Borrison/hk-legicost huggingface dataset:
第四十七條訂明特首"必須廉潔奉公、盡忠職守"，這些立法原意沒有甚麼可以爭拗，還訂明"行政長官就任時，應向香港特別行政區終審法院首席法官申報財產，記錄在案"，就是要解釋財產，利益與財產又是否相同？
Article 47 provides that the Chief Executive must be a person of integrity dedicated to his or her duties . The legislative intent of which cannot be disputed . It is also specified that the Chief Executive on assuming office shall declare his or her assets to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region HKSAR
梁振英先後向報章發出律師信，聲稱他牽涉UGL的報道是錯誤和失實的，但一直沒有進一步採取法律行動。
LEUNG Chun - ying has sent legal letters to the press claiming that the reports on his involvement with UGL were wrong and untrue but he has not instituted further legal actions
今年3月，他入稟高等法院，控告會計界立法會議員梁繼昌，指他因為繳稅問題而遭受調查，但實際上卻未有任何稅務機構與他接觸，因此，他控告梁繼昌議員誹謗。
In March this year he filed a case with the High Court to sue Kenneth LEUNG a Legislative Council Member from the accounting sector for libel because Kenneth LEUNG said that he was being investigated for tax payment issues but in fact no tax authorities had approached him
很多議員也曾提出，歷屆特首面對議員或市民的批評時，充其量只會發出聲明或召開記者招待會解釋事件，透過麥克風發表意見，不會向傳媒發律師信。
Members have suggested that in the face of criticisms made by Members or members of the public the former Chief Executives would at most issue statements or convene press conferences for clarification . They would only express their views through microphones but would not send legal letters to the media
今屆政府真是開了先河，破天荒向傳媒、專欄作家甚至立法會議員採取法律行動。
The present Government has really set a precedent; it is the first time that it has taken legal actions against the media columnists and even Legislative Council Members
我很希望這情況是前無古人，亦後無來者。
I hope this is an unprecedented situation
梁振英隱身於周浩鼎議員背後，希望藉着他來修改專責委員會的研究範疇，並非光明正大地向專責委員會提出自己的意見書。
LEUNG Chun - ying has hidden behind Mr Holden CHOW hoping to amend the scope of inquiry of the Select Committee through him instead of openly presenting his own submissions to the Select Committee
他經常說，被調查的人有發言權和表達自由。
He often says that the subject of inquiry has the right to speak and freedom of expression
很多議員也曾提及，他有很多更好及更正當的途徑可以表達意見，他甚至可以主動要求出席專責委員會會議作供。
As pointed out by many Members there are better and more appropriate ways for him to express his views and he can even take the initiative to request for attending the meetings of the Select Committee to give evidence
從來沒有人否定梁振英在這事件中有發言權，但他除了是被調查的對象外，更是特別行政區的最高領導人，他私底下給議員所謂意見會否構成壓力？
No one has ever denied that LEUNG Chun - ying has the right to speak on this issue . However as he is the highest leader of the HKSAR apart from being the subject of inquiry; will his advice given to a Member in private exert pressure on that Member?
事情涉及很多情景，我可能要留待譴責周浩鼎議員的議案辯論才詳細說明，究竟周浩鼎議員是被迫、被誘，還是真的那麼傻和天真或太"梁粉"，人家說甚麼他便說甚麼。
As many scenarios are involved I may have to explain this issue in detail later at the debate on the motion censuring Mr Holden CHOW is Mr Holden CHOW being coerced or seduced to take that action; or is he so silly and naïve; or is he too much of a LEUNGs fan that he will do whatever LEUNG said
我們真的要周浩鼎議員發一個毒誓，接受我們問話才會知道。
To find that the true picture we really need to ask Mr Holden CHOW to solemnly swear and be questioned by us
可是，如果梁振英有普通常識也應避嫌，不應用這種途徑表達他的意見。
Nevertheless if LEUNG Chun - ying has common sense he should also avoid arousing suspicion and refrain from expressing his views this way
其實，這個專責委員會成立了一段時 間，就梁繼昌議員的事件也曾召開數次會議，如果他要控告他及譴責他，為何要等到"浩鼎門"、"6鼎記"東窗事發才指出，他不應繼續擔任專責委員會員委員？
The Select Committee has actually been established for some time and it has held a few meetings on matters related to Mr Kenneth LEUNG . If LEUNG Chun - ying wanted to sue and censure Mr Kenneth LEUNG why did he only claim that Mr Kenneth LEUNG should not continue to be a member of the Select Committee after the 689 - Holden scandal came to light?
我還想提出一個較少人提過的觀點，便是梁振英有沒有指示周浩鼎議員或向周浩鼎議員施壓，叫他千萬不要向立法會透露是他提出修訂的？
I would also like to make one point that has rarely been mentioned by other people ie . has LEUNG Chun - ying instructed Mr Holden CHOW or pressurized Mr Holden CHOW not to disclose to the Legislative Council that the amendments are made by him?
我也曾在上次內務委員會會議上問周浩鼎議員："你說你沒有隱瞞，那你本來打算甚麼時候向本會坦白說，你的建議書經過梁振英修改？
I also asked Mr Holden CHOW at the last meeting of the House Committee You said that you had not concealed anything; when did you intend to confess to this Council that your proposal had been amended by LEUNG Chun - ying?
如果證實，梁振英指使周浩鼎議員，千萬不要透露修訂是他提出的，他便可能是迫使立法會議員在立法會上作失實陳述。
If it is confirmed that LEUNG Chun - ying had instructed Mr Holden CHOW not to disclose that the amendments were made by him he might have forced a Legislative Council Member to make a misrepresentation in the Legislative Council
以下時間，請容許我簡單地反駁一下其他議員的論點。
In the following let me refute briefly the arguments of certain Members
首先，是陳克勤議員，他剛才引用《菜根譚》的說話批評本會有議員引用《道德經》，雖然陳議員並沒有指名道姓，但我相信他說的應該是我。
First Mr CHAN Hak - kan quoted from Tending the Roots of Wisdom to criticize a certain Member of this Council who quoted from Dao De Jing . Although Mr CHAN did not name the Member I believe he referred to me
代理主席，我承認研習古籍從不是我的強項，不過我看到這一句話，希望讓香港的從政者引以為戒："心地乾淨方可讀書學古"，當然是要提醒我們，心地不好，引用古書只會變成護短，不知道這句話又是否道中了建制派的情況？
Deputy President I admit that when it comes to the study of ancient books it is never my strength but I have come across a certain remark which I hope politicians in Hong Kong will take it as a warning . It reads Only pure in heart can a person engage in learning from the past . This reminds us that if we do not have a pure heart quoting from ancient books will defend the wrongdoings
因為過去一天半的時間，大量建制派議員在這裏為梁振英、為周浩鼎議員護短。
In the past one and a half days many pro - establishment Members have defended the wrongdoings of LEUNG Chun - ying and Mr Holden CHOW
我想再藉此機會，引用《菜根譚》的另一句話提醒陳議員："惡忌陰，善忌陽，故惡之顯者禍淺，而隱者禍深"，這句話的意思很簡單，我們做人做事不應隱惡揚善，否則禍患甚深。
I wish to take this chance to quote another remark from Tending the Roots of Wisdom to remind Mr CHAN evil should not be concealed; goodness should not be publicized; thus exposed evil cause less harm but hidden evil cause great harm . The meaning is quite simple . We should not conceal ones faults and praise ones good deeds; otherwise there will be great harm
今次事件，我們看到"周梁"私通已是不爭的事實，我們同時亦看到，建制派議員群起為他們塗脂抹粉，繼續護短，如此隱惡揚善，真是後患無窮......
In this incident it is an undisputable fact that CHOW and LEUNG had colluded and pro - establishment Members have scrambled to whitewash their wrongdoings . Their efforts in concealing their faults and praising their good deeds will lead to endless troubles
多謝陳議員如此關心我所使用的發言時間。
I thank Mr CHAN for caring so much about my speaking time
代理主席，我想繼續借此機會再回應陳議員的"無謂論"。
Deputy President I wish to continue to take this chance to respond to Mr CHANs theory of meaninglessness
他問特首的道德操守是否重要？
He asked if the moral conduct of the Chief Executive was really that important for he regarded this debate meaningless
因為他說我們今次的辯論十分無謂，代理主席，我想指出，如果真的無謂，是否代表我們對於特區最高首長的道德操守標準，可以如此寬鬆地看待？
Deputy President I wish to point out that if this debate is truly meaningless does it mean we can treat the moral conduct and ethics of the highest leader of the SAR casually?
政務司司長張建宗剛才再次把這一屆政府，特別是行政長官梁振英的功績再次朗讀，這與他昨天早上的回應是同一邏輯、同一方向。
Chief Secretary for Administration Matthew CHEUNG has once again chanted the merits and accomplishments of the incumbent Government especially that of Chief Executive LEUNG Chun - ying . The logic and direction of this speech is the same as the one delivered yesterday morning
不過，比較有趣的是，首先，司長所說的是否都是事情？
However it is interesting to note first is everything the Chief Secretary said the true facts?
這一屆政府是否真的建樹良多？
Has the incumbent Government truly made great contributions?
代理主席，我相信極有可能連任成為下一屆政務司司長的張建宗並不是這樣想，我也希望這並不是他的本意，因為如果這是他的本意，才是令人憂慮的地方。
Deputy President I believe that Matthew CHEUNG who is highly likely the Chief Secretary in the next - term Government does not think so; and if he really thinks so that will most worrisome
代理主席，你昨天發言時說，我們民主派發動政治鬥爭"倒梁"。
Deputy President you said yesterday that democratic Members kept stirring up political conflicts to topple LEUNG
我希望指出，這是一個倒果為因的說法，如果不是梁振英一開始在多宗事件上出現嚴重的誠信問題，我們又怎會有機會針對其種種惡行，提出不信任、甚至是彈劾議案？
I wish to point out that in so saying you are putting the cart before the horse . If LEUNG Chun - yings integrity has never been in serious doubt in many incidents since his assumption of office how can we have the chance to move motions of no confidence or even the impeachment motion?
我也希望借此機會問一問，究竟建制派同事真是"盲撐"梁振英，還是有口難言？
May I also take this chance to ask whether the pro - establishment Members genuinely support LEUNG blindly or they dare not say anything?
當然，他的任期只餘下20多天，建制派同事也無須忍耐太久。
Of course there are only 20 - odd days left before he steps down and the pro - establishment colleagues have no need to bear with him too long
代理主席，你昨天發言時又提及，周浩鼎議員唯一的錯誤，便是太過"梁粉"，不懂得向梁振英"say no"。
Deputy President in your speech yesterday you said that the only mistake Mr Holden CHOW made was he was too much of a LEUNGs fan that he did not know how to say no to LEUNG Chun - ying
關於周浩鼎議員，我會留待下個辯論環節有機會時再陳述，但有一點我希望能夠指出，我非常慶幸代理主席昨天以議員身份發言時，仍能說出正確的一點，便是你最少會說這是一個錯誤，最少你願意說他太過"梁粉"、不夠膽"say no"。
I will wait till I have the chance in the next debate session to present my views about Mr Holden CHOW but I wish to make a point . I am very glad when you Deputy President spoke in the capacity as a Member yesterday you at least said Mr Holden CHOW has made a mistake at least you were willing to say that he was too much of a LEUNGs fan that he dare not say no
不過，有一個邏輯問題，我想在此跟大家討論一下。
However there is an issue about logic that I would like to discuss here
代理主席認為周浩鼎議員應該"say no"是建基於甚麼原因？
What are the Deputy Presidents reasons for thinking that Mr Holden CHOW should say no?
不過，我相信你本意必然是認為私通是錯的，任何人建議自己跟對方私通，也應該向他說不，我相信這才是正確的處理辦法。
But I believe you meant to say that collusion was wrong and you should refuse to collude with anyone . I believe that is the right way to handle the matter
代理主席，我必須在此清晰指出，行政長官梁振英今次跟周浩鼎議員合謀，試圖干預專責委員會調查他收受UGL 400萬英鎊的事宜，無論梁振英或保皇黨如何辯解，梁振英試圖干預、妨礙和影響專責委員會調查方向的意圖已經非常明顯，而這種做法，不論是梁振英作為受查人，還是作為行政長官，也是嚴重失當的行為。
Deputy President I must point out clearly that in respect of Chief Executive LEUNG Chun - ying colluding with Mr Holden CHOW in an attempt to interfere with the inquiry of the Select Committee into LEUNGs acceptance of £4 million from UGL no matter how LEUNG Chun - ying or the royalists defended the act the attempt of LEUNG Chun - ying to frustrate deflect or affect the direction of the inquiry could be clearly seen . Such acts constitute serious dereliction of duty on the part of LEUNG Chun - ying whether as the subject of inquiry or the Chief Executive
在個人層面，作為受查人，他干預調查工作的做法，根據刑事程序，已足以構成妨礙司法公正，屬於刑事罪行。
On a personal level as the subject of inquiry his inference with the inquiry can well constitute the offence of perverting the course of public justice which is a criminal offence
在憲制層面，作為行政長官，他收取私利，並越界企圖干預、影響立法機關的調查工作，便是違反《基本法》規定的廉潔奉公、盡忠職守的憲制責任。
In respect of the constitution as the Chief Executive his acceptance of private interests and attempt to interfere with or affect the legislatures inquiry constitute the violation of his constitutional duty under the Basic Law which requires him to be a person of integrity dedicated to his duties
單是這兩項罪名，已足以構成彈劾梁振英的理據，我也希望以這論點，回應剛才大部分建制派議員指沒有足夠理據彈劾梁振英的說法。
These two offences are sufficient to form the legal basis of impeachment against LEUNG Chun - ying . Based on this point I also wish to refute the argument of most pro - establishment Members that we do not have adequate justification to impeach LEUNG Chun - ying
代理主席，請容許我不厭其煩地重申，今次的彈劾議案，最重要的意義並非要令梁振英難堪，而是令本會議員及社會大眾認真而嚴肅 地認識到，立法會作為一個監察機關的尊嚴不容侵犯，因為這個權力一旦被侵犯、削弱，甚至妥協，行政機關便會被縱容，暴政亦會因此而生。
Deputy President please allow me to repeat once again that the most important meaning of todays impeachment motion is not to embarrass LEUNG Chun - ying but rather to make Members of this Council and the general public realize seriously and solemnly that the dignity of the Legislative Council as a monitoring organ is inviolable because once its power is violated weakened or compromised the Executive Authorities will be connived giving rise to despotic rule
所以，代理主席，對正義沉默，便是對罪惡縱容。
Hence Deputy President to keep silent in front of justice is to connive crime
香港再承受不起姑息暴政的惡果，正正因為這個原因，我希望在席所有議員今天能夠投下贊成票，彈劾梁振英。
Hong Kong can no longer afford to bear the consequence of tolerating despotic rule . Owing to that I hope that all Members present will vote in favour of this motion to impeach LEUNG Chun - ying
我現在向各位提出的待決議題是：楊岳橋議員動議的議案，予以通過。
I now put the question to you and that is That the motion moved by Mr Alvin YEUNG be passed
立法會辯論"毋忘六四"，不是必然的。
Holding a debate in the Legislative Council on Not forgetting the 4 June incident cannot be taken for granted
去年由於法案大塞車，所以關於六四的辯論無法進行，我們今年險些也錯失這個機會。
Due to a huge backlog of bills this Council was unable to conduct a debate on the 4 June incident last year . We nearly missed this chance again this year
我們也曾辯論過"平反"這兩個字，因為有議員曾經質疑是否仍有平反六四的需要。
We had also debated the word vindication because some Members doubted if vindication of the 4 June incident was necessary
今年的焦點似乎放在應否繼續以傳統方式，或參與大型活動悼念六四，尤其是有年青人會提出這項質疑。
The focus this year seems to be placed on whether or not the 4 June incident should continue to be commemorated in the traditional manner or through participation in major events . In particular young people will cast doubts on it
每逢臨近六四，維穩工程便會開始，例如不能透過微博、微訊上載和send關於六四的資料。
Whenever 4 June is round the corner stability preservation campaigns will begin . For instance information about 4 June cannot be uploaded onto or sent through Weibo and WeChat
今年參與六四燭光晚會的人數確實不算多，而根據支聯會的數字是11萬人。
On the other hand CPC also finds the incident most unforgettable . The number of people attending the candlelight vigil this year to mark the 4 June incident is indeed not large and the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China has reported the number as 110 000
但是，我相信每一點燭光在中共眼裏都是一根刺，仍然是眼中釘。
Nevertheless I believe each flicker of candlelight is a thorn in the eyes of CPC or a thorn in its side
我告訴大家，立法會能夠辯論六四不是必然的，香港可以舉行大型的悼念六四活動也不是必然的。
I have to tell Members that the conduct of a debate on the 4 June incident cannot be taken for granted . Holding major events in Hong Kong to commemorate 4 June cannot be taken for granted either
我相信共產黨在未來日子，會繼續打壓香港人的言論和集會自由。
I believe CPC will continue to suppress the freedom of speech and assembly enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong
大家想想，如果有一天真的不 能在香港舉行大型悼念六四的活動，究竟屆時會是怎麼樣的世界？
Come to think about this . If major events cannot be held in Hong Kong to commemorate 4 June one day what will the world be like?
今天說不贊成參與這些大型活動的人，屆時又會否舉腳贊成呢？
Will people who say that they disapprove of participation in these major events today voice approval by then?
很多證據顯示，中共其實日漸加強對香港的操控，香港人的言論和集會自由空間也日漸收窄。
A lot of evidence shows that CPC is actually tightening its grip on Hong Kong and the leeway given to the people of Hong Kong in terms of speech and assembly is narrowing too
讓我舉數個例子，中共政府為了加強打壓要求平反八九民運的聲音，致力取消4位議員的資格。
Let me cite a few examples . In order to suppress the voices calling for vindication of the 1989 pro - democracy movement the CPC Government has striven to disqualify four Legislative Council Members
讓我舉其中一個例子，律政司要求法院取消羅冠聰議員資格所持的其中一項理據，就是羅議員在宣誓前，宣稱不會效忠殘殺人民的政權。
Let me cite one such example . One of the justifications held by the Department of Justice DoJ for requesting the Court to disqualify Mr Nathan LAW was that before taking his oath he claimed he would not swear allegiance to a regime that brutally killed its people
雖然他並沒有說明該政權是哪個政權，但這句話竟然被律政司用作羅冠聰不肯效忠中華人民共和國的證明，並視之為案例。
Although he did not specify which regime he was referring to his words were taken by DoJ as evidence of his refusal to swear allegiance to the Peoples Republic of China and it was also regarded as a precedent in law
如有任何議員於日後發言時提到反對在八九民運中屠殺人民的中共政權，便可能會被港共政權和保皇黨指控違反誓詞，甚至被褫奪議員資格。
Should any Members raise objection in their speeches in future to the CPC regime for butchering its people in the 1989 pro - democracy movement they might be accused by the Hong Kong communist regime or the pro - Government camp of breaching their oaths or even disqualified from office as Legislative Council Members
港共政權濫用司法覆核，其中一個目的是為了消滅平反八九民運、追究屠城責任的聲音。
One of the purposes of abusing judicial reviews by the Hong Kong communist regime is to silence voices calling for apportioning responsibility for the massacre
中共政府企圖打壓追究屠城責任的行動，不單在議會和議員層面，其實在公職人員身上也看得到。
The CPC Governments attempt to suppress moves to pursue responsibility for the massacre is not only found at the levels of the Legislative Council and its Members it can also be seen from public officers
張德江早前在所謂《基本法》座談會中大放厥辭，以近乎恐嚇的言語說，香港的管治團隊應由尊重中華民族，誠心誠意擁護祖國對香港恢復行使主權，不損害香港繁榮穩定的愛國人士組成。
Earlier ZHANG Dejiang talked drivel in a so - called seminar on the Basic Law in language close to intimidation saying Hong Kongs governing team should comprise patriots who respect the Chinese nation and sincerely uphold resumption of exercise of sovereignty by the Motherland over Hong Kong without undermining Hong Kongs prosperity and stability
中央是否正在監督香港法定公職人員是否擁護《香港特別行政區基本法》，以及是否效忠國家和特別行政區呢？
Are the Central Authorities monitoring if public officers in Hong Kong uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region SAR and swear allegiance to SAR?
如果羅冠聰議員宣誓不效忠殘殺人民的政權，也可能被演繹為不效忠中華人民共和國，那麼公務員或大法官在六四晚會中大叫"結束一黨專政，追究屠城責任"，是否也有機會被視為不效忠國家，甚至會因而失去公職呢？
If Mr Nathan LAWs refusal to swear allegiance to a regime that brutally killed its people can be interpreted as not swearing allegiance to the Peoples Republic of China then will civil servants or judges stand a chance of being regarded as not swearing allegiance to the nation thereby being stripped of their public office for shouting putting an end to one - party dictatorship and pursuing responsibility for the massacre in a 4 June gala?
主席，港共政權和中共除了千方百計令支持八九民運，追究屠城責任的行為，不再在議會和政府部門出現外，更全面操控傳媒，在民間製造白色恐怖。
President apart from trying every possible means to prevent acts of supporting the 1989 pro - democracy movement and pursuing responsibility for the massacre from re - appearing in this Council and government departments the Hong Kong communist regime and CPC have also taken full control of the media and created white terror in the community
在中共施壓下，很多娛樂圈的明星朋友，不得不對八九民運三緘其口。
Under the pressure exerted by CPC many movie stars in show business cannot but keep their mouths shut about the 1989 pro - democracy movement
那些仍然敢向中國說不的藝人，更被中國政府全面封殺，我對此感到非常感慨。
As for those artistes who still dare say No to China they will even be banned by the Chinese Government on all fronts which is most regrettable
當年曾經參加"民主歌聲獻中華"，或走進錄音室參與錄製"愛自由、為自由"的歌手和藝人，今天究竟去了哪裏？
Where have all those singers and artistes who attended the Concert for Democracy in China or entered the studio to take part in recording the song Love freedom; For freedom gone?
雖然我不會苛責他們，但對於多位今天仍然選擇不帶面具和口罩，仍然願意走進維園出席燭光晚會的演藝界朋友，我要致以深切的敬意。
Although I will not blame them I will express my deep respect for those in show business who still prefer not wearing masks or face masks and are still willing to go to the Victoria Park to attend the candlelight vigil
中大學生會在上星期發表聲明，呼籲市民停止悼念六四，並指六四晚會"消費六四"，利用民眾的道德感情，換取政治本錢。
In a statement issued last week the Student Union of The Chinese University of Hong Kong urged members of the public to stop mourning 4 June saying that the 4 June gala is meant to exploit the 4 June incident and exchange the moral sentiments of the general public for political capital
對於六四這段歷史，我們必須認識。
We must have some knowledge of history about 4 June
那是由於我們相近，互相有所影響，無論大家是否認同，我們也應互相關心、互相支持。
That is due to our proximity and mutual influence . Regardless of whether or not Members agree we should care about and support each other
我謹此陳辭，支持今天的議案。
With these remarks I support the motion today
至於通過工程決議的業主人數，則由10%增加至20%，以及最少要有10%的業主親身出席會議，並加強監管業主授權書的操作，每名獲授權人士不能夠代表多於5%的業主。
One example is that the quorum of a general meeting for the purpose of passing a resolution on endorsing a large - scale maintenance project will be raised from the original 10 % to 20 % of all property owners at least 10 % of whom shall attend the meeting in person as a means of raising the threshold of approving a works project . Besides in order to prevent an OC from endorsing a works project with the voting support of a handful of property owners holding large numbers of proxy instruments property owners will be allowed to expressly state their voting instructions on such authorizations and the number of proxy forms held by each person must not exceed 5 % of all property owners . I generally agree to these directions of amendment
在2013年，即本會上一次就這個議題進行辯論時，她沒有出席投票。
When a debate on this topic was last held in this Council in 2013 she was absent at the time of voting
不知道今天的她，能否重拾當年做記者時的勇氣，將她當年在北京經歷的畫面，轉化成今天出席本會的辯論，並投下贊成票。
I wonder if she can now reclaim the courage of working as a reporter back then to convert what she witnessed in Beijing during that incident to attending the debate in this Council today and vote for the motion
另一位我想特別提及的人，是貴為現任行政長官的梁振英。
There is another person whom I would like to mention in particular namely the incumbent Chief Executive LEUNG Chun - ying
在1989年，他是基本法諮詢委員會的秘書長，當年曾登報譴責屠城。
In 1989 he was the secretary - general of the Basic Law Consultative Committee and he once published a statement in newspapers to condemn the massacre
如今，梁振英貴為國家領導人，並且是當今的國家領導人之中，唯一一位曾經公開譴責六四事件的領導人，不知道他又是否有勇氣向他的同僚表達他當年的憤怒呢？
Nowadays LEUNG Chun - ying is a State leader and among the current leaders he is the only one who had condemned the 4 June incident in public . I wonder if he has the courage to express his anger at that time to his colleagues
主席，今時今日，經歷了28年，有很多當年覺得中共做錯的人，今天會以國家現在經濟起飛和繁榮等理由，嘗試辯護當年的決定是正確的。
President nowadays after a lapse of 28 years many people who once disapproved of the decision made by the Communist Party of China CPC are now using excuses such as the economic take - off and prosperity of the country to try to justify that decision at the time
我想指出的是，主席，經歷了28年，中國社會的變遷，甚至中國民情的變化和社會民氣的低落，是否跟六四完全無關呢？
I wish to point out that President after these 28 years is it true that the changes in society of China or even the change in public sentiments and the low national morale in China are entirely irrelevant to the 4 June incident?
我希望這些人能夠深思和反思一下。
I hope those people can ponder and reflect on this question
更重要的是，主席，畢竟當年犧牲的，是一條條獨立的人命。
More importantly President the lives of individual persons were actually sacrificed in that incident
如今，對於這些年青的生命，他們仍然在生的父母，依然未能公開悼念已逝世的兒子、女兒。
Nowadays regarding those young people their surviving parents are still forbidden from commemorating their departed sons and daughters in public
是否只是停留在我們每年於維園舉行六四燭光晚會呢？
Does it only remain at the stage of holding the 4 June candlelight vigil every year at the Victoria Park?
我希望藉此機會與香港人探討一下。
I wish to take this opportunity to explore this issue with the people of Hong Kong
其實，六四與香港息息相關，這種息息相關，不僅是因為我們曾參與兩次其中一次亦是香港的首次百萬人遊行、出席跑馬地的靜坐，甚至經歷過碧街事變等，這些事情其實也影響着香港的命運和未來。
The 4 June incident is in fact closely related to Hong Kong . Such a close connection is not only an outcome of our participation in two million - people marches―one of which was the first million - people march held in Hong Kong―as well as the sit - in in Happy Valley and even the outbreak of the Pitt Street riot and so on as these events have also influenced the destiny and future of Hong Kong actually
我以《基本法》作為例子。
Let me use the Basic Law as an example
在1989年2月公布的《基本法》草稿的第二稿，當中有兩件事與今天的香港息息相關。
There are two items in the second draft of the Basic Law promulgated in February 1989 which are closely related to Hong Kong nowadays
第一，是第二十三條。
The first one is Article 23
第二稿並沒有七宗罪，缺少"顛覆中央人民政府"和兩條與外國政府有關的罪行。
The second draft did not set out the seven offences nor stipulate the provision of subversion against the Central Peoples Government and two offences related to foreign governments
《基本法》的最終定稿在1990年4月正式定案後，才有這3項罪行。
The provisions on these three offences were included only after the final draft of the Basic Law was officially finalized in April 1990
今時今日的香港人，能否說這件事與我們無關呢？
Nowadays can the people of Hong Kong state that such an incident is irrelevant to us?
第二，是與普選有關。
The second one is related to universal suffrage
主席，《基本法》第二稿即1989年的版本提及，香港的普選進程應該由第三屆特區政府處理，而處理辦法是透過所有合資格的選民投票，其實這是公投的概念。
President it was mentioned in the second draft of the Basic Law that is the version published in 1989 that the progress of implementing universal suffrage in Hong Kong should be handled by the third - term SAR Government by way of voting by all eligible electors . It is actually the concept of a referendum