【逃犯条例】林郑月娥记者会 交代暂缓修例 对答全文纪录
修订《逃犯条例》在社会上纷乱达4个月后，终暂告一段落。行政长官林郑月娥今日（15日）宣布，暂缓修例，记者会上被追问会否下台、是否令见过中共中央政治局常委韩正、是否令中央添烦添乱等问题。现发布林郑月娥开场发言全文，及记者对答辑录。
▼林郑月娥记者会足本重温▼
【林郑月娥今天记者会上开场发言】
各位香港市民、各位传媒朋友
去年二月，在台湾发生一宗令很多香港市民感到震惊及伤心的杀人案。一名香港少女被杀，疑犯陈同佳逃回香港，这宗案件令受害人父母伤心欲绝，同时亦凸显香港在刑事互助、逃犯移交制度上的明显漏洞。这个漏洞，即因为现时法例中的地理限制，我们无法移交疑犯到台湾、内地和澳门；亦无可行安排可以同大约170个国家和地区、这些无签订长期协议的国家进行逃犯移交。
作为负责任的政府，我们需尽力找方法处理，一方面可处理台湾杀人案，令到公义得以彰显，还死者一个公道，给死者父母一个交代。另一方面，尽力完善香港法制，确保香港不会成为犯罪者逃避刑责的地方。这是特区政府提出修订逃犯条例及刑事事宜相互法律协助条例建议的两个初心。
经过仔细研究相关法律，和其他地方的做法之后，修例工作在今年2月正式在香港社会展开，我们建议基于现有法例，将当中人权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，相关同事一直与社会各界、包括立法会，就修例的工作作出理性讨论，聆听意见。而考虑到现时因为其他罪名，在监狱服刑的台湾杀人案疑犯即将获释，我们希望争取今个立法年度、即7月暑假休会前，通过条例草案。
事实上我们在聆听社会意见之后，先后对于建议作出两次修订，一次是在法案正式提交立法会之前，剔除了九个可以移交罪类，以及将移交罪行的最高刑罚，由原本的一年以上改为三年以上。而另一次修订是在法案提及至立法会之后，我们将三年以上改成七年或以上，并采纳多项与国际标准一致，加强人权保障的措施，以释除社会疑虑，争取更多支持。
我和相关官员已经尽了最大努力，但必须承认，我们在解说、沟通方面工作的确有所不足。虽然不少市民认同修例的两个初心，但社会上对于条例草案出现极为分歧的意见，有支持、有反对，而且立场鲜明。好多市民对条例草案仍有担心、疑虑、不理解，亦对于修例工作过程产生猜忌，我们曾经努力缩窄分歧，希望能消除疑虑。
过去一星期，我们看到数以万计市民参与游行、集会，在星期日游行后的午夜，以及星期三金钟一带的示威活动中，更出现严重冲突，导致多名警察、传媒同工和一般市民受伤，我和市民大众都感到痛心。
出现这样的情况，同样作为负责人的政府，我们一方面要维护法纪，但同时要审时度势，保障香港最大的福祉。这个最大福祉是包括，令社会尽快回复平静，避免再有执法人员和市民受到伤害。
我在这里感谢很多建制派的议员和社会各界的领袖，在最近几日都公开或私下表示，认为我们要“停一停、谂一谂”，不应该按照原定计划，在立法会恢复条例的二读辩论，避免对社会造成有更大冲击。
事实上考虑到，台湾方面多次公开、清楚表示，他们绝不会接受，在特区政府建议的安排下，要求移交陈同佳，这条条例草案在今个立法年度通过的迫切性，或许已经不复存在。
经过过去两日政府内部的反复研究，我在这里宣布，特区政府决定暂缓修例工作，重新与社会各界沟通，做更多解说，听更多不同意见。我想强调，政府以开放的态度，全面聆听社会对于条例草案的意见。
保安局局长今日会致函立法会主席，收回就条例草案恢复二读的预告，换句话说，立法会大会就处理条例草案的工作会暂停，直至我们完成沟通解说和聆听意见为止。我们无意就这些工作设立时限，并承诺会在整合意见后，向立法会保安事务委员会汇报，以及征询议员意见，才会决定下一步工作。
我在此希望感谢一直支持我们修例建制派议员，和市民；亦感谢虽然未能支持条例草案，但一直以和平、理性方式表达意见的市民和团体。香港这个文明、自由、开放、多元的社会，正正需要这种互相尊重、和而不同的精神。
最后作为特区的行政长官，我想说，我们进行修例的初心，出自我和我的管治团队，对于香港的热爱，以及对于香港人的关心，但由于我们工作上的不足和种种原因，令这两年来相对平静的香港社会，再次出现很大的矛盾和纷争，令很多市民感到失望和痛心。
我感到十分难过难过和遗憾，我会用以最有诚意、最谦卑的态度，接受批评，加以改进，继续与市民同行。
英文开场发言
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.
▼从6月9日大游行 13日大规模冲突 到暂缓修例 峰回路转一星期▼
▼林郑月娥与记者答问辑录▼
明报记者
记者：林太，你好。其实○三年二十三条立法的时候，政府说会撤回和无限期搁置，民阵和民主派其实现在都说不接受暂缓。其实你觉得这样暂缓是否可以平息民愤？是否为所谓的管治威信而“死撑”？第二个问题就是你上台时说，首要任务是修补社会撕裂，亦说过主流民意令你无法继续做特首的话，你会辞职，你觉得现在的情况是否都不足以令你下台？最后，其实你经常提到作为一个母亲，其实很多香港父母这数日都很痛心，很多示威者和年轻人被警方以不合比例的武力对待，打到头破血流，想问特首你会否代表警方向示威者道歉，还有会否成立一个独立委员会去检讨、追究责任？最后，会否收回“暴动”的定性？谢谢。
行政长官： 第一，正如我刚才所说，我们这次修例的初心，我仍然认为是正确。事实上，社会上有不少市民，包括立法会超过半数议员都支持这项修例工作。初心不变，但工作做得不足，我们是应该给自己、给社会有个机会，让我们以一个更开放的态度来沟通、解释、听意见。听意见是会开放和全面，换句话说，不同意见，我们都会听，只要大家有共同目标，是可以达至原本的初心。当然，我刚才都承认，现在两个初心之一的台湾杀人事件，我们或许未必做到，所以在三天前，我在访问亦公开向受害者的父母说我们尽了力，但可能未必能够做到。第二个初心对于香港是非常重要的，我们现在在刑事互助方面是有缺陷──在逃犯移交中，其实只能够做到二十个地方──所以在坚持这个初心的时候，我不觉得在现阶段是可以就此撤回这条条例，否则令社会收到的信息是“这条条例根本没有立足之地，所以你现在要收回”。这是我们的取态。
我在竞选以至上任，由于当时社会的情况，我很努力，亦承诺了尽量修补社会的撕裂，希望能够更和谐共融，所以在开场发言最后一段，我说过去两年，实际上出现了一个相对──我只能说是相对，因为在香港这个社会很难有事是绝对的──相对平静。我们亦有做事，我们不是没有处理过争议性的事──“一地两检”很有争议性，我们都处理到。我觉得很遗憾和很可惜，亦很难过，这次事件令本来已经平复了、平静了、似乎没那么撕裂的社会，又出现了一次很大的矛盾，但我们会继续就此努力。
至于你提到星期三金钟一带发生的事件，我想绝大部分香港市民都可以在新闻报道，特别是电视有影像的报道，看到发生了有些不是所谓和平表达意见，是用了一些有杀伤力的武器袭击警务人员，所以警务人员的执法是理所当然、是天公地义，是他们每一位加入香港警务处的使命。你今天不能够要求因为行政长官自己工作做得不好，就连这些执法人员努力维持治安的工作都要被抹黑，我做不到。至于在现场究竟如何去处理在电光火石之间可能生命受到威胁或带来更大、难以控制的场面的情况，一定要交回给执法人员；当然他们不是随便执法，每一位警务人员在甚么情况下可以采取甚么行动，我知道警务处是有指引给他们的，亦有足够训练给他们。我觉得警务人员是克制、负责任，亦是尽量以维持大局的态度来工作。
商业电台记者
问：之前很多意见希望撤回、暂缓。现在反对派也叫修例做恶法，也有支持者说政府手法差劣。是否政府早点暂缓就可以避免？问责团队是否需要下台？做决定前有无与中央领导人沟通，中央如何评价？有关争议有无拖累中央？
记者：林太，想问其实之前都已经有很多意见说希望撤回或暂缓今次的修例，到现时其实反对派都会叫这修例为恶法，而支持者中有些都说觉得今次政府的推销手法都可称为差劣，甚至觉得政府把一件好事变为一件坏事，以及也看到酿成一次流血冲突。其实你觉得就这个冲突，政府是否可以早些暂缓便可以避免？第二就是你觉得在这个争议当中，你和问责团队有否需要问责下台？以及亦想问作出这个暂缓的决定前有否与中央领导人有过沟通？中央如何评价你的修例工作？有否觉得这个争议拖累中央？谢谢。
行政长官：
第一，就撤回和暂缓的考虑，我刚才已经说过，这件工作──如果套用你的说话──是一件好事。事实上，我觉得国际社会都会认为这是一件好事。因为我们所做的刑事互助，顾名思义是一个互助，即是说香港特区政府与其他司法管辖区的有关当局互相帮助以打击严重罪行，所以这是完全站得住脚的立法初心，亦是为甚么我们暂缓，希望能够进一步沟通或听意见、再改善。
第二点，你说有人说我们的手法不太好，这我是承认的。我刚才已经承认，亦不是今日才第一次说──在数日前的电视访问，我也说过我们的工作是做得不足。我们的沟通不知道为甚么无效，最终出现社会这么严重的矛盾亦有其他原因，我刚才在开场发言亦是这么说。有没有空间、有没有机会把原本的好事办好？我希望有，我们会尽最大努力去做。这个时候应该是说如何把事做好的时候，是说我们怎样能够与市民沟通，让他们明白我们的初心，亦给予我们这个空间，可以挽回对于特区政府的信心。因为我们除了这项修例工作，我们还有排山倒海的经济、民生的工作要处理。
至于中央的角色，我们公开说过，这项修例工作是由香港特别行政区政府主动、自发去做，整个过程都是由特区政府作主导。中央一如既往对于特区和我本人，他们的立场都是这样──第一是理解，理解香港情况与内地情况很不相同，这亦是“两制”的差异；理解香港其实真的是把好事办好都不容易，是复杂的。第二，就是信任，信任特区政府和我本人，因为我们在最前线，我们才看到现时正发生甚么事、情绪去到甚么程度。第三，就是尊重，这一份来自中央对我的尊重，在这两年来真的是时常都深刻体会，就很多事情的成因，需要它尊重我的看法。最后就是支持。中央在整个过程中都是采取理解、信任、尊重、支持。
在我们第二次作出改善时，有部分措施是直接涉及中央的，因为这条条例其实是有关其他所有司法管辖区，不过剔除地理限制，让内地、台湾、澳门都像其他百多个司法管辖区可以进行个案移交。本来你可以说我不用问中央部委的，因为大家都是这样做；但因为在讨论过程中，我可以理解大家聚焦的都是内地，所以到第二次的加强版的修订，至少有两处很直接与中央有关。第一，就是香港特区政府只会处理由最高人民检察院提出的移交申请。我不能凭空说，即使我说你也不会相信，你一定会接着问中央有否同意我这样说。这方面是问过中央，中央亦是支持的。第二个加强的措施就是当移交了的逃犯在内地被判刑，今日我们与内地是没有被判刑的在囚人士返回香港服刑这安排。为了加强保障这些香港人在移交后的福利，我们亦听到意见指不如向中央提出，是否可以让香港人如果在移交后被判刑，可以返回香港服刑，这亦要中央同意。至少有这两个很特定涉及中央、内地制度的请求是具体得到中央同意。
英国广播公司（BBC）记者
（中文节录）
记者：是否这么多香港市民，误解你的意愿？很多市民认为，你不是代表香港市民，而是代表中央？
行政长官：我没有说misunderstanding的字眼。
我承认，我星期三的声明也说过，这件事有内地的因素。
但无论是恐惧和忧虑，还是其他，我们有信心可以做到。正如高铁一地两检的争议，涉及内地执法人员，出现在香港内。但都克服了恐惧、忧虑以及法律争议。
你的第二个问题，
关于特首的角色，我的宪制角色，是中央人民政府任命。基本法规定，我是对中央人民政府负责，也同时对香港特别行政区负责。
如果有人让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.
香港电台英文记者
（中文节录）
记者：经过过去一星期的争议，你是否仍适合担任特首管治香港，你的管治团队，是否需要负责？你觉得暂缓修例后，香港人会否重新对政府有信心呢？
行政长官：我说过，我的初心。也是对香港人的同情，我可以很简单对潘生潘太说，我们做不到。但我也想过，如果发生在我两个儿子身上怎么办。
所以我们希望去做。但当然我们有很多东西要做，经济方面，所以我会继续去做。我今日去做的，有人说是重建我已经损坏的形象，其实不是。我想做是令香港社会恢复平静，这是我的首要考虑。第二考虑是，周三的冲突，很可能重现，甚至更严重的冲突。我们看到严重的受伤，可能对警员或者市民、示威者受更严重的伤害，我不想这些再发生。
（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.
有线电视记者
记者：林太，你好。首先想问其实台湾方面一早已经说了他们不会接受用《逃犯条例》修订之后这个方式移交陈同佳回去，外国亦有多个国家发出声明质疑这条修例，而市民在六月九日的时候，已经有很多人出来，无论你说是103万或20万已经出来了，但为甚么到今日你才说要暂缓这条修例？即是你不是今日才知道其实大家对这条修例都很有意见，是否因为有消息说韩正下来与你有个沟通，所以中央出了声你才决定要暂缓修例？是否你这个才是不负责任的做法？因为你一早已经知道台湾方面是不会用这条条例接收陈同佳。第二条就是你说会再沟通，但现时法律界人士或那些议员出来，他们说了个问题就是因为不能够接受内地的司法制度问题，并不是因为沟通解说不足的问题，因为林太你和司局长已经密集式地解说了很久，我想你自己都知道大家沟通了很多，为甚么觉得沟通可以解决到内地的法制问题？会否是你到今时今日都未能见这条修例的问题在哪里？最后，很简单，你会否收回定性是暴动，市民是暴动？因为刚才你提到“不完全和平的示威”。以及你和你的政府团队会否问责下台？到底是否暴动？你先回应。
行政长官：
我以为我回应了。就前线警务同事怎样处理及怎样形容、定性，这都是警务处的责任。我是赞成亦是同意这种说法，我在星期三的声明亦说了，这是行政长官很清晰的说法。所以，第三条回答了。
第一条是有关于──因为其实第一条都有三个部分，即是台湾、国际或本地社会，在过去这一段时间发表了一些意见，但大家要明白整个是一个过程；我如果每一次听到一个意见、两个意见、三个意见，便可以大幅度改动政府政策，这亦不是一个适当或负责任的做法。到了过去一星期，我们看到形势开始令人担忧，亦令人痛心，所以出现了我刚才说的两个理由：必须要尽快回复社会的平静，必须要防止再有执法人员及市民因为双方意见的分歧或对立而受到伤害。至于在我们进一步沟通方面，如果认真去看不同的团体，特别是两个律师会，即大律师公会及香港律师会，又不是所有事不能做，即是它们不是说总之不要做这事了，因为一做这事，是涉及内地，是没法做的，好像不是这样的；是有些可以做的方法，不过当时我们对于这些方法有不同看法。其他方法可否进一步研究？当然可以研究，特别是律师公会发出的那份很长很厚的声明里，至少我本人都未可以仔细研究内容，因为时间上这些事每日都发生得很快。我觉得再沟通，而且是以一个开放的态度沟通──即是我没有前设，不是迫你要接受现时这一套──听不同的意见，然后再去想下一步是怎样，都是一个合适、合理的做法。
无线电视记者
记者： 两条问题，第一条问题就是你刚才都承认过去两年的社会其实是平静的，但现在再出现撕裂和矛盾，我想问你怎样修补撕裂，以及你会否就过去这么多市民、警察因为上次的冲突事件而受伤，你会否向香港市民道歉？第二条，既然你之前曾经说过，修例是为了彰显公义、堵塞漏洞，现在你打算怎样处理台湾杀人案，你怎样向潘生、潘太交代？怎样彰显公义？谢谢。
行政长官：
第一，过去两年大家都看到社会是相对比较平静，我不想利用这个说法为我的班子作评价，这留给大家。为甚么社会突然会平静，这由大家自己判断，总之似乎大家都同意过去两年都是相对比较平静。以后如何可以尽快回复平静，如果我认为过去两年平静是因为我们多处理行政立法关系、更加展示诚意、多做实际政策的工作，那么我们便循这个方向继续做。至于我们怎样定性我们自己处理这件事，刚才我说了。这个修例的初心我仍然坚持是好的、是应该做的，但是在过程里我们做得不好，出现了现在这后果，我们会补救，继续用最大的时间、耐性、诚意与市民沟通，希望做好这工作。其他我们在经济、创科、民生、房屋、土地的工作，我们会继续很努力地去做。
至于台湾的个案，我刚才都应该回答了，不过再说一次──就是我们一直都很想做，当我们找到一个方法认为可以做的时候，我和我的同事，包括保安局和律政司的同事都感到安慰，因为至少我们找到。我可以告诉大家另一个做法，就是当事情发生或要求提出的时候，我们看看法律书，没有法律基础，便回答潘生、潘太说很抱歉、很遗憾没有法律基础不能做；但是我们没有这样做。我们回信潘生很多次，有些我亲自回答，没一次跟他说刚才那番话，因为那番说话我觉得可能对他更加伤害。我们尽了最大努力，今日尽了最大努力，但没办法做到，我们也只能够向潘生、潘太说，我们真的已尽了力，希望你能够释怀，知道特区政府是尽了很大努力。事实上，即使在七月前通过法例，结局可能是一样，因为刚才我已转述，台湾已经多次公开清楚表明不会用我们提出的方法申请移交，所以或者即使完成工作都未必有一个令受害人家长满意的结局。
美国有线新闻网（CNN）记者
（中文节录）
问：为何要等到这么久，在星期日大游行之后，隔这么久才回应。是否担心明日再游行？
林郑：我并无考虑明日的事。
上个星期的游行，大致上是和平，这就是香港。
但在星期三，有激烈冲突，有暴力的情况，有人受伤，警员受伤。所以我才考虑，如何令社会恢复平静，避免更多警员和市民受伤。
我需要问我自己、团队，去考虑，我是最早去回应。
（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.
路透社记者
（中文节录）
问：你与韩正在深圳谈了什么？会否下台？
林郑：我不能评论，我与任何人的非公开会面内容。我不能回答你的问题，因为我每日都与不同的人会面。
但如果你想问中央的态度。答案是，他们支持我的决定。
因为这完全是香港内部事务。
我告诉他们，我们暂缓修例，会继续聆听意见。
我可以告诉你，中央政府，采取一贯态度。他们明白，尊重我的判断，亦支持我。
我的初心并无改变，处理台湾杀人案，以及处理法律漏洞。我想无人反对这个初心。即使有人曲解。
巴黎的FATF，一直希望我们可以堵塞洗黑钱的漏洞。我们与内地澳门台湾无法移交逃犯，如果我下次与FATF会面，我会解释我们尝试过，但现在无法做到。
2017年7月1日后，社会相对平静，即使房屋问题，我们还未做好，但我会继续努力。
（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.
星岛日报记者
记者：林太，你好。有一条问题，很简单。刚才多次有记者问你，其实你都有回避──在这次修例过程中，其实民主派早已不妥协，而建制派其实亦不支持，在这件事上，我想问，你会否汲取甚么教训？会否向全香港市民道歉或下台？另外，我想问，如果你不下台，香港在短短数年间再次撕裂和有一个大型冲突，其实你会否检视一下，你的管治方式会否改变？谢谢。
行政长官：
第一，这条条例修订的反应其实比较极端，通常在议会如果对于我们做的工作有意见的话，都会让我们经过一个过程──“一地两检”如此，其他的法案也是如此──但这条条例是没有办法开展，我也不知道是否史无前例、前所未见。在立法会的非建制派议员采取这样的立场，对我来说是很困惑的──即是为何不去讨论、看看内容或者提出修订。
一九九七年的逃犯移交条例，当时亦是这样做，亦有法案委员会，法案委员会主席亦是非建制派议员，他们都是可以在那个过程中提一些人权保障，而政府接受，结果条例通过，被视为是一个有用的蓝本。
建制派议员其实由始至终都很坚持，支持我们；不过在建制派议员中，有些有商界背景的，他们因为种种原因觉得条例可能对他们有些影响，令他们有担忧，所以我们跟他们另外与一些商界、商会讨论，考虑了他们的意见或是其他专业团体的意见，先后作了两次修订，以释除疑虑及加强保障。其实现在建制派的问题，反而是我们如何可以令他们以后更加早掌握政府制定政策，在很早阶段已经可以提出我刚才提及、他们这次在局长提出修例之后才代表商界提出的意见，以后可以提早做酝酿的工作。
至于接下来我的班子的工作，刚才已经说了很多次，我们会继续努力我们的工作，因为现在香港社会正正是需要做事的人，无论在应对经济下行的风险或满足市民在房屋方面的需求、人口老龄化方面的挑战、医疗压力，都需要有一个能办事的班子为社会做实事。
香港电台记者
记者：特首，我有几条问题想问，包括有些刚才你没有正面回应的，例如刚才提到其实今次中央的确正如你所说很尊重你，外交部、中联办、港澳办多次“撑”你，但最后在这星期经过民意的表达后，你要到今日才有这个决定，你会否觉得其实你是香港撕裂的始作俑者？你在今次事件有没有为中央添烦添乱？第二条，建制派一直正如你所说都是一些忠实支持者，到昨日都有人一直在帮你“撑”修例，但你今次这决定，会否令他们觉得好像被你“玩一镬”？你之后会用甚么措施安抚他们？以后你的施政还可以怎样做？
行政长官：中央对于特区政府今次主动、自发做这项工作，正如我所说，是支持的。这件是特区政府内部的事，我们听到中央支持，但如我需要具体支持，我会再向中央提出，所以去到第二轮的改善措施，刚才已经解释给大家知道，至少有两个特别安排是需要中央原则上默许，我才能够以一个更有权威的方法告诉大家，中央都是支持的。为甚么你会觉得中央好像说了很多说话?其实真的并不是很久。当我们于二月中做这项工作不久，便已经有其他外国政府作很多的评论。大家都明白，外国政府去评论中华人民共和国香港特别行政区的内部事务，中央透过外交部发言人作一个回应；或者到后期，外国政府的评论介入越来越深度、越来越气温上升时，中央亦要告诉它们，我们中央都是很支持这工作。事实上这支持是理所当然的，因为所说的是彰显法治、改善司法制度，对中央来说是支持。我刚才亦已透露中央现时亦一直支持我今日所说的事情……
记者：……添烦添乱方面你没有回应
行政长官：我说了是支持便不是添烦添乱。当你支持一个人时，你便不会用你所说那四个字说这个人。
至于建制派，我相信你们现在正在访问。如果建制派议员认为有点失望，或者令他们对支持者交代有困难，我完全接受。我刚才已经率先向所有──不过并非所有都出席──几十位建制派议员交代这件事，亦希望得到他们的理解和包容，因为大家的共同目标都是不想香港乱，都不想香港出现一些再严重的撕裂，甚至有一些暴力的情况而影响我们的警务人员或是普通市民。对于这个过程中他们作为我们最坚强的后盾，我是深表感谢。我刚才在发言时亦有感谢建制派议员和他们的支持者，在此再次对于他们在这几个月的坚实支持，甚至是在地区层面不顾被人侮辱、抹黑地坚定支持特区政府，我再次表示感谢。
NowTV记者
记者：想问其实过去四个月大部分人都反对过、三次的游行游行过；专业界别都发过声明反对，为甚么要到星期三发生大规模冲突，你才肯收回？是否日后有争议性问题，你都要迫市民上街、甚至有冲突或者甚至流血，你才会可能考虑暂缓？以及另外想问，刚才有英文媒体问你有否见韩正，你说不是公开会面而不说。你可否正面答，你有否见过韩正？是否因为韩正叫你停手你才停，因为张建宗星期四接受我们访问都说不会收回条例？究竟星期四接受完访问后至今日，你和中央中间发生甚么事，令你要收回？另外，你会否叫局长问责下台，因为推不到这条法例？
行政长官：
我先答第二条题目。正如我所说，行政长官每日有很多日程、见很多人，是不可能将我所有见的人、见什么人都告诉大家，我相信全世界都不会，所以没办法可以直接回应。如果这令你不满，我也没办法，因为这事如果随意破格、破例回应，对日后不但是我，我的管治团队每人要将他的私人日程让大家看，影响会很深远。
这个决定是我做的，如果要知道这个决定是否由我做，其实都不是很复杂。事实上，刚才我说了，我于过去两日──星期三、跟着星期四、星期五──过去两日我见了很多人，亦有不少社会领袖来见我，或者用其他方法告诉我，他们都希望我们“停一停、谂一谂”。我是基于这些及我刚才说的两大考虑，作了这个决定。作了这个决定后我亦通知中央，中央考虑了我的判断，一如既往都是尊重和支持。这是很清晰的，希望不要再有任何揣测，说这是中央的命令。最初进行这项有关《逃犯条例》的工作不是中央的指示，两三日前，我国驻英大使刘晓明也说了这点。这是特区自发希望改善法制而进行的，中央没有给过指示，这是清晰无误的。
至于过去由二月中至现在，是一个过程。事实上到今日，我都只能说意见分歧，很难说一面倒只有一个意见。如果只有一个意见，连建制派都反对，这可能更易处理。意见是分歧的，分歧的立场亦很鲜明，似乎大家都不太肯多行一步找妥协空间。我看了过去一星期发生的事，基于我刚才说的两个考虑，希望社会早日回复一个相对的平静──这不只是因为星期三的事──亦希望不要有人进一步受到伤害，所以作出了这个决定。这个决定是艰难的，因为今日作了这个决定，在短期内似乎难以可以实现这个初心，改善香港法制，但我都希望社会给予我们时间、机会再努力做这方面工作。
Sky News记者
（中文节录）
问：法案令社会恐惧，会否道歉？
林郑：我说过很多次，这法案有很多人支持，无论本地还是国际上有很多人支持，打击跨境犯罪等。
我承认，我的沟通做得不好。最好的方法是暂停，思考，如何做到那个初心。
追问：会否道歉？
林郑无回应
（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.
哥伦比亚广播公司（CBS）记者
（中文节录）
问：有人头部受伤，警员瞄准示威者头部。
林郑：香港是法治社会，我不能绕过警务团队，去评论和决定，这样就不是法治社会。特首不是什么都能决定的，no way。
他们是独立决定，在基本法下。我不能破坏基本法。
我看到电视新闻，警务人员是保护立法会。
现场有四万人，有些人，不是全部，有些人是有武器的。你看看砖头，大量砖头。
有很多车辆停在路中，你要看多些情况。
（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.
一位本港记者
记者：想请问林太，你会否承诺本届立法会会期内不再提出恢复二读？另外，作为公仆，你认为为何这么多人反对、这么多人上街的时候，还有发生流血冲突之后，你有理由不下台？
行政长官：
第一，现在暂缓后是要全面听意见，尤其是我说要用一个开放的态度去听。我刚才发言亦说，我无意为这个听意见的工作设一个限期；既然没有限期，所以亦不可以承诺。不过我现在可以向大家说，因为我放了另一个所谓关卡，即是我不会就此返回立法会大会恢复二读辩论。我们听完意见、整合了意见后，一定会先提交立法会保安事务委员会，所以并不存在立刻发出预告便可以返回立法会恢复二读辩论。按我们的经验──我本人在政府中可算经验丰富──既要全面、又要多听意见、又要多解说的工作，现在已经是六月中，以我看来，在今年内我们都难以走出第一步，即是返回立法会保安事务委员会。如果时间性对你提的疑问是有用的话，我给这个时间性：就是看来在年底前都很难完成工作并返回立法会保安事务委员会作一个综合汇报。
我是一个接近四十年的公仆，我仍然以做公仆为荣，而且我有大量工作想为香港做，无论是拓展经济、改善民生方面，我希望继续在这些方面，以我四十年公仆的经验，能够为香港开创一个更美好未来。
香港01记者
记者：林太，我想问有报道指今次政府高层判断星期三那场冲突是外国策动的颜色革命，其实这消息说了出来后，有很多批评指政府这个讲法是诿过于人，我想请问特首，你现在是否还觉得这场仍然是一场颜色革命？还是其实港府一直在推行修例过程中误判形势，所以才令这么多人上街及冲击立法会？谢谢。
行政长官：
我简单回答，就是我们没有作过这个判断。
台湾中视记者
记者：想请问一下，按你的说法是不是陈同佳案就没有办法再去做？因为香港政府从案发到现在一直没有直接跟台湾的相关单位有过沟通。到了今年二月份之后，你们才表示会透过策发会、策进会那些来沟通。那么未来会不会有直接的沟通去解决这个问题？
行政长官：
香港特别行政区跟台湾的沟通一向是透过两个组织──一个是策进会（台港经济文化合作策进会），一个是协进会（港台经济文化合作协进会），我们在台北现在还有一个经济文化的办事处。这件事情台湾当局是有几次希望我们提供刑事的协助，也希望我们往后能移交陈同佳，这也驱动我们找一个法律基础、找一个方法来做。我们花了一段很长的时间才能找到今天这个方案，但是现在看来这个方案没可能在陈同佳离开监狱以前能做到，所以我现在的说法，就是我们应该是没有法律基础，跟台湾按它的要求把这个逃犯移交。感谢。
在场记者追问林郑月娥，处理不到台湾杀人案现时责任在哪里，林郑月娥没有回应，直接离去。