【逃犯條例】林鄭月娥記者會 交代暫緩修例 對答全文紀錄
修訂《逃犯條例》在社會上紛亂達4個月後，終暫告一段落。行政長官林鄭月娥今日（15日）宣布，暫緩修例，記者會上被追問會否下台、是否令見過中共中央政治局常委韓正、是否令中央添煩添亂等問題。現發布林鄭月娥開場發言全文，及記者對答輯錄。
▼林鄭月娥記者會足本重溫▼
【林鄭月娥今天記者會上開場發言】
各位香港市民、各位傳媒朋友
去年二月，在台灣發生一宗令很多香港市民感到震驚及傷心的殺人案。一名香港少女被殺，疑犯陳同佳逃回香港，這宗案件令受害人父母傷心欲絕，同時亦凸顯香港在刑事互助、逃犯移交制度上的明顯漏洞。這個漏洞，即因為現時法例中的地理限制，我們無法移交疑犯到台灣、內地和澳門；亦無可行安排可以同大約170個國家和地區、這些無簽訂長期協議的國家進行逃犯移交。
作為負責任的政府，我們需盡力找方法處理，一方面可處理台灣殺人案，令到公義得以彰顯，還死者一個公道，給死者父母一個交代。另一方面，盡力完善香港法制，確保香港不會成為犯罪者逃避刑責的地方。這是特區政府提出修訂逃犯條例及刑事事宜相互法律協助條例建議的兩個初心。
經過仔細研究相關法律，和其他地方的做法之後，修例工作在今年2月正式在香港社會展開，我們建議基於現有法例，將當中人權的保障和制度的保障，包括法庭的角色和香港公平公正的司法制度完全保留，相關同事一直與社會各界、包括立法會，就修例的工作作出理性討論，聆聽意見。而考慮到現時因為其他罪名，在監獄服刑的台灣殺人案疑犯即將獲釋，我們希望爭取今個立法年度、即7月暑假休會前，通過條例草案。
事實上我們在聆聽社會意見之後，先後對於建議作出兩次修訂，一次是在法案正式提交立法會之前，剔除了九個可以移交罪類，以及將移交罪行的最高刑罰，由原本的一年以上改為三年以上。而另一次修訂是在法案提及至立法會之後，我們將三年以上改成七年或以上，並採納多項與國際標準一致，加強人權保障的措施，以釋除社會疑慮，爭取更多支持。
我和相關官員已經盡了最大努力，但必須承認，我們在解說、溝通方面工作的確有所不足。雖然不少市民認同修例的兩個初心，但社會上對於條例草案出現極為分歧的意見，有支持、有反對，而且立場鮮明。好多市民對條例草案仍有擔心、疑慮、不理解，亦對於修例工作過程產生猜忌，我們曾經努力縮窄分歧，希望能消除疑慮。
過去一星期，我們看到數以萬計市民參與遊行、集會，在星期日遊行後的午夜，以及星期三金鐘一帶的示威活動中，更出現嚴重衝突，導致多名警察、傳媒同工和一般市民受傷，我和市民大眾都感到痛心。
出現這樣的情況，同樣作為負責人的政府，我們一方面要維護法紀，但同時要審時度勢，保障香港最大的福祉。這個最大福祉是包括，令社會盡快回復平靜，避免再有執法人員和市民受到傷害。
我在這裏感謝很多建制派的議員和社會各界的領袖，在最近幾日都公開或私下表示，認為我們要「停一停、諗一諗」，不應該按照原定計劃，在立法會恢復條例的二讀辯論，避免對社會造成有更大衝擊。
事實上考慮到，台灣方面多次公開、清楚表示，他們絕不會接受，在特區政府建議的安排下，要求移交陳同佳，這條條例草案在今個立法年度通過的迫切性，或許已經不復存在。
經過過去兩日政府內部的反覆研究，我在這裏宣布，特區政府決定暫緩修例工作，重新與社會各界溝通，做更多解說，聽更多不同意見。我想強調，政府以開放的態度，全面聆聽社會對於條例草案的意見。
保安局局長今日會致函立法會主席，收回就條例草案恢復二讀的預告，換句話說，立法會大會就處理條例草案的工作會暫停，直至我們完成溝通解說和聆聽意見為止。我們無意就這些工作設立時限，並承諾會在整合意見後，向立法會保安事務委員會匯報，以及徵詢議員意見，才會決定下一步工作。
我在此希望感謝一直支持我們修例建制派議員，和市民；亦感謝雖然未能支持條例草案，但一直以和平、理性方式表達意見的市民和團體。香港這個文明、自由、開放、多元的社會，正正需要這種互相尊重、和而不同的精神。
最後作為特區的行政長官，我想說，我們進行修例的初心，出自我和我的管治團隊，對於香港的熱愛，以及對於香港人的關心，但由於我們工作上的不足和種種原因，令這兩年來相對平靜的香港社會，再次出現很大的矛盾和紛爭，令很多市民感到失望和痛心。
我感到十分難過難過和遺憾，我會用以最有誠意、最謙卑的態度，接受批評，加以改進，繼續與市民同行。
英文開場發言
Fellow citizens and members of the media,
In February last year, a murder case in Taiwan shocked and saddened many Hong Kong people. A young Hong Kong lady was killed, and the suspect fled back to Hong Kong. The case caused deep sorrow to the victim’s parents, while at the same time revealed a clear loophole in our regime with respect to mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and the surrender of fugitive offenders. The deficiencies in our regime include, first, with the “geographical restriction” in the current law, it is not possible to transfer a suspect to Taiwan or our neighbouring Mainland and Macao. Secondly, there is no workable arrangement for the surrender of fugitive offenders with some 170 jurisdictions which have not entered into a long-term agreement with Hong Kong.
As a responsible government, I feel obliged to find a way to deal with the Taiwan murder case so that justice can be done for the deceased, her parents and society, while at the same time address the deficiencies in our system so that Hong Kong will not become a place for criminals to evade legal responsibility. These are the two original purposes of the Government in putting forward the legislative proposal to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance.
After careful examination of the relevant laws and the practices of other jurisdictions, the legislative amendment exercise started in Hong Kong in February this year. Our proposal is based on the existing legislation, with the relevant human rights safeguards and procedural safeguards, including the role of the court and the fair and impartial judicial system of Hong Kong, being fully maintained. Relevant colleagues have been discussing with various sectors of the community in a rational manner and listening to their views on our legislative proposal. As the suspect in the Taiwan case, who has been in jail on other charges, may be released soon, we have been trying to get the bill passed within the current legislative year, that is, before the Legislative Council summer recess in July this year.
As a matter of fact, after listening to the views of society, we have introduced amendments to our proposal on two occasions. The first occasion was before the introduction of the bill, when we took out nine categories of offences from the list of offences subject to surrender, and lifted the threshold for punishment of the offences from imprisonment for more than one year to more than three years. The second occasion was after the introduction of the bill in the Legislative Council, when we increased the threshold from more than three years to not less than seven years, as well as introduced a number of additional human rights safeguards that are in line with international standards. The amendments were made to ease the concerns of society, while securing more support for the bill.
My relevant colleagues and I have made our best efforts. But I have to admit that our explanation and communication work has not been sufficient or effective. Although many people agreed with our two original purposes, there are still supporting views and opposing ones on the bill, and their stances are very often polarised. Furthermore, many members of the public still have concerns and doubts about the bill. Some find it difficult to understand why the urgency, and are unhappy with the process of the amendments. We have made many attempts to narrow differences and eliminate doubts.
In the last week, tens of thousands of people took part in protests and gatherings. Serious conflicts broke out in the early hours on Monday after the public procession last Sunday and during the protest in the Admiralty area on Wednesday, resulting in a number of police officers, media workers and other members of the public being injured. I am saddened by this, as are other citizens. As a responsible government, we have to maintain law and order on the one hand, and evaluate the situation for the greatest interest of Hong Kong, including restoring calmness in society as soon as possible and avoiding any more injuries to law enforcement officers and citizens. I am grateful for the views of many pro-establishment legislators and leaders of various community sectors conveyed to me over the last few days either openly or in private, that we should pause and think instead of resuming the Second Reading debate on the bill at the Legislative Council as scheduled. This would prevent dealing a further blow to society. In fact, in consideration of the overt and clear expression by Taiwan repeatedly that it would not accede to the suggested arrangement of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government in the transfer of the concerned suspect, the original urgency to pass the bill in this legislative year is perhaps no longer there.
After repeated internal deliberations over the last two days, I now announce that the Government has decided to suspend the legislative amendment exercise, restart our communication with all sectors of society, do more explanation work and listen to different views of society. I want to stress that the Government is adopting an open mind to heed comprehensively different views in society towards the bill. The Secretary for Security will send a letter to the Legislative Council President to withdraw the notice of resumption of the Second Reading debate on the bill. In other words, the Council will halt its work in relation to the bill until our work in communication, explanation and listening to opinions is completed. We have no intention to set a deadline for this work and promise to report to and consult members of the Legislative Council Panel on Security before we decide on the next step forward.
I would like to thank all the pro-establishment legislators and members of the public for their support all along for our legislative exercise, as well as the people and organisations that have expressed their views in a peaceful and rational manner, even if they do not support the bill. As a free, open and pluralistic society, Hong Kong needs such a spirit of mutual respect and harmony in diversity.
Lastly, as the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, I want to stress that the original purposes of the exercise stem from my and my team’s passion for Hong Kong and our empathy for Hong Kong people. I feel deep sorrow and regret that the deficiencies in our work and various other factors have stirred up substantial controversies and dispute in society following the relatively calm periods of the past two years, disappointing many people. We will adopt the most sincere and humble attitude to accept criticisms and make improvements so that we can continue to connect with the people of Hong Kong.
Thank you very much.
▼從6月9日大遊行 13日大規模衝突 到暫緩修例 峰迴路轉一星期▼
▼林鄭月娥與記者答問輯錄▼
明報記者
記者：林太，你好。其實○三年二十三條立法的時候，政府說會撤回和無限期擱置，民陣和民主派其實現在都說不接受暫緩。其實你覺得這樣暫緩是否可以平息民憤？是否為所謂的管治威信而「死撐」？第二個問題就是你上台時說，首要任務是修補社會撕裂，亦說過主流民意令你無法繼續做特首的話，你會辭職，你覺得現在的情況是否都不足以令你下台？最後，其實你經常提到作為一個母親，其實很多香港父母這數日都很痛心，很多示威者和年輕人被警方以不合比例的武力對待，打到頭破血流，想問特首你會否代表警方向示威者道歉，還有會否成立一個獨立委員會去檢討、追究責任？最後，會否收回「暴動」的定性？謝謝。
行政長官： 第一，正如我剛才所說，我們這次修例的初心，我仍然認為是正確。事實上，社會上有不少市民，包括立法會超過半數議員都支持這項修例工作。初心不變，但工作做得不足，我們是應該給自己、給社會有個機會，讓我們以一個更開放的態度來溝通、解釋、聽意見。聽意見是會開放和全面，換句話說，不同意見，我們都會聽，只要大家有共同目標，是可以達至原本的初心。當然，我剛才都承認，現在兩個初心之一的台灣殺人事件，我們或許未必做到，所以在三天前，我在訪問亦公開向受害者的父母說我們盡了力，但可能未必能夠做到。第二個初心對於香港是非常重要的，我們現在在刑事互助方面是有缺陷──在逃犯移交中，其實只能夠做到二十個地方──所以在堅持這個初心的時候，我不覺得在現階段是可以就此撤回這條條例，否則令社會收到的信息是「這條條例根本沒有立足之地，所以你現在要收回」。這是我們的取態。
我在競選以至上任，由於當時社會的情況，我很努力，亦承諾了盡量修補社會的撕裂，希望能夠更和諧共融，所以在開場發言最後一段，我說過去兩年，實際上出現了一個相對──我只能說是相對，因為在香港這個社會很難有事是絕對的──相對平靜。我們亦有做事，我們不是沒有處理過爭議性的事──「一地兩檢」很有爭議性，我們都處理到。我覺得很遺憾和很可惜，亦很難過，這次事件令本來已經平復了、平靜了、似乎沒那麼撕裂的社會，又出現了一次很大的矛盾，但我們會繼續就此努力。
至於你提到星期三金鐘一帶發生的事件，我想絕大部分香港市民都可以在新聞報道，特別是電視有影像的報道，看到發生了有些不是所謂和平表達意見，是用了一些有殺傷力的武器襲擊警務人員，所以警務人員的執法是理所當然、是天公地義，是他們每一位加入香港警務處的使命。你今天不能夠要求因為行政長官自己工作做得不好，就連這些執法人員努力維持治安的工作都要被抹黑，我做不到。至於在現場究竟如何去處理在電光火石之間可能生命受到威脅或帶來更大、難以控制的場面的情況，一定要交回給執法人員；當然他們不是隨便執法，每一位警務人員在甚麼情況下可以採取甚麼行動，我知道警務處是有指引給他們的，亦有足夠訓練給他們。我覺得警務人員是克制、負責任，亦是盡量以維持大局的態度來工作。
商業電台記者
問：之前很多意見希望撤回、暫緩。現在反對派也叫修例做惡法，也有支持者說政府手法差劣。是否政府早點暫緩就可以避免？問責團隊是否需要下台？做決定前有無與中央領導人溝通，中央如何評價？有關爭議有無拖累中央？
記者：林太，想問其實之前都已經有很多意見說希望撤回或暫緩今次的修例，到現時其實反對派都會叫這修例為惡法，而支持者中有些都說覺得今次政府的推銷手法都可稱為差劣，甚至覺得政府把一件好事變為一件壞事，以及也看到釀成一次流血衝突。其實你覺得就這個衝突，政府是否可以早些暫緩便可以避免？第二就是你覺得在這個爭議當中，你和問責團隊有否需要問責下台？以及亦想問作出這個暫緩的決定前有否與中央領導人有過溝通？中央如何評價你的修例工作？有否覺得這個爭議拖累中央？謝謝。
行政長官：
第一，就撤回和暫緩的考慮，我剛才已經說過，這件工作──如果套用你的說話──是一件好事。事實上，我覺得國際社會都會認為這是一件好事。因為我們所做的刑事互助，顧名思義是一個互助，即是說香港特區政府與其他司法管轄區的有關當局互相幫助以打擊嚴重罪行，所以這是完全站得住腳的立法初心，亦是為甚麼我們暫緩，希望能夠進一步溝通或聽意見、再改善。
第二點，你說有人說我們的手法不太好，這我是承認的。我剛才已經承認，亦不是今日才第一次說──在數日前的電視訪問，我也說過我們的工作是做得不足。我們的溝通不知道為甚麼無效，最終出現社會這麼嚴重的矛盾亦有其他原因，我剛才在開場發言亦是這麼說。有沒有空間、有沒有機會把原本的好事辦好？我希望有，我們會盡最大努力去做。這個時候應該是說如何把事做好的時候，是說我們怎樣能夠與市民溝通，讓他們明白我們的初心，亦給予我們這個空間，可以挽回對於特區政府的信心。因為我們除了這項修例工作，我們還有排山倒海的經濟、民生的工作要處理。
至於中央的角色，我們公開說過，這項修例工作是由香港特別行政區政府主動、自發去做，整個過程都是由特區政府作主導。中央一如既往對於特區和我本人，他們的立場都是這樣──第一是理解，理解香港情況與內地情況很不相同，這亦是「兩制」的差異；理解香港其實真的是把好事辦好都不容易，是複雜的。第二，就是信任，信任特區政府和我本人，因為我們在最前線，我們才看到現時正發生甚麼事、情緒去到甚麼程度。第三，就是尊重，這一份來自中央對我的尊重，在這兩年來真的是時常都深刻體會，就很多事情的成因，需要它尊重我的看法。最後就是支持。中央在整個過程中都是採取理解、信任、尊重、支持。
在我們第二次作出改善時，有部分措施是直接涉及中央的，因為這條條例其實是有關其他所有司法管轄區，不過剔除地理限制，讓內地、台灣、澳門都像其他百多個司法管轄區可以進行個案移交。本來你可以說我不用問中央部委的，因為大家都是這樣做；但因為在討論過程中，我可以理解大家聚焦的都是內地，所以到第二次的加強版的修訂，至少有兩處很直接與中央有關。第一，就是香港特區政府只會處理由最高人民檢察院提出的移交申請。我不能憑空說，即使我說你也不會相信，你一定會接着問中央有否同意我這樣說。這方面是問過中央，中央亦是支持的。第二個加強的措施就是當移交了的逃犯在內地被判刑，今日我們與內地是沒有被判刑的在囚人士返回香港服刑這安排。為了加強保障這些香港人在移交後的福利，我們亦聽到意見指不如向中央提出，是否可以讓香港人如果在移交後被判刑，可以返回香港服刑，這亦要中央同意。至少有這兩個很特定涉及中央、內地制度的請求是具體得到中央同意。
英國廣播公司（BBC）記者
（中文節錄）
記者：是否這麼多香港市民，誤解你的意願？很多市民認為，你不是代表香港市民，而是代表中央？
行政長官：我沒有說misunderstanding的字眼。
我承認，我星期三的聲明也說過，這件事有內地的因素。
但無論是恐懼和憂慮，還是其他，我們有信心可以做到。正如高鐵一地兩檢的爭議，涉及內地執法人員，出現在香港內。但都克服了恐懼、憂慮以及法律爭議。
你的第二個問題，
關於特首的角色，我的憲制角色，是中央人民政府任命。基本法規定，我是對中央人民政府負責，也同時對香港特別行政區負責。
如果有人讓我做不合基本法的事情，是不能做的。
（英文原文）
Reporter: Mrs Lam. Is this really, as you suggest, about a misunderstanding? Are so many Hong Kong citizens really that easily confused? Or is this more about a problem that the people of Hong Kong deeply distrust the Central Government in Beijing, and many of them see your government as not really representing them, but representing the interests of the Central Government in Beijing? Thank you.
Chief Executive:
First of all, as you will notice, I have not used that term “misunderstanding”. I was saying that we have not done sufficiently to explain and allay fears and concerns. Of course it is difficult for me as the Chief Executive standing here to evaluate the causes of that resistance or fear or concerns about this bill. But I would confess, as I did in a statement on Wednesday, that in the past years or so we have seen this sort of situation where there’s major confrontation, and very often the issue that has given rise to that confrontation has a Mainland dimension. I’m sure you can name a few, and I can name a few. But no matter what, when there is that concern, that fear, I think everyone should be given an opportunity to increase their confidence, to allay their concerns, so that if it is a good thing for Hong Kong then we get it done. This is exactly what happened to the co-location legislation last year. We have a high-speed train, 26 kilometres, that is ready to go, but in order to achieve the effectiveness of a high-speed train in that sort of circumstances, we need co-location of the Mainland and Hong Kong CIQ (Customs, Immigration, Quarantine)facilities. That would necessitate Mainland law enforcement bodies to operate on Hong Kong territory. We went through a very elaborate process, a three-stage elaborate process, to allay the original concerns and fears about that sort of situation where Mainland officers could come down to Hong Kong to enforce the law. You could say that I originally also harboured that sort of wish, that through intensive discussion and explanation and legal safeguards we could overcome that concern and get this good thing done, because the purpose and intent of the legislative amendment has been accepted by many people. I’m sure BBC, because you are very international, you must have been reporting on a lot of anti-money laundering, anti-terrorist financing. That sort of legal assistance on a mutual basis between jurisdictions is extremely important.
On your second question about the position of the Chief Executive, again, if people have the perception about the Chief Executive’s institution – not Carrie Lam herself, but the institution of the Chief Executive – that he or she, being appointed by the Central People’s Government, will only obey the orders of the Central People’s Government, if that is the view then that is a view that does not sit well with the Basic Law - that’s not aligned with the constitutional role of the Chief Executive. Under the Basic Law, the Chief Executive has dual accountability. She or he is responsible to the Central People’s Government, but at the same time responsible to the people of Hong Kong, and what is more important, that is in the Basic Law, every act of every person including the Government and the Chief Executive has to be lawful. Even in any sort of situation in a private enterprise, if your boss who pays your salary asks you to do something unlawful, you shouldn’t do it, and you wouldn’t do it. I hope that explains the relationship between the Chief Executive and the Central People’s Government, and I have been adhering faithfully to that constitutional characteristics of this position of the Chief Executive.
香港電台英文記者
（中文節錄）
記者：經過過去一星期的爭議，你是否仍適合擔任特首管治香港，你的管治團隊，是否需要負責？你覺得暫緩修例後，香港人會否重新對政府有信心呢？
行政長官：我說過，我的初心。也是對香港人的同情，我可以很簡單對潘生潘太說，我們做不到。但我也想過，如果發生在我兩個兒子身上怎麼辦。
所以我們希望去做。但當然我們有很多東西要做，經濟方面，所以我會繼續去做。我今日去做的，有人說是重建我已經損壞的形象，其實不是。我想做是令香港社會恢復平靜，這是我的首要考慮。第二考慮是，周三的衝突，很可能重現，甚至更嚴重的衝突。我們看到嚴重的受傷，可能對警員或者市民、示威者受更嚴重的傷害，我不想這些再發生。
（英文原文）
Reporter: After all the intense and some would say unprecedented opposition and conflicts we've seen over the past week because of the extradition bill initiated by your government, do you think that you are still fit to govern the city as the Chief Executive? And will any government officials take the responsibility for this crisis and resign from their position? And secondly, hundreds of thousands of people took to the street asking your administration to withdraw the bill unconditionally. Do you really think that simply by suspending the bill, the people of Hong Kong could be pacified and do you think that suspending the bill will help restore people’s confidence in the Government?
Chief Executive:
About the first point, as I have repeatedly said and I hope people will appreciate, in doing this legislative exercise, myself and my colleagues were driven by our passion for Hong Kong. We want Hong Kong to do well. If Hong Kong’s justice system and mutual legal assistance regime have some major deficiencies, it is our responsibility to rectify those deficiencies so that Hong Kong could do better when another situation arises. It is also driven by our empathy for the people of Hong Kong. We could easily ignore Mr and Mrs Poon - said sorry, we are very sorry about the death of your girl - but we have empathy for them. We just ask ourselves if the situation happens to my son, John Lee (the Secretary for Security)'s child, what will we do? This is what I call empathy. We have empathy for the people of Hong Kong. And this is not the only occasion as the Chief Executive that I displayed very strongly that empathy for individual people of Hong Kong. With that objective in mind, we have not done a good enough job to convince people and to ensure that this laudable objective could be met. But give us another chance, we will do this bill well if we, in our engagement of people, can get more diverse opinions, and if we can build broader consensus to do it, we'll do it. But we have other things to do. We have the economy to look after, we have livelihood issues to address. On the former especially we are expecting some downturn in Hong Kong’s economy. That's where we will continue to perform and deliver for the people of Hong Kong.
The decision I made today is not as described as pacifying people or some people said restoring some of my damaged reputation. That’s not the purpose. The purpose is very simple. People of Hong Kong want a relatively calm and peaceful environment and we did have that relatively calm and peaceful environment in the last two years since I took office. So this is the time, after what you describe as tension, conflicts and so on, for a responsible government, having looked at the situation and the circumstances, to restore as quickly as possible that calmness in society. That is my first consideration. The second consideration is in any confrontations that I have seen on Wednesday, it is very possible that when it recurs again, there will be even more serious confrontations. The 80 or so injuries, generally minor injuries that we have seen, may be replaced by very serious injuries to my police colleagues and to ordinary citizens, whether they are very fierce protesters or just ordinary students joining a protest. I don’t want any of those injuries to happen. Those are my considerations in announcing that we will pause and think and for the time being suspend and halt the legislative amendment process.
有線電視記者
記者：林太，你好。首先想問其實台灣方面一早已經說了他們不會接受用《逃犯條例》修訂之後這個方式移交陳同佳回去，外國亦有多個國家發出聲明質疑這條修例，而市民在六月九日的時候，已經有很多人出來，無論你說是103萬或20萬已經出來了，但為甚麼到今日你才說要暫緩這條修例？即是你不是今日才知道其實大家對這條修例都很有意見，是否因為有消息說韓正下來與你有個溝通，所以中央出了聲你才決定要暫緩修例？是否你這個才是不負責任的做法？因為你一早已經知道台灣方面是不會用這條條例接收陳同佳。第二條就是你說會再溝通，但現時法律界人士或那些議員出來，他們說了個問題就是因為不能夠接受內地的司法制度問題，並不是因為溝通解說不足的問題，因為林太你和司局長已經密集式地解說了很久，我想你自己都知道大家溝通了很多，為甚麼覺得溝通可以解決到內地的法制問題？會否是你到今時今日都未能見這條修例的問題在哪裏？最後，很簡單，你會否收回定性是暴動，市民是暴動？因為剛才你提到「不完全和平的示威」。以及你和你的政府團隊會否問責下台？到底是否暴動？你先回應。
行政長官：
我以為我回應了。就前線警務同事怎樣處理及怎樣形容、定性，這都是警務處的責任。我是贊成亦是同意這種說法，我在星期三的聲明亦說了，這是行政長官很清晰的說法。所以，第三條回答了。
第一條是有關於──因為其實第一條都有三個部分，即是台灣、國際或本地社會，在過去這一段時間發表了一些意見，但大家要明白整個是一個過程；我如果每一次聽到一個意見、兩個意見、三個意見，便可以大幅度改動政府政策，這亦不是一個適當或負責任的做法。到了過去一星期，我們看到形勢開始令人擔憂，亦令人痛心，所以出現了我剛才說的兩個理由：必須要盡快回復社會的平靜，必須要防止再有執法人員及市民因為雙方意見的分歧或對立而受到傷害。至於在我們進一步溝通方面，如果認真去看不同的團體，特別是兩個律師會，即大律師公會及香港律師會，又不是所有事不能做，即是它們不是說總之不要做這事了，因為一做這事，是涉及內地，是沒法做的，好像不是這樣的；是有些可以做的方法，不過當時我們對於這些方法有不同看法。其他方法可否進一步研究？當然可以研究，特別是律師公會發出的那份很長很厚的聲明裏，至少我本人都未可以仔細研究內容，因為時間上這些事每日都發生得很快。我覺得再溝通，而且是以一個開放的態度溝通──即是我沒有前設，不是迫你要接受現時這一套──聽不同的意見，然後再去想下一步是怎樣，都是一個合適、合理的做法。
無綫電視記者
記者： 兩條問題，第一條問題就是你剛才都承認過去兩年的社會其實是平靜的，但現在再出現撕裂和矛盾，我想問你怎樣修補撕裂，以及你會否就過去這麼多市民、警察因為上次的衝突事件而受傷，你會否向香港市民道歉？第二條，既然你之前曾經說過，修例是為了彰顯公義、堵塞漏洞，現在你打算怎樣處理台灣殺人案，你怎樣向潘生、潘太交代？怎樣彰顯公義？謝謝。
行政長官：
第一，過去兩年大家都看到社會是相對比較平靜，我不想利用這個說法為我的班子作評價，這留給大家。為甚麼社會突然會平靜，這由大家自己判斷，總之似乎大家都同意過去兩年都是相對比較平靜。以後如何可以盡快回復平靜，如果我認為過去兩年平靜是因為我們多處理行政立法關係、更加展示誠意、多做實際政策的工作，那麼我們便循這個方向繼續做。至於我們怎樣定性我們自己處理這件事，剛才我說了。這個修例的初心我仍然堅持是好的、是應該做的，但是在過程裏我們做得不好，出現了現在這後果，我們會補救，繼續用最大的時間、耐性、誠意與市民溝通，希望做好這工作。其他我們在經濟、創科、民生、房屋、土地的工作，我們會繼續很努力地去做。
至於台灣的個案，我剛才都應該回答了，不過再說一次──就是我們一直都很想做，當我們找到一個方法認為可以做的時候，我和我的同事，包括保安局和律政司的同事都感到安慰，因為至少我們找到。我可以告訴大家另一個做法，就是當事情發生或要求提出的時候，我們看看法律書，沒有法律基礎，便回答潘生、潘太說很抱歉、很遺憾沒有法律基礎不能做；但是我們沒有這樣做。我們回信潘生很多次，有些我親自回答，沒一次跟他說剛才那番話，因為那番說話我覺得可能對他更加傷害。我們盡了最大努力，今日盡了最大努力，但沒辦法做到，我們也只能夠向潘生、潘太說，我們真的已盡了力，希望你能夠釋懷，知道特區政府是盡了很大努力。事實上，即使在七月前通過法例，結局可能是一樣，因為剛才我已轉述，台灣已經多次公開清楚表明不會用我們提出的方法申請移交，所以或者即使完成工作都未必有一個令受害人家長滿意的結局。
美國有線新聞網（CNN）記者
（中文節錄）
問：為何要等到這麼久，在星期日大遊行之後，隔這麼久才回應。是否擔心明日再遊行？
林鄭：我並無考慮明日的事。
上個星期的遊行，大致上是和平，這就是香港。
但在星期三，有激烈衝突，有暴力的情況，有人受傷，警員受傷。所以我才考慮，如何令社會恢復平靜，避免更多警員和市民受傷。
我需要問我自己、團隊，去考慮，我是最早去回應。
（英文原文）
Reporter: The question I have for you is: What took so long, given that you knew what public opinion was after the protest last Sunday? Why did you wait so long to come to this decision, and are you nervous about the march planned for tomorrow? Thank you.
Chief Executive:
Our decision has nothing to do with what may happen tomorrow. As I answered in another question, it has nothing to do with an intention, a wish, to pacify. Why take so long? Actually, if you remember what I said in my account, I acknowledge that last Sunday we had a large number of people coming out. It's very peaceful, generally orderly. This is part of Hong Kong – we do have that sort of protest from time to time. But it is on Wednesday that the polarization of views in society relating to this bill has given rise to violence, very serious confrontations, people being hurt, police on the ground being forced to take some of those measures. That's why I came to the view, I told myself that I need to do something decisively to address two issues: how could I restore as fast as possible the calm in society and how could I avoid any more law enforcement officers and ordinary citizens being injured. That was Wednesday to Saturday. Meanwhile, I met with people, because, as you know, in these sort of circumstances you have only one shot. I need to ask my advisors, I need to think through, our team has to deliberate it within ourselves, and this is my earliest opportunity. Although it is a Saturday, I did not wait until Monday to explain to you the deliberations leading to this decision. I hope you understand.
路透社記者
（中文節錄）
問：你與韓正在深圳談了什麼？會否下台？
林鄭：我不能評論，我與任何人的非公開會面內容。我不能回答你的問題，因為我每日都與不同的人會面。
但如果你想問中央的態度。答案是，他們支持我的決定。
因為這完全是香港內部事務。
我告訴他們，我們暫緩修例，會繼續聆聽意見。
我可以告訴你，中央政府，採取一貫態度。他們明白，尊重我的判斷，亦支持我。
我的初心並無改變，處理台灣殺人案，以及處理法律漏洞。我想無人反對這個初心。即使有人曲解。
巴黎的FATF，一直希望我們可以堵塞洗黑錢的漏洞。我們與內地澳門台灣無法移交逃犯，如果我下次與FATF會面，我會解釋我們嘗試過，但現在無法做到。
2017年7月1日後，社會相對平靜，即使房屋問題，我們還未做好，但我會繼續努力。
（英文原文）
Reporter: So, what details did you give in the emergency meeting with Han Zheng in Shenzhen and what did you tell him? And can you explain why you didn’t withdraw the bill but instead you suspend the bill? And also, why don’t you step down now? Thanks.
Chief Executive:
First of all, I could not comment on any meetings I have with anybody if it is not a public meeting. The Chief Executive has her own schedule every day, so I cannot confirm to you whether I have met a particular person during that day if it is not an official meeting that needs to be announced or publicised. If you’re interested in the Central People’s Government’s position and whether they have been informed about my decision, the answer is yes. Since all along they have taken such an understanding, supportive approach towards this local exercise, which is entirely within Hong Kong’s autonomy to do, I feel obliged to report to them that I have now considered all factors and I wish to announce today that we are making a change - we are suspending the legislative work in order to allow more time for communications, explanation, listening of opinions, and then decide on the way forward. I can tell you that the Central People’s Government adopts the same attitude. They understand, they have confidence in my judgement and they support me. As far as the difference between suspension and withdrawal, I have answered a few times. In very brief terms, it’s because this legislative exercise has very well-intended objectives. One is to deal with the Taiwan case, the other is to rectify the deficiencies in our current regime to deal with mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, and also to allow surrender of fugitive offenders with about 170 other countries and territories without long-term agreement. I hope nobody disputes those two objectives. With those two objectives in mind, withdrawing the bill seems to suggest that even those two objectives were erroneous in the first place, and I cannot accept that, because I think they are the needed objectives. If I may just elaborate a bit, especially for the international audience, to rectify the deficiencies in our regime is something that we have always been asked by the international community to do. One of these international organisations is the Financial Action Task Force on anti-money laundering, comprising the G7 countries, based in Paris. Hong Kong is a member in the name of Hong Kong, China. We are a member, amongst I think 37 members of this group, the FATF. The FATF came to look at our situation and said by and large we’re doing well on various aspects, but there is this aspect which we ranked very low – it’s because you have no extradition arrangement, no mutual legal assistance in criminal matters with the Mainland, Macao and Taiwan – they said you better do it as a matter of priority. That was on our agenda anyway – we have to do something. So at least now I can say I’ve made an attempt, I will tell the FATF next time they come I have made an attempt, somehow we could not deliver it yet, but we will try it again if circumstances permit. The difference between suspension and withdrawal could be explained in that context.
As far as myself and my team, we will continue to work very diligently and hopefully to achieve the same effect that we have seen since July 1, 2017, that generally society is more peaceful, there’s less tension, people are focusing on the economy and livelihood matters. Although I would say that even on livelihood matters, especially housing, we have not been doing the best we could to meet people’s aspirations, we will continue to work very hard.
星島日報記者
記者：林太，你好。有一條問題，很簡單。剛才多次有記者問你，其實你都有迴避──在這次修例過程中，其實民主派早已不妥協，而建制派其實亦不支持，在這件事上，我想問，你會否汲取甚麼教訓？會否向全香港市民道歉或下台？另外，我想問，如果你不下台，香港在短短數年間再次撕裂和有一個大型衝突，其實你會否檢視一下，你的管治方式會否改變？謝謝。
行政長官：
第一，這條條例修訂的反應其實比較極端，通常在議會如果對於我們做的工作有意見的話，都會讓我們經過一個過程──「一地兩檢」如此，其他的法案也是如此──但這條條例是沒有辦法開展，我也不知道是否史無前例、前所未見。在立法會的非建制派議員採取這樣的立場，對我來說是很困惑的──即是為何不去討論、看看內容或者提出修訂。
一九九七年的逃犯移交條例，當時亦是這樣做，亦有法案委員會，法案委員會主席亦是非建制派議員，他們都是可以在那個過程中提一些人權保障，而政府接受，結果條例通過，被視為是一個有用的藍本。
建制派議員其實由始至終都很堅持，支持我們；不過在建制派議員中，有些有商界背景的，他們因為種種原因覺得條例可能對他們有些影響，令他們有擔憂，所以我們跟他們另外與一些商界、商會討論，考慮了他們的意見或是其他專業團體的意見，先後作了兩次修訂，以釋除疑慮及加強保障。其實現在建制派的問題，反而是我們如何可以令他們以後更加早掌握政府制定政策，在很早階段已經可以提出我剛才提及、他們這次在局長提出修例之後才代表商界提出的意見，以後可以提早做醞釀的工作。
至於接下來我的班子的工作，剛才已經說了很多次，我們會繼續努力我們的工作，因為現在香港社會正正是需要做事的人，無論在應對經濟下行的風險或滿足市民在房屋方面的需求、人口老齡化方面的挑戰、醫療壓力，都需要有一個能辦事的班子為社會做實事。
香港電台記者
記者：特首，我有幾條問題想問，包括有些剛才你沒有正面回應的，例如剛才提到其實今次中央的確正如你所說很尊重你，外交部、中聯辦、港澳辦多次「撐」你，但最後在這星期經過民意的表達後，你要到今日才有這個決定，你會否覺得其實你是香港撕裂的始作俑者？你在今次事件有沒有為中央添煩添亂？第二條，建制派一直正如你所說都是一些忠實支持者，到昨日都有人一直在幫你「撐」修例，但你今次這決定，會否令他們覺得好像被你「玩一鑊」？你之後會用甚麼措施安撫他們？以後你的施政還可以怎樣做？
行政長官：中央對於特區政府今次主動、自發做這項工作，正如我所說，是支持的。這件是特區政府內部的事，我們聽到中央支持，但如我需要具體支持，我會再向中央提出，所以去到第二輪的改善措施，剛才已經解釋給大家知道，至少有兩個特別安排是需要中央原則上默許，我才能夠以一個更有權威的方法告訴大家，中央都是支持的。為甚麼你會覺得中央好像說了很多說話?其實真的並不是很久。當我們於二月中做這項工作不久，便已經有其他外國政府作很多的評論。大家都明白，外國政府去評論中華人民共和國香港特別行政區的內部事務，中央透過外交部發言人作一個回應；或者到後期，外國政府的評論介入越來越深度、越來越氣溫上升時，中央亦要告訴它們，我們中央都是很支持這工作。事實上這支持是理所當然的，因為所說的是彰顯法治、改善司法制度，對中央來說是支持。我剛才亦已透露中央現時亦一直支持我今日所說的事情……
記者：……添煩添亂方面你沒有回應
行政長官：我說了是支持便不是添煩添亂。當你支持一個人時，你便不會用你所說那四個字說這個人。
至於建制派，我相信你們現在正在訪問。如果建制派議員認為有點失望，或者令他們對支持者交代有困難，我完全接受。我剛才已經率先向所有──不過並非所有都出席──幾十位建制派議員交代這件事，亦希望得到他們的理解和包容，因為大家的共同目標都是不想香港亂，都不想香港出現一些再嚴重的撕裂，甚至有一些暴力的情況而影響我們的警務人員或是普通市民。對於這個過程中他們作為我們最堅強的後盾，我是深表感謝。我剛才在發言時亦有感謝建制派議員和他們的支持者，在此再次對於他們在這幾個月的堅實支持，甚至是在地區層面不顧被人侮辱、抹黑地堅定支持特區政府，我再次表示感謝。
NowTV記者
記者：想問其實過去四個月大部分人都反對過、三次的遊行遊行過；專業界別都發過聲明反對，為甚麼要到星期三發生大規模衝突，你才肯收回？是否日後有爭議性問題，你都要迫市民上街、甚至有衝突或者甚至流血，你才會可能考慮暫緩？以及另外想問，剛才有英文媒體問你有否見韓正，你說不是公開會面而不說。你可否正面答，你有否見過韓正？是否因為韓正叫你停手你才停，因為張建宗星期四接受我們訪問都說不會收回條例？究竟星期四接受完訪問後至今日，你和中央中間發生甚麼事，令你要收回？另外，你會否叫局長問責下台，因為推不到這條法例？
行政長官：
我先答第二條題目。正如我所說，行政長官每日有很多日程、見很多人，是不可能將我所有見的人、見什麼人都告訴大家，我相信全世界都不會，所以沒辦法可以直接回應。如果這令你不滿，我也沒辦法，因為這事如果隨意破格、破例回應，對日後不但是我，我的管治團隊每人要將他的私人日程讓大家看，影響會很深遠。
這個決定是我做的，如果要知道這個決定是否由我做，其實都不是很複雜。事實上，剛才我說了，我於過去兩日──星期三、跟着星期四、星期五──過去兩日我見了很多人，亦有不少社會領袖來見我，或者用其他方法告訴我，他們都希望我們「停一停、諗一諗」。我是基於這些及我剛才說的兩大考慮，作了這個決定。作了這個決定後我亦通知中央，中央考慮了我的判斷，一如既往都是尊重和支持。這是很清晰的，希望不要再有任何揣測，說這是中央的命令。最初進行這項有關《逃犯條例》的工作不是中央的指示，兩三日前，我國駐英大使劉曉明也說了這點。這是特區自發希望改善法制而進行的，中央沒有給過指示，這是清晰無誤的。
至於過去由二月中至現在，是一個過程。事實上到今日，我都只能說意見分歧，很難說一面倒只有一個意見。如果只有一個意見，連建制派都反對，這可能更易處理。意見是分歧的，分歧的立場亦很鮮明，似乎大家都不太肯多行一步找妥協空間。我看了過去一星期發生的事，基於我剛才說的兩個考慮，希望社會早日回復一個相對的平靜──這不只是因為星期三的事──亦希望不要有人進一步受到傷害，所以作出了這個決定。這個決定是艱難的，因為今日作了這個決定，在短期內似乎難以可以實現這個初心，改善香港法制，但我都希望社會給予我們時間、機會再努力做這方面工作。
Sky News記者
（中文節錄）
問：法案令社會恐懼，會否道歉？
林鄭：我說過很多次，這法案有很多人支持，無論本地還是國際上有很多人支持，打擊跨境犯罪等。
我承認，我的溝通做得不好。最好的方法是暫停，思考，如何做到那個初心。
追問：會否道歉？
林鄭無回應
（英文全文）
Reporter: This bill has spread fear and sparked some of the worst violent protests on this city's streets since the handover. Are you going to apologise to the people for the damage that you and this bill has caused?
Chief Executive:
I have repeatedly said in my opening statement and also in response to some questions that this bill has very laudable objectives, not only domestically but also internationally. The enactment of this bill will help to raise Hong Kong's international profile and also demonstrate that we are a place with excellent rule of law, not only for our own citizens but also in contribution to the combatting of serious crime on a cross-border and transnational basis. With those very laudable objectives, I confess that we have not been as effective as we would like to communicate with the people to justify these very good objectives that are worth doing. And at the same time there are other factors and other circumstances that have given rise to some anxiety and fear and concern. So the best way forward is to pause and think and to find opportunities and time to see whether we could still reach those good objectives as laid down in the bill. That is the approach that I have taken.
哥倫比亞廣播公司（CBS）記者
（中文節錄）
問：有人頭部受傷，警員瞄準示威者頭部。
林鄭：香港是法治社會，我不能繞過警務團隊，去評論和決定，這樣就不是法治社會。特首不是什麼都能決定的，no way。
他們是獨立決定，在基本法下。我不能破壞基本法。
我看到電視新聞，警務人員是保護立法會。
現場有四萬人，有些人，不是全部，有些人是有武器的。你看看磚頭，大量磚頭。
有很多車輛停在路中，你要看多些情況。
（英文原文）
Reporter: Thank you very much, Chief Executive. Where we were in the protests on Wednesday, we saw excessive police force being used. Someone right next to our team was actually hit in the head, it seemed that the Police were actually targeting protesters in the head and in the torso. Organisers for tomorrow’s protest have been calling for you to say that they are not rioters and that they want the people who have been arrested to be released. Will you do this?
Chief Executive:
Hong Kong is a very lawful society. I have just mentioned in response to another question that even as the Chief Executive (CE), I have to act lawfully. So I cannot override the law enforcement bodies to decide who should be arrested, who should be released - that is totally unlawful. And if I were to do this, I don't think many people or investors will continue to trust Hong Kong, because the CE could do anything – to arrest somebody or detain somebody or release somebody. So, no way, I’m not going to interfere into the investigations by the law enforcement bodies and also the prosecution and the judicial proceedings – everything has to be done lawfully. Especially for prosecution and judiciary decisions, they are independently discharged as provided for under the Basic Law. As the Chief Executive I cannot breach the law, let alone the Basic Law, which is such an important constitutional document. On your reference to the use of force, I think everybody who watched the TV news on that day will notice that the Police were doing defensive protection of the Legislative Council Building.
What you have been told by the Commissioner of the Police is some – I wouldn't say all, definitely not all, because we are talking about 40 000 people maybe – some of protesters were quite violent. If you have looked at some of the weapons that the Police had seized, they were not the sort of equipment that one would deploy in a peaceful protest or a peaceful assembly on a social issue. Have you looked at the bricks? Large numbers of bricks, throwing at the Police. Have you looked at some of the cars deliberately being placed in the middle of the road to obstruct traffic? Did you know that one of my Principal Officials was sort of detained for several hours on a road because of the blockade? So I hope that you can take everything into consideration before you come to a conclusion of what the incident was on Wednesday.
一位本港記者
記者：想請問林太，你會否承諾本屆立法會會期內不再提出恢復二讀？另外，作為公僕，你認為為何這麼多人反對、這麼多人上街的時候，還有發生流血衝突之後，你有理由不下台？
行政長官：
第一，現在暫緩後是要全面聽意見，尤其是我說要用一個開放的態度去聽。我剛才發言亦說，我無意為這個聽意見的工作設一個限期；既然沒有限期，所以亦不可以承諾。不過我現在可以向大家說，因為我放了另一個所謂關卡，即是我不會就此返回立法會大會恢復二讀辯論。我們聽完意見、整合了意見後，一定會先提交立法會保安事務委員會，所以並不存在立刻發出預告便可以返回立法會恢復二讀辯論。按我們的經驗──我本人在政府中可算經驗豐富──既要全面、又要多聽意見、又要多解說的工作，現在已經是六月中，以我看來，在今年內我們都難以走出第一步，即是返回立法會保安事務委員會。如果時間性對你提的疑問是有用的話，我給這個時間性：就是看來在年底前都很難完成工作並返回立法會保安事務委員會作一個綜合匯報。
我是一個接近四十年的公僕，我仍然以做公僕為榮，而且我有大量工作想為香港做，無論是拓展經濟、改善民生方面，我希望繼續在這些方面，以我四十年公僕的經驗，能夠為香港開創一個更美好未來。
香港01記者
記者：林太，我想問有報道指今次政府高層判斷星期三那場衝突是外國策動的顏色革命，其實這消息說了出來後，有很多批評指政府這個講法是諉過於人，我想請問特首，你現在是否還覺得這場仍然是一場顏色革命？還是其實港府一直在推行修例過程中誤判形勢，所以才令這麼多人上街及衝擊立法會？謝謝。
行政長官：
我簡單回答，就是我們沒有作過這個判斷。
台灣中視記者
記者：想請問一下，按你的說法是不是陳同佳案就沒有辦法再去做？因為香港政府從案發到現在一直沒有直接跟台灣的相關單位有過溝通。到了今年二月份之後，你們才表示會透過策發會、策進會那些來溝通。那麼未來會不會有直接的溝通去解決這個問題？
行政長官：
香港特別行政區跟台灣的溝通一向是透過兩個組織──一個是策進會（台港經濟文化合作策進會），一個是協進會（港台經濟文化合作協進會），我們在台北現在還有一個經濟文化的辦事處。這件事情台灣當局是有幾次希望我們提供刑事的協助，也希望我們往後能移交陳同佳，這也驅動我們找一個法律基礎、找一個方法來做。我們花了一段很長的時間才能找到今天這個方案，但是現在看來這個方案沒可能在陳同佳離開監獄以前能做到，所以我現在的說法，就是我們應該是沒有法律基礎，跟台灣按它的要求把這個逃犯移交。感謝。
在場記者追問林鄭月娥，處理不到台灣殺人案現時責任在哪裏，林鄭月娥沒有回應，直接離去。
