英国卫报:中国必须抛弃审查制度

发布: | 发布时间:2010-10-15,星期五 | 阅读:1,869

China must abandon censorship

As Chinese journalists, academics and publishers, we call on our government to support freedom of speech and of the press

李锐等人致人大常委会的公开信的英译本(中文原文在后面)。

‘We demand that Chinese press censorship be dismantled in favour of a system of legal responsibility.’ Photograph: Guang Niu/Getty Images

Dear members of the standing committee of the National People’s Congress:

Article 35 of China‘s constitution as adopted in 1982 clearly states that: “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.” For 28 years this article has stood unrealised, having been negated by detailed rules and regulations for “implementation”. This false democracy of formal avowal and concrete denial has become a scandalous mark on the history of world democracy.

On 26 February 2003, at a meeting of democratic consultation between the standing committee of the political bureau of the central committee of the Chinese Communist party and democratic parties, not long after President Hu Jintao assumed office, he stated clearly: “The removal of restrictions on the press, and the opening up of public opinion positions, is a mainstream view and demand held by society; it is natural, and should be resolved through the legislative process. If the Communist party does not reform itself, if it does not transform, it will lose its vitality and move toward natural and inevitable extinction.”

On 3 October, America’s Cable News Network (CNN) aired an interview with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao by anchor Fareed Zakaria. Responding to the journalist’s questions, Wen said: “Freedom of speech is indispensable for any nation; China’s constitution endows the people with freedom of speech; the demands of the people for democracy cannot be resisted.”

In accord with China’s constitution, and in the spirit of the remarks made by Hu and Wen, we hereupon represent the following concerning the materialisation of the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and of the press.

Concerning the current state of freedom of speech and press in our country

We have for 61 years “served as master” in the name of the citizens of the People’s Republic of China. But the freedom of speech and of the press we now enjoy is inferior even to that of Hong Kong before its return to Chinese sovereignty, to that entrusted to the residents of a colony.

Before the handover, Hong Kong was a British colony, governed by those appointed by the Queen’s government. But the freedom of speech and freedom of the press given to residents of Hong Kong by the British authorities there was not empty, appearing only on paper. It was enacted and realised.

When our country was founded in 1949, our people cried that they had been liberated, that they were not their own masters. Mao Zedong said that “from this moment, the people of China have stood”. But even today, 61 years after the founding of our nation, after 30 years of opening and reform, we have not yet attained freedom of speech and freedom of the press to the degree enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong under colonial rule. Even now, many books discussing political and current affairs must be published in Hong Kong. This is not something that dates from the [territory’s] return, but is merely an old tactic familiar under colonial rule. The “master” status of the people of China’s mainland is so inferior. For our nation to advertise itself as having “socialist democracy” with Chinese characteristics is such an embarrassment.

Not only the average citizen, but even the most senior leaders of the Communist party have no freedom of speech or press. Recently, Li Rui met with the following circumstance. Not long ago, the Collected Works in Memory of Zhou Xiaozhou were published, and it originally included an essay commemorating Zhou that Li had written for the People’s Daily in 1981. Zhou’s wife phoned Li to explain the situation: “Beijing has sent out a notice. Li Rui’s writings cannot be published.” What incredible folly it is that an old piece of writing from a party newspaper cannot be included in a volume of collected works! Li said: “What kind of country is this?! I want to cry it out: the press must be free! Such strangling of the people’s freedom of expression is entirely illegal!”

It’s not even just high-level leaders – even the premier of our country does not have freedom of speech or of the press. On 21 August 2010, Wen gave a speech in Shenzhen called, “Only by pushing ahead with reforms can our nation have bright prospects.” He said: “We must not only push economic reforms, but also promote political reforms. Without the protection afforded by political reforms, the gains we have made from economic reforms will be lost, and our goal of modernisation cannot be realised.” Xinhua news agency’s official news release on 21 August, “Building a beautiful future for the special economic zone”, omitted the content in Wen’s speech dealing with political reform.

On 22 September, Wen held a dialogue in New York with American Chinese media and media from Hong Kong and Macao, and again emphasised the importance of “political system reforms”. Wen said: “Concerning political reforms, I have said previously that if economic reforms are without the protection to be gained by political reforms, then we cannot be entirely successful, and even perhaps the gains of our progress so far will be lost.” Shortly after, Wen addressed the 65th session of the United Nations general assembly, giving a speech called “Recognising a true China”, in which he spoke again about political reform. Late on 23 September, these events were reported on China Central Television’s Xinwen Lianbo and in an official news release from Xinhua news agency. They reported only Wen’s remarks on the circumstances facing overseas Chinese, and on the importance of overseas Chinese media. His mentions of political reform were all removed.

For these matters, if we endeavour to find those responsible, we are utterly incapable of putting our finger on a specific person. This is the work of invisible hands. For their own reasons, they violate our constitution, often ordering by telephone that the works of such and such a person cannot be published, or that such and such an event cannot be reported in the media. The officials who make the call do not leave their names, and the secrecy of the agents is protected, but you must heed their phone instructions. These invisible hands are our central propaganda department. Right now the department is placed above the central committee of the Communist party, and above the state council. We would ask, what right does the central propaganda department have to muzzle the speech of the premier? What right does it have to rob the people of our nation of their right to know what the premier has said?

Our core demand is that the system of censorship be dismantled in favour of a system of legal responsibility.

The rights to freedom of speech and the press guaranteed in article 35 of our constitution are turned into mere adornments for the walls by means of concrete implementation rules such as the “ordinance on publishing control”. These implementation rules are, broadly speaking, a system of censorship and approvals. There are countless numbers of commandments and taboos restricting freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The creation of a press law and the abolishment of the censorship system has already become an urgent task before us.

We recommend that the National People’s Congress work immediately toward the creation of a press law, and that the ordinance on publishing control and local restrictions on news and publishing be annulled. Institutionally speaking, the realisation of freedom of speech and freedom of the press as guaranteed in the constitution means making media independent of the party and government organs that presently control them, thereby transforming “party mouthpieces” into “public instruments.”

Therefore, the foundation of the creation of a press law must be the enacting of a system of [post facto] legal responsibility [determined according to fair laws]. We cannot again strengthen the censorship system in the name of “strengthening the leadership of the party”. The so-called censorship system is the system by which prior to publication one must receive the approval of party organs, allowing for publication only after approval and designating all unapproved published materials as illegal. The so-called system of legal responsibility means that published materials need not pass through approval by party or government organs, but may be published as soon as the editor-in-chief deems fit. If there are unfavourable outcomes or disputes following publication, the government would be able to intervene and determine according to the law whether there are cases of wrongdoing.

In countries around the world, the development of rule of law in news and publishing has followed this path, making a transition from systems of censorship to systems of legal responsibility. There is little doubt that systems of legal responsibility mark progress over systems of censorship, and this is greatly in the favour of the development of the humanities and natural sciences, and in promoting social harmony and historical progress. England did away with censorship in 1695. France abolished its censorship system in 1881, and the publication of newspapers and periodicals thereafter required only a simple declaration, which was signed by the representatives of the publication and mailed to the office of the procurator of the republic. Our present system of censorship leaves news and book publishing in our country 315 years behind England and 129 years behind France.

Our specific demands are as follows:

1. Abolish sponsoring institutions of [Chinese] media, allowing publishing institutions to operate independently; and truly implement a system in which directors and editors-in-chief are responsible for their publication units.

2. Respect journalists and make them strong. Journalists should be the “uncrowned kings”. The reporting of mass incidents and exposing of official corruption are noble missions on behalf of the people, and this work should be protected and supported. Immediately put a stop to the unconstitutional behaviour of various local governments and police in arresting journalists. Look into the circumstances behind the case of writer Xie Chaoping. Liang Fengmin, the party secretary of Weinan city [involved in the Xie Chaoping case] must face party discipline as a warning to others.

3. Abolish restrictions on extra-territorial supervision by public opinion by the media, ensuring the right of journalists to carry out reporting freely throughout the country.

4. The internet is an important discussion platform for information in our society and citizens’ views. Aside from information that truly concerns our national secrets and speech that violates a citizen’s right to privacy, internet regulatory bodies must not arbitrarily delete online posts and online comments. Online spies must be abolished, the “fifty-cent party” must be abolished, and restrictions on anti-censorship technologies must be abolished.

5. There are no more taboos concerning our party’s history. Chinese citizens have a right to know the errors of the ruling party.

6. Southern Weekly and Yanhuang Chunqiu should be permitted to restructure as privately operated pilot programmes in the independent media. The privatisation of newspapers and periodicals is the natural direction of political reforms. History teaches us: when rulers and deliberators are highly unified, when the government and the media are both surnamed “party”, and when the party sings for its own pleasure, it is difficult to connect with the will of the people and attain true leadership. From the time of the great leap forward to the time of the cultural revolution, newspapers, magazines, television and radio in the mainland have never truly reflected the will of the people. Party and government leaders have been insensible to dissenting voices, so they have had difficulty in recognising and correcting wholesale errors. For a ruling party and government to use the tax money of the people to run media that sing their own praises is something not permitted in democratic nations.

7. Permit the free circulation within the mainland of books and periodicals from Hong Kong and Macao. Our country has joined the World Trade Organisation, and economically we have already integrated with the world – attempting to remain closed culturally goes against the course already plotted for opening and reform. Hong Kong and Macao offer advanced culture right at our nation’s door, and the books and periodicals of Hong Kong and Macao are welcomed and trusted by the people.

8. Transform the functions of various propaganda organs, so that they are transformed from agencies setting down so many “taboos” to agencies protecting the accuracy, timeliness and unimpeded flow of information; from agencies that assist corrupt officials in suppressing and controlling stories that reveal the truth to agencies that support the media in monitoring party and government organs; from agencies that close publications, fire editors and arrest journalists to agencies that oppose power and protect media and journalists. Our propaganda organs have a horrid reputation within the party and in society. They must work for good in order to regain their reputations. At the appropriate time, we can consider renaming these propaganda organs to suit global trends.

We represent ourselves, hoping for your utmost attention.

Signed:

Li Rui, former standing vice minister of the organisation department of the CCP central committee, member of the 12th central committee of the CCP

Hu Jiwei, former director of People’s Daily, standing committee member to the 7th National People’s Congress, director of the Federation of Chinese Communication Institutes

Jiang Ping, former head of the China University of Political Science and Law, tenured professor, standing committee member to the 7th National People’s Congress, deputy director of the executive law committee of the NPC

Li Pu, former deputy director of Xinhua news agency

Zhou Shaoming, former deputy director of the political department of the Guangzhou military area command

Zhong Peizhang, former head of the news office of the central propaganda department

Wang Yongcheng, professor at Shanghai Jiaotong University

Zhang Zhongpei, researcher at the Imperial Palace museum, chairman of the China Archaeological Society

Du Guang, former professor at the Central Party School

Guo Daojun, former editor-in-chief of China Legal Science

Xiao Mo, former head of the Architecture Research Centre of the Chinese National Academy of Arts

Zhuang Puming, former deputy director of People’s Press

Hu Fuchen, former director and editor-in-chief at China Worker’s Publishing House

Zhang Ding, former director of the China Social Sciences Press at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

Yu You, former editor-in-chief of China Daily

Ouyang Jin, former editor-in-chief of Hong Kong’s Pacific magazine

Yu Haocheng, former director of Masses Publishing House

Zhang Qing, former director of China Cinema Publishing House

Yu Yueting, former director of Fujian Television, veteran journalist

Sha Yexin, former head of the Shanghai People’s Art and Drama Academy, now an independent writer of the Hui ethnic minority

Sun Xupei, former director of the News Research Institute at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

Xin Ziling, former director of the editorial desk at China National Defence University

Tie Liu, editor-in-chief of Wangshi Weihen magazine (Scars of the Past).

Legal Counsel

Song Yue, Chinese citizen, practicing lawyer in the State of New York, US

This translation was made by the University of Hong Kong’s China Media Project and was first posted here.

執行憲法第35條,廢除預審制,兌現公民的言論出版自由!

──致全國人民代表大會常務委員會的公開信

李銳 胡績偉 等 10月11日,2010

全國人民代表大會常務委員會:

中華人民共和國1982年憲法第35條載明:“中華人民共和國公民有言論、出版、集會、結社、遊行、示威的自由。”這一條文28年不兌現,被黨政機關制定的“執行”細則所否定。這種原則承認具體否定的假民主,成為世界民主史上的醜聞。

2003年2月26日,胡錦濤主席上任不久,在中共中央政治局常委與民主黨派人士舉行的民主協商會上,明確地說:

新聞解禁、開放人民輿論陣地,是社會的主流意見和訴求,是正常的,要以立法形式解決。共產黨自身不改革,不改造,就會失去生命力,走向自然消亡。

2010年10月3日美國有線電視臺CNN播出了訪談節目主持人法瑞德.紮卡利亞對中國總理溫家寶的專訪。溫家寶回答記者提問時說:

言論自由對任何國家都不可或缺;中國憲法賦予民眾享有言論自由;人民對民主自由的訴求不可抗拒。

根據憲法和胡錦濤主席、溫家寶總理講話精神,我們僅就兌現言論出版自由之憲法權利方面陳情如下:

關於我國言論出版自由的現狀

我堂堂中華人民共和國公民名義上“當家做主”61年,但我們享有的言論出版自由竟不如回歸祖國前的香港,即不如殖民地居民。

回歸前的香港是英國殖民地,女王政府任命總督管理這個地方,但港英當局給香港居民言論出版自由,不是空頭的,紙面上的,是落實的,兌現的。

1949年建國,人民歡呼解放了,當家做主了,毛澤東宣佈“中國人民從此站起來了。”但直到今天,建國61年,搞了30年改革開放,我們還沒有得到香港人殖民地時代就有的言論出版自由。現在有些參政議政的書籍,要拿到香港出版,這不是回歸祖國的福蔭,是沿襲殖民時代的舊法。大陸人民的“當家作主”地位實在太窩囊。國家宣稱的有中國特色的“社會主義民主”實在太尷尬。

豈止普通公民,連共產黨的高級幹部都沒有言論出版自由。最近李銳遇到一件事情:不久前《周小舟紀念文集》出版,原來收進了李銳1981年在《人民日報》發表的紀念周小舟的一篇文章,但出版的書中沒有。周小舟夫人打電話向李銳解釋:“北京通知,不能用李銳的文章。”連1981年發表在黨報上的舊作也不讓收進文集,真是荒唐至極!李銳說:“這算什麼樣的國家?!我大聲疾呼:新聞必須自由!扼殺公民的言論自由是完全違法的!”

豈止高級幹部,連國家總理都沒有言論出版自由!2010年8月21日溫家寶總理在深圳發表題為《只有堅持改革開放,國家才有光明前途》的講話。談到“不僅要推進經濟體制改革,還要推進政治體制改革。沒有政治體制改革的保障,經濟體制改革的成果就會得而複失,現代化建設的目標就不可能實現。”新華社21日通稿《開創經濟特區的美好明天》,把溫家寶講話中政治體制改革的內容刪掉了。

2010年9月22日(美國當地時間)溫家寶總理在紐約與美國華文媒體和港澳媒體負責人進行座談,再次強調了“政治體制改革”的重要性。溫說:“關於政治體制改革,我曾經講過,經濟體制改革如果沒有政治體制改革的保障,也不會徹底取得成功,甚至已經取得的成果還會得而復失。”溫家寶隨後在紐約聯合國總部出席第65屆聯合國大會一般性辯論發表題為《認識一個真實的中國》的講話,其中也談及了政治體制改革。9月23日(北京時間)晚間,中央電視臺《新聞聯播》以及新華社通稿報導這些活動時,只報導了溫家寶談及海外華人的處境、海外華文媒體的作用等內容,提及政治體制改革的講話,都被過濾掉了。

這些事情,如果追究責任,絕對查不到具體人,這是一隻看不見的黑手。他們自知理虧違憲,通常以電話通知某人的作品不能發表、某事不能見諸媒體。打電話的官員不留姓名,叮囑執行者為其保密,但必須執行他的電話指示。這只看不見的黑手就是中宣部。現在是中宣部淩駕於黨中央之上,淩駕於國務院之上。試問中宣部有什麼權力封鎖總理的聲音?有什麼權力剝奪全國人民對總理講話的知情權?

我們的核心要求是取消審批制,改行追懲制

把憲法第35條言論出版自由變成可望而不可及的牆上畫餅,是經過《出版管理條例》等具體執行細則來完成的。這些執行細則,為而言之就是深文周納的審批制。有數不清的清規戒律限制言論出版自由。制定新聞出版法,廢除審批制,已成為當務之急。

建議全國人大立即著手制定新聞出版法,廢除《出版管理條例》和地方當局管制新聞出版的那些條條框框。落實憲法第35條給予公民言論出版自由,從體制上看就是從黨政機關直接控制到媒體相對獨立,從“黨的喉舌”轉變為“社會公器”。因此,新聞出版法的立法基礎必須是實行追懲制,而不能再以“加強黨的領導”的名義強化審批制。所謂審批制,就是出版物在出版以前須經黨政機關的審查,批准了你才能出版,不批准出了就是非法出版物。所謂追懲制,就是出版物不必向黨政機關報批,總編輯通過了就開印,出版發行完全自由。出版後如有不良後果和糾紛,政府再介入,根據法律判斷是非對錯。世界各國新聞出版法制的發展,走的是由審批制向追懲制過渡的道路。無疑,追懲制比起審批制是一個歷史性進步,對推動人文科學和自然科學的發展,推動社會和諧歷史進步起了偉大的作用。英國早在1695年即廢除了預防檢查制。1881年法國廢除了預防檢查制,報紙、刊物出版前的手續僅僅需要一份簡單的聲明,由報刊領導人簽署,郵寄共和國檢察院即可。我國目前實行的書報審查制度,比英國落後315年,比法國落後129年。

我們的具體要求

一、取消媒體的主管單位,由主辦單位獨立負責;真正落實出版單位的社長、總編輯負責制。

二、尊重記者,樹立記者 “無冕之王”的社會地位。記者報道群體性事件,揭發官員貪污腐敗,是為民請命的神聖事業,應受到保護和支援。立即制止某些地方政府和公安機關隨意抓捕記者的違憲行為。追究謝朝平案的幕後操縱者,渭南市委書記梁鳳民必須下臺,以申黨紀,以儆效尤。

三、取消限制媒體跨省進行輿論監察的禁令,保障中國記者在全中國領土上採訪報道的權利。

四、互聯網是社會資訊和公民意見的重要交流平臺,除確實涉及國家機密的資訊和侵犯公民隱私的言論之外,網路管理部門不能隨意刪除網帖和跟帖,取消網特,取消“五毛黨”,取消對“翻牆”的技術限制。

五、黨史無禁區,中國公民有權知道執政黨的罪錯。

六、允許《南方周末》和《炎黃春秋》改制為民營報刊作為探路試點。報刊民營化是政治改革的方向。歷史的教訓是:施政者與評議者高度一體化,政府和媒體都姓“黨”,自己搭台唱戲,自己鼓掌喝彩,是很難和民意溝通實現正確領導的。從大躍進到文化大革命,大陸所有的報刊雜誌、廣播電視,從來沒有反映過真實的民意。党和國家領導人耳邊聽不到不同的聲音,就既難發現、更難糾正正在發生的全局性的錯誤。執政黨和政府拿納稅人的錢辦媒體為自己歌功頌德,這在民主國家是不允許的。

七、允許已經回歸中國的香港、澳門的書籍報刊在大陸公開發行。我國加入了WTO,在經濟上已經融入世界,企圖在文化上閉關鎖國,是違背改革開放的既定方針的。港澳文化是送上國門的先進文化,觀之於港澳報刊書籍備受群眾歡迎而益信。

八、轉變各級宣傳部門職能,由制定多少個“不准”,轉變為保障資訊準確、及時、暢通;由幫助貪官污吏壓制封鎖批評揭露的稿件,轉變為支援媒體對黨政機關發揮監督作用;由封報刊、撤總編、抓記者,轉變為對抗強權,保護媒體和記者。宣傳部門在黨內、在社會上名聲很臭,要做幾件好事恢復名譽。在適當的時機,可以考慮宣傳部更名,以符合世界潮流。

迫切陳情,敬希亮察。

2010年10月1日

發起人(23人):

李 銳(前中央組織部常務副部長,**十二屆中央委員,十二、十三屆中顧委委員。)

胡績偉(前《人民日報》社長、總編輯,第六、七屆全國人大常委,全國新聞學會聯合會會長)

江 平(原政法大學校長、終身教授,七屆人大常委、人大法律委員會副主任)

李 普(原新華社副社長)

周紹明(原廣州軍區政治部副主任)

鍾沛璋(原中宣部新聞局局長)

王永成(上海交通大學教授,歐洲科學、藝術與人文研究院通訊院士)

張忠培(故宮博物院研究員,原院長,中國考古學會理事長)

杜 光(原**中央黨校教授)

郭道暉 (原《中國法學》雜誌社總編輯)

蕭 默(原中國藝術研究院建築藝術研究所所長)

莊浦明(原人民出版社副社長)

胡甫臣 (原中國工人出版社社長兼總編輯)

張 定(原中國社會科學院社會科學出版社社長)

于 友(原《中國日報》社總編輯)

歐陽勁 (香港《太平洋雜誌》總編輯)

于浩成 (原群出版社社長)

張 清(原中國電影出版社社長)

俞月亭 (原福建電視臺台長、高級記者)

沙葉新 (前上海人民藝術劇院院長,現為回族獨立作家)

孫旭培(原社會科學院新聞研究所所長)

辛子陵(原國防大學當代中國編輯室主任)

鐵 流(民刊《往事微痕》總編輯)

法律顧問:

宋 岳(中國籍公民,美國紐約州執業律師)



 

版权声明

文章编辑: ( 点击名字查看他发布的更多文章 )
文章标题:英国卫报:中国必须抛弃审查制度
文章链接:http://ccdigs.com/896.html

分类: 人文视野, 国际观察, 多向思维, 时事观察.

发表评论