外交部駐香港特別行政區特派員公署特派員崔建春於星期四(10月16日)結束率領外國駐港領事及商界代表訪問新疆的行程。他在總結行程時分享三點主要感受，強調黨的領導、新疆的戰略定位及香港在助力開放合作中的角色，並呼籲兩地加強交流，共同服務國家發展大局。
崔建春結束率領外國駐港領事及商界代表訪問新疆的行程，他在總結行程時分享三點主要感受。巴士的報記者攝
崔建春指出，習近平總書記高度重視新疆工作，確立了新疆工作的總目標，並強調新疆在國家全局中具有特殊重要地位。新疆工作取得歷史性成就，發生歷史性變革。上個月，習總書記率中央代表團出席新疆維吾爾自治區成立70周年慶典，這是新中國成立70多年來國家領導人首次率團赴疆，充分體現黨中央對新疆工作的高度重視。崔建春表示，包括香港在內的全國各地都應深入落實習總書記關於新疆工作的重要指示精神，共同支持新疆建設。他強調，新疆社會和諧穩定，百姓安居樂業，自然生態壯麗，「大美新疆」名副其實。
崔建春表示，香港作為國際金融、貿易和航運中心，擁有「內聯外通」的獨特優勢，可為新疆對外開放提供有力支撐。他分享與瑞士商會主席的交流，「新疆與瑞士有很多可比之處，但瑞士面積與新疆不可同日而語，因此香港助力新疆對外開放大有作為」。
他指，新疆自古是絲綢之路的重要樞紐，如今被定位為絲綢之路經濟帶核心區，中央賦予其五大戰略定位：國家向西開放橋頭堡和歐亞黃金通道、新發展格局戰略支點、全國能源資源戰略保障基地、全國優質農牧產品重要供應基地，以及維護國家地緣安全的戰略屏障。香港可通過其國際網絡和專業服務，幫助新疆企業和產品「走出去」，並向國際社會傳播新疆的發展故事。崔建春指出，新疆外資中香港佔比一半，未來合作潛力巨大。
崔建春建議通過媒體、特區政府和公署建立企業聯繫機制，聯動國際商會吸引投資。巴士的報記者攝
崔建春強調，新疆與香港在政治、安全、社會治理、環境保護等領域擁有廣闊合作空間。目前兩地已開展多項交流，未來將進一步推動旅遊、商務和青年交流等合作。他建議通過媒體、特區政府和公署建立企業聯繫機制，聯動國際商會吸引投資，並重點推廣新疆的旅遊、農牧產品等資源。此外，青年交流與人才合作將成為亮點，包括官員互訪和文化活動。
崔建春表示，香港可為新疆引入先進技術，幫助其優質產品通過香港平台走向世界。他還提出探索建立「新港協調合作區」，深化兩地聯動，共同為國家第二個百年奮鬥目標貢獻力量。
崔建春表示，此次訪問讓他對新疆未來發展充滿信心與期待。他呼籲增強年輕人的國家認同與甄別能力，築牢中華民族共同體意識，並強調安全與發展相輔相成。面對外部干預，新疆和香港均需堅持「眼見為實」，傳播真相，維護國家穩定與繁榮。他指，公署明年計劃推動外交知識競賽赴疆，從青年入手培養愛國情懷。
12月21日，外交部駐港公署特派員崔建春在《南華早報》發表題為《關於黎智英案，你應該知道這些》的署名文章。針對西方輿論的某些負面解讀，由黎智英為何被定罪、黎智英是否受到不公正對待，以及干預黎案的西方國家做錯了什麼三方面，全面闡明關於黎案事實，希望以此維護法治精神，讓全世界見證法治保障下的香港充滿生機活力與繁榮穩定。
網站截圖
全文如下：
12月15日，香港特區依法裁決黎智英兩項串謀勾結外國勢力罪及一項串謀發布煽動刊物罪成立，香港社會各界同聲支持，廣大市民拍手稱快，但某些西方輿論卻出現了一些負面解讀。作為中國外交部駐香港特區特派員，我深感有責任闡明事實，維護法治精神。
黎智英為何被定罪？
庭審過程揭露的大量事實和證據有力證明，黎智英慣用所謂「新聞工作者」美化包裝自己，其實質上是一系列反中亂港事件的主要策劃者和參與者，是外部反華勢力的馬前卒。他濫用輿論工具煽動仇恨、激化對抗，鼓動支持暴亂活動，是2019年香港「黑暴」的幕後推手。他公然乞求外國對中國和香港特區實施制裁，甚至叫囂「為美國而戰」。此種種行徑，嚴重危害國家安全，給香港社會造成嚴重傷害，給香港市民留下徹骨之痛，必須依法受到追究懲處。
黎智英。AP資料圖片
在世界任何國家法律體系中，黎所作所為都屬於嚴重違法犯罪行為。試想，如果一個西方人，利用其影響力煽動公民對抗本國政府，還密會他國政要，請求對方對本國實施制裁，這個西方國家司法體系會姑息他嗎？答案不言而喻。
黎智英是否受到不公正對待？
香港是法治社會，有法必依、違法必究、執法必嚴。黎智英案審理過程公開透明，程序公平正義，黎各項合法權利得到有效保障。任何願意查閱庭審記錄的人都會看到，這是一場嚴格遵循程序正義的法律審判。
針對黎在押期間待遇問題，事實勝於雄辯。懲教署始終依法為其提供完備醫療護理，確保身體狀況良好。黎代理律師當庭證實黎未受到不公正待遇。這些事實充分表明，香港特區政府在執法的每個環節，都恪守著法治與人道主義原則。
干預黎案的西方國家做錯了什麼？
在案件審理及宣判過程中，某些西方國家公然干預香港司法，叫囂要求釋放黎智英，甚至威脅對履職盡責的特區法官和檢控官實施所謂「制裁」。這種試圖通過政治施壓左右司法判決的行為，難道不是對這些國家所標榜的「司法獨立」精神的最大嘲諷嗎？
更諷刺的是，那些打著「人權」「自由」幌子對本案指手畫腳的政客，選擇性遺忘了他們的國家是如何做的。美國有《1947年國家安全法》《愛國者法》等數十部維護國家安全的法律；英國近年也通過了新的《國家安全法》。當他們執行這些法律時，他們稱之為「捍衛法治」；而當香港特區依法采取同等性質行動時，卻被污蔑為「壓制自由」。這種赤裸裸的虛偽雙標，難道不是對國際關係基本准則的公然踐踏嗎？
資料圖片
今天的香港，已邁入由治及興新階段。一個法治健全、繁榮穩定的香港，不僅符合七百萬香港市民利益，也符合國際社會的共同利益。我們真誠歡迎各國朋友來到香港，親眼見證法治保障下這座城市的生機活力與繁榮穩定。
Jimmy Lai case shows the world HK's commitment to rule of law
On December 15, Jimmy Lai Chee-yingwas found guilty on two charges of conspiring to collude with external forces and a charge of conspiracy to publish seditious materials by the High Court of Hong Kong.
外交部駐港公署。資料圖片
The verdict was welcomed in the city and, as expected, prompted another round of outcries from some Western countries. As Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, I feel obliged to set the record straight and reaffirm our commitment to the rule of law.
First, why was Lai convicted? Putting on a thin veneer of journalistic professionalism, he deeply involved himself in and even masterminded a series of anti-China incidents, as proved by the evidence presented during the trial.
Acting as a proxy for external anti-China forces, Lai abused his media influence to incite social hatred and confrontation, actively promoted violent unrest and played a central role behind the 2019 “black violence” in Hong Kong.
He openly pleaded with foreign powers toimpose sanctions on China and Hong Kong. Such actions seriously endangered national security, severely harmed Hong Kong’s social stability and inflicted lasting trauma on its citizens. It was therefore not only necessary but imperative for him to face legal consequences.
In any jurisdiction, Lai’s actions would constitute serious criminal offences. To draw a parallel: if someone from a Western country used his influence to incite violence against his own government, colluded with foreign officials and called for sanctions to be imposed against his own nation, would that country’s judicial system allow such behaviourto go unpunished? The answer is obvious.
Second, was Lai treated unfairly? Absolutely not. He received a trial conducted in strict accordance with the law, during which his legal rights were fully safeguarded. Hong Kong’s judicial process is fair, transparent and adheres rigorously to legal procedures. The publicly available court records confirm that due process was meticulously followed at every stage.
As for his treatment in detention, the facts are clear. Hong Kong’s Correctional Services Department has provided him withappropriate and lawful medical care throughout his custody, ensuring his well-being. Notably, Lai’s own defence lawyer stated in open court that he had not been subjected to unfair treatment. These points collectively demonstrate that Hong Kong has consistently upheld the rule of law and respected humanitarian standards throughout this case.
Third, what does the interference by some Western countries in Lai’s case reveal? Certain Western countries have openly interfered in Hong Kong’s judicial process throughout Lai’s trial,calling for his release and even threatening sanctions against judges and prosecutors who were carrying out their lawful duties. In seeking to sway judicial outcomes through political pressure, do these nations not discredit themselves, undermining the very “judicial independence” that they profess to uphold?
The irony deepens when politicians invoke “human rights” and “freedom” to criticise Hong Kong while ignoring their own countries’ legal frameworks. The United States, for instance, maintains multiple national security laws – including the National Security Act of 1947 and the USA Patriot Act. Likewise, the United Kingdom passed a heavy-handedNational Security Act two years ago.
When these countries enforce such laws, they describe them as “defending the rule of law”. Yet, when Hong Kong takes legally comparable measures to safeguard national security, the same actions are labelled as “suppressing freedom”. Is this not a clear example of double standards and a departure from the fundamental norms of international relations?
Hong Kong has now entered a new stage of pursuing sustained prosperity on the basis of social stability. A law-based, thriving and secure Hong Kong benefits not only its 7.5 million residents but also the wider international community. We warmly welcome friends from across the world to visit Hong Kong and see for themselves the vitality and stability that the rule of law protects and promotes.
