準，而非藉繼續起訴前曾犯罪的人士，以肅貪倡廉。這樣就可以為公共服務寫下歷史新的一頁。然而鑒於近來事態發展，本人認為有立即頒布特赦的必要。除特殊情形之外，這項決定實際上已消除了所有今後走正途人士的恐懼。

我故意將例外情形減至極少數。其一是「曾被傳訊的人士」，這並非表示任何曾與廉署人員交談的人士，而只指不論在被捕前後曾被廉署人員傳訊，並被指控曾犯罪行的人士。此類人士數目不大，再有二萬人的警隊中，人數可能不足二百人。

另一例外是在今年以前所犯的罪行，經揭發後發覺其性質極為嚴重，如有此情形而不採取行動，實在匪夷所思。但為確保在任何情況下，此類例外不致有違本人原意，故本人當時說，一旦有此種情形出現，必須轉交本人裁奪。這已明確指出，本人預料此類案件少之又少，而且事實上迄今仍未知有此種事情存在。

其他例外則是指已被通緝之人士，或現時潛逃離港之前任公務員。這項決定的理由顯而易見，毋庸贅言。

這項聲明，絕無妨礙廉政公署保持既得成果之意，亦不是說我們已把維持公共服務廉潔的決心放棄或減低。但在這個時候宣布這樣的聲明，市民當感愕然。雖然一般人對其理由已加諒解，但亦有許多人對政府竟然有此宣布表示憂慮，或認為是過分讓步。可是，並沒有人認為政府應作更大讓步。相反的，大家都認為不能再作讓步。

警務人員所組成的各個協會現仍考慮本人的姓名。但仍有人非正式地表示，認為這項聲明中所作出的讓步仍然不夠，應繼續用示威及逐步拒絕執行法例等行動，向政府施加壓力，迫使政府放棄現時在進行中的一切傳訊、控訴及審慎工作。各位議員及市民對此種種當感關切。本人絕對相信這些謬論正由為數不少於百分之九十九的人員所散播，這些人員是我所提及的不受赦免的人。他們仍然恐懼被控。其他人士如果支持這一小撮人，其與共安樂謀團結的真義，相去實何止十萬八千里。

本人因此向他們着重指出，現在正是他們積極冷靜地考慮自己處境的時候。警察隊伍的任務是香合法當局負責和執行法紀，而不是一小部份自私自利的人負責。

以為用壓力就可以獲得進一步讓步的人，完全誤解了政府和社會的態度，亦知警隊內至少百分之九十九人員的真正利益於不顧。不用說這種人更完全忽視了香港的真正利益，本港在近年來在維持法紀及治安以及奠定廉潔風氣方面，已有可觀進展。

在壓力下對這些要求作出讓步，會引致對其他問題的壓力：要求壓倒廉政公署，釋放獄中犯人等等的壓力會接踵而來，終至法律只為維護貪污人士之利益而執行。我確信這不是大部份警務人員及他們的家人所希望見到的。但假如政府再作讓步便會導致這樣的後果，就是向無法無天的人屈服，而對無法無天的人是絕對不能讓步的。本港全體市民不論老少貧富，對此定有同感。

我希望有關人等都能作出更理智的抉擇。無論如何，在他們採取無可挽回的行動之前，他們應該知道我們不能讓拒受合法當局節制的警務人員、或者支持他們不受合法當局節制的人、又或繼續試圖用壓力去左右合法當局的人繼續留在警察隊伍內，及繼續有市民大眾支付其薪酬。目前情況下，政府運用現有權力來對付這各種人員，需時過久，手續亦太繁複。所以今天下午特請各位來商討如何修訂警察條例已賦予警務處長對上述各類不法人員予以立即革職的權力。

我極希望不需要使用此等權力。正如我說我希望有關人等及時醒悟，繼續商談。我同時也要對所有有關人士保證，立即革職的權力，不會運用於迄今發生的事件上，而且將來亦不會輕易運用。

最後本人很高興的告訴各位，副警務處長與各警務人員協會之代表，今日大部份時間在舉行會議。會上獲致協議，認為警務處長應發表一項聲明，內容除聲明各會已對處長全力效忠之外，並保證今後只經由早經確定的正當途徑來解決問題，而不以任何其他方式進行。更絕對不會已舉行任何公共集會抗議之方式進行。警務處的聲明，不一會便會公布。

由於我剛剛獲悉該項聲明，故現在未能作出評論，但我覺得各位議員應該在通過修訂案之前知道有這件事。雖然他們的會議，使我們更有希望，毋須行使法案賦予的權力，不過，我認為這些權力仍然是必要的。