新 聞 稿 中國國民黨文化傳播委員會 110.6.21
我港辦官員無法續留，國民黨：應透過談判或第三方斡旋解決
陸委會昨(20)日宣布，因我方派駐香港辦事處官員受港府技術性刁難，已無法續留及赴任，復於今(21)日「調整駐港辦業務」，中國國民黨認為，台港關係與兩岸關係的倒退，將對台人赴港與台港經貿交流產生極為不良的影響，呼籲民進黨政府與港府珍惜得來不易的交流成果，應透過談判或第三方斡旋以解決問題。
國民黨針對此事另提出五點看法：
第一，台港交流易退難進，勿輕言毀棄：在港英政府時期，中華民國駐香港機構是以「中華旅行社」名義在香港運作，民國100（西元2011）年7月在馬英九總統執政時期，兩岸關係與台港關係和緩且具基本互信，我方才成立「台北經濟文化辦事處」（亦即駐港辦），比照外國駐港人員待遇安排，且可依業務需要直接與港府相關部門連繫，實屬難能可貴。
第二，港府勿自外於在兩岸三地的特殊地位：香港過去一向專注其經濟角色，作為兩岸三地的緩衝、商業交流重地，與台灣關係良好，而台灣駐港官員活動也與兩岸政治無關，現港府因政治理由不核發我官員簽證，傷害台港雙方長期以來的良好關係，也損及香港在兩岸三地原本擁有的特殊地位，令人遺憾。
第三，要求我官員於原本之港簽文件外多加政治承諾並無必要：港府自民國107年7月起，開始對我駐港辦官員簽證增加政治條件，亦即要求簽署承諾書，「承諾不得違反一個中國原則、《香港基本法》和香港法律，不干預香港內部事務，不能做出有損香港繁榮穩定、或令港府尷尬的言行」，這是因為台港政府雙方互信急速衰退的結果，國民黨絕不樂見。
民進黨及其政府近年有無插手香港內部事務，外界自有論斷，然港府不必在我方官員簽證手續刻意凸顯「一中原則」，因台港雙方官員應有公平互惠之待遇，且台港雙方於民國100年換文以互設辦事處，當時台海兩岸以「九二共識」（內涵為「一中各表」）當作交流與政治互信的基礎，我方之「一中」根據憲法為中華民國，只要我官員依循我方憲法及尊重香港當地法律，港府以承諾書強調「一中」等事即是多此一舉。
第四，之前承諾會「維持現狀」的蔡英文總統也有不能迴避的責任：雖然中共當局在「一中原則」上強逼我駐港官員表態，不利兩岸彈性處理、暫時擱置敏感爭議的過往實踐，然純就台港關係而言，民進黨政府顯然和港府同樣都無法彈性處理「一中」問題，嚴重影響雙方民眾權益。
5月時才說會堅持到底的民進黨政府還必須捫心自問，務虛地拋開了比「一中原則」更具彈性的「九二共識」，又無法如願在兩岸關係建立有效的互動及法律模式，現已在實務面上見到兩岸關係快速惡化、我駐港辦運作被迫調整、香港與澳門駐台辦事處暫停運作，這樣弊大於利的結果，負責任的執政者應該勇敢調整現有政策。
第五，對於我駐港官員長期受到政治壓力仍堅守崗位一事，國人應予支持與鼓勵。
Our Hong Kong Office Personnel Unable to Remain in Hong Kong
KMT: Problems Should Be Resolved by Negotiation or Third Party Mediation
The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) announced yesterday (June 20th) that, because the government of Hong Kong deliberately exploited technicalities to make things difficult for our personnel stationed at the Office of Hong Kong Affairs, these personnel would be unable to remain in nor assume office in Hong Kong. In response to the MAC’s plan to adjust its Hong Kong Office services, the Kuomintang (KMT) believes that the deterioration of Taiwan-Hong Kong and cross-Strait relations will bring about an extremely harmful influence on Taiwanese tourism to Hong Kong and commerce and trade between Taiwan and Hong Kong. The KMT calls upon the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government and the Hong Kong government to esteem the hard-won achievements of mutual interaction. The two governments should resolve problems via negotiation or third party mediation.
Regarding this matter, the KMT raises five other points:
First, Taiwan-Hong Kong interaction has deteriorated easily but is difficult to ameliorate. This interaction must not be destroyed and discarded with frivolous words:
During Hong Kong’s British Colonial era, the Republic of China’s (ROC) de facto consulate was able to operate within Hong Kong under the name of “Chung Hwa Travel Service.” In July of 2011, when President Ma Ying-jeou held office, the relaxed cross-Strait and Taiwan-Hong Kong relationships provided for basic mutual trust. We thus established a “Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Hong Kong” aka the Hong Kong Office. As applied to the treatment and arrangements of foreign diplomats in Hong Kong, this office could, when necessary, connect directly with relevant departments within the Hong Kong government. Such arrangements were not only valuable, but also few and far between.
Second, the Hong Kong government must see itself as occupying a special position in Taiwan-Mainland-Hong Kong relations
Hong Kong has long focused on its economic role, acting as a buffer and strategic economic exchange location between Taiwan and the Mainalnd, and maintaining a good relationship with Taiwan. Furthermore, the activities of Taiwanese personnel stationed in Hong Kong had nothing to do with cross-Strait politics. Now, the Hong Kong government, for political reasons, refuses to renew the visas of our personnel, injuring the good, long-standing, bilateral relationship between Taiwan and Hong Kong and impairing Hong Kong’s original special position within the cross-Strait three places relationship. Sad!
Third, it is unnecessary to ask our officials to sign a political pledge outside of the original Hong Kong visa papers
Since July of 2018, the Hong Kong government has begun to add the political requirements to the application for Hong Kong Office personnel visas. Namely, it required letters of commitment “promising to not violate the so-called ‘One-China principle,’ ‘the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China,’ and Hong Kong laws; promising to not meddle in Hong Kong internal affairs; and promising to not issue words nor actions which harm Hong Kong’s prosperous stability or cause the Hong Kong government embarrassment.” This requirement is the result of the rapid decline of bilateral mutual trust between the Taiwan and Hong Kong governments. The KMT is unequivocally disappointed to see this.
Regarding the matter of whether or not the DPP and its government have recently meddled in Hong Kong’s internal affairs, the public has its own judgement. However, the Hong Kong government need not deliberately evince the “One-China principle” on the visa procedures of our personnel, because both Taiwan and Hong Kong personnel should have fair and reciprocal treatment, and Taiwan and Hong Kong have furthermore, in 2011, exchanged letters to mutually set up offices. At this time, both sides of the Taiwan Strait regarded the “1992 Consensus,” which refers to “"one China, respective interpretations,” as the basis of interaction and mutual political trust. Our “One China” is based upon the Constitution of the Republic of China; as long as our personnel comply with our Constitution and respect local Hong Kong laws, the Hong Kong government’s emphasis on “One China” and other matters by means of a signed pledge is truly superfluous.
Fourth, President Tsai Ing-wen, who previously promised that she would “maintain the status quo,” also has unavoidable responsibility:
The Communist authorities forced our personnel stationed in Hong Kong to declare agreement with the “One China Principle,” handling the situation in a manner unfavorable to cross-Strait flexibility and past practices in dealing with temporarily shelving sensitive, controversial issues. However, in terms of purely Taiwan-Hong Kong relations, the DPP government is clearly just like the Hong Kong government, unable to handle the question of “One China” flexibly, gravely affecting the rights and interests of the people on both sides.
The DPP government, which barely a month ago had said that it would persevere with Hong Kong until the end, must do some serious soul-searching. The DPP talks about throwing out the “1992 Consensus,” which is even more flexible than the “One-China Principle,” yet fails to fulfill its desires of establishing an effective method of cross-Strait interaction and law; and now, on a practical level, we can see a rapid deterioration of cross-Strait relations, the forced adjustment of our Hong Kong Office operations, and the suspension of operations of both the Hong Kong and Macao offices stationed on Taiwan. A responsible ruler should courageously adjust current policy in response to these results: the detriments of current policy greatly outweigh any advantages.
Fifth, our personnel stationed in Hong Kong long withstood political pressure, yet persevered in their positions. Our compatriots should give them support and encouragement.
(This is an abridged version of an official KMT Chinese language press release）
