….wild is the wind…creative freedom is the seed….
Friends, Hong Kong Citizens,
I, Wu’er Kaixi, am subject to a most-wanted warrant issued by the Chinese government in 1989 by the Beijing Public Security Bureau and promulgated as an edict nationwide by the Ministry of Public Security.
I hereby make an appeal to the Hong Kong SAR and to the world.
I am willing to turn myself in to the Chinese authorities. I urge the SAR government, based on Chinese law, and by my own agreement, to exercise its judicial power and extradite me to the Chinese authorities.
As someone who is wanted by the Chinese government, why am I attempting turning myself in to the Chinese government, and why am I doing it in Hong Kong, which has its own laws, according to the constitutional principle of “One Country, Two Systems?” Moreover, why am I doing this in transit at Hong Kong International Airport? The reason is because it is my last resort. Since 2009, I have made similar attempts in Macau, Japan, and the United States to either enter China or Chinese embassies to face the Chinese government’s charges directly, but I have been denied every time. What I’m doing today is a result of the Chinese government’s absurd act of ordering my arrest, while at the same time refusing to allow me to return.
Assuming the Hong Kong government accepts the Chinese official position, which sees my participation in the 1989 student movement as part of a “conspiracy to subvert the government,” making me guilty of “counter revolutionary incitement,” the Hong Kong government should accept my request and help Chinese government to apprehend me. I understand that the transit area of Hong Kong International Airport is an international zone, but it is also an area within the Hong Kong government’s jurisdiction, and the Hong Kong authorities should at least consider my request to turn myself in.
If the Hong Kong government denies my request, and will neither arrest me nor help the Chinese government to apprehend me, I take this to mean that the Hong Kong government does not accept the People’s Republic of China’s official verdict on the Tiananmen student movement. If that is so, I appreciate it, and I then request the Hong Kong government stop denying Chinese dissidents the right to enter Hong Kong, giving me an opportunity to turn myself in to the Chinese liaison office in Hong Kong.
Since 1989, I have been in exile for 24 years, and have not been able to see my parents and other family members. My parents are old and in ill health. The Chinese government refuses to issue passports for them to travel aboard and visit me. My parents have been told clearly that the reason they will not be issued passports is that their son is a dissident. I would like to ask the Chinese government, is this behavior in keeping with the international treaties it has signed; is it true to the spirit of Chinese traditional values; is it in accordance with PRC law?
I believe the answer to those questions is, no, and that is why I feel I have no alternative but to turn myself in. I miss my parents and my family, and I hope to be able to be reunited with them while they are still alive, even if the reunion would have to take place behind a glass wall.
Liu Xiaobo was arrested and sentenced for 11 years for expressing his political opinions, and he has now been in prison for five years. Many more Chinese citizens have been imprisoned for their ideas. Is this China’s idea of a “rising great nation” and the “China dream” – to name just two official catch-cries. In Liu Xiaobo’s case, his wife – who did not participate in her husband’s political activities – has also lost her freedom, and is denied the use of a telephone and the internet. I ask, what does this denial of fundamental rights really say about a government that claims to represent the interests of its people?
If my action causes any disturbances in Hong Kong, it was not my intention, and for that I am deeply sorry, and I beg for the people of Hong Kong’s understanding and forgiveness. But I would also like to ask the people of Hong Kong to think about one question: should we become blind to absurdity because we have been living with it for so long and have become accustomed to it?
During the student movement of 1989, the people of Hong Kong provided us with great support and encouragement. Hong Kong played an important role in the Chinese democracy movement. As a member of the student movement, I will always be grateful for this. After the Tiananmen massacre, Hong Kong’s “Operation Yellowbird” rescued many pro-democracy activists – including myself – making it possible for the pro-democracy movement to survive overseas, and I will always be indebted to Hong Kong for that. The Victoria Park memorial that has taken place annually since the 1989 massacre is a globally recognized beacon in support of our endeavors to bring democracy to China. I admire the people of Hong Kong for this. I hope my efforts to return home are finally a success on this occasion. If so, let me take this last opportunity to take a deep bow to Hong Kong, and express my deepest gratitude and admiration.
Announcement in 1989 by the Public Security Bureau – he was the number 2 most wanted.
“Ministry of Public Security June 13, 1989, issued an arrest warrant: (2) Wuerkaixi (formerly: Wu Erkai Xi), male, February 17, 1968 born, Uygur ethnicity, Xinjiang Uygur autonomous Yining County, Beijing Normal University, Department of Education. One hundred seventy-four centimeters tall, slightly yellow hair, long face, large eyes, thick lips, pale skin, his voicethick, speak Chinese, often wearing green trousers”
中 共公安部一九八九年六月十三日頒佈的通緝令：(2)吾爾開希(原名：吳爾凱西)，男，一九六八年二月十七日生，維吾爾族，新疆維吾爾自治 區伊寧縣人，北京 師範大學教育系八八級學生。身高一百七十四公分，留中分頭，頭髮稍黃，長臉型，大眼睛，厚嘴唇，皮膚較白，說話聲音較粗，講漢話，經常穿 綠色軍褲。
以下是吾 爾開希的聲明。吾 爾開希是中國1989年民 運十大通緝的學生領袖之 一。2013年11月24日他試 圖進入香港希 望香港政府能够逮捕他讓他可以向中國政府投案。視 覺藝術家協會支持吾爾開希的願望進 入中國 探望沒 有見到24年的父母。我 們認為基於人道理由，中 國政府應給予吾爾開希的的請求。
我 是吾爾開希，中國 中央政府公安部於一九八九年全國發布的通緝人士。這次我利用過境香港機場的機會，向香港當局和國際社會提出聲明如下：
我 被中國政府通緝，本應向中國政府投案，為何向施行與中國政府不同法律制度的香港政府投案，而且是以轉機過境時提出，實為情非得已。我自二 零零九年以來，先 後在澳門、日本、美國華盛頓，試圖進入中國或進入中國大使館，直接面對中國政府，表達投案意願，卻被完全拒絕；正是中國政府通緝卻同時拒 絕被通緝者投案這 一荒謬絕倫的作法才導致今天我不得不採取這樣的作法；
倘 若香港 政府接受中國政府的官方立場，亦即接受我在一九八九年的行為是“陰謀顛覆政府”、“反革命煽動”，則我對此深感遺憾；但同時，毋庸置疑 地，當我在香港赤蠟 角國際機場過境，雖身處入境香港之前的國際區域，但這塊區域仍為香港擁有完全主權、治權暨司法管轄權的區域，而我本人也在此向執法當局表 明我被中國通緝的 身份，表明願意投案的意願，特區政府理應立即接受我的請求，協助中央政府將我逮捕歸案；
倘 若香港 政府不接受我的請求，不肯將我逮捕或協助我向中央政府投案，我願相信這是香港特區政府不接受中國政府的官方立場，亦即不認為我一九八九年 的行為是“陰謀顛 覆政府”、“反革命煽動”，當然，對於這樣的立場，我非常歡迎，則在此我請求允許我入境香港，我將前往中央政府駐港聯絡辦公室直接投案；
自一九八九年至今，我流亡在外已經二十四年多，而這二十四年來，我一直未能與父母家人見面。如今，他們已從我 們分別時的中 年人進入晚年，他們的身體健康也已大不如前。中國政府拒絕發給他們護照，並明確表達拒絕的原因是因為他們有我這樣一個兒子。我決心投案的 原因正是對父母家 人的思念，我期待在他們的有生之年能跟他們見面團聚，哪怕這種見面必須隔著監獄的玻璃牆！同時，我在此強烈譴責中國政府這一野蠻原始的行 為，並通過各位質 問中國政府拒絕頒發護照給我父母家人，這種毫無罔顧基本人權、毫無基本人性的作法，是否符合中國政府簽署的國際公約、是否符合中國傳統價 值觀、是否符合中 國法律！
劉 曉波因 為發表政治主張而被中國政府逮捕判刑十一年，至今入獄已經五年。將自己的公民因言論和主張投入監牢，這是中國在進入二十一世紀的時候宣稱 的大國崛起、中國 夢嗎？更有甚者，劉曉波的妻子劉霞，並未參與劉曉波的政治活動，也因此並未收到中國政府的起訴判刑，卻同樣失去自由甚至無法以電話網絡與 任何人聯絡。僅僅 是因為她是劉曉波的家人。質問中國政府這種株連九族的作法與文化大革命時的行為有何差別，良知與道德底線和在？
對 於此次我的行為對香港社會的平靜可能造成任何衝擊，我深感不安。謹此祈求香港市民的理解與原諒。更進一步祈求大家思索：我們是否應該視荒 謬而不見，只因我們身處其中已習以為常？
香 港市民在一九八九年學運期間，曾經給予我們極大的支持和鼓舞，可以說，香港是八九中國民運的一部分，非常重要的一部分，對此，我作為八九 學運的一分子將永 遠感念；六四屠殺之後的“黃雀行動”營救了包括我在內的很多民運人士，使得民運力量得以在海外傳承，對此我更是銘感五內；八九年至今每一 年六四的維園紀念 活動，香港已建立了一個極為了不起的國際典範、一個現代傳統、一個對中國追求自由民主的持續航標燈作用，對此我更是無比感佩。期待這次在 香港機場，我的投 案能夠被接受，那麼就讓我利用這最後的機會，向香港深深一鞠躬，表達我最深的感謝與敬意！
Cecilia’s note: I want to thank USA Visual Arts Guild for sending me this information to share with my readers. I think it is clear where my work stands on Creative Free Speech and considering the Heart of Modern Art is New York’s Graffiti movement and the resulting Hip-hop Nation that took the world by storm, we are in agreement that more than anything as artists in the world, we are here to support those who merely wish to exercise their Creative Freedoms in Peace. I send my best wishes to Wu Er Kai Xi and wish him a safe journey to visit his family in peace. I hope it is okay for me to say that those in the Global Graffiti movements, genuinely value the support of their Families and it is understandable even a person on the “most wanted” lists should be given the rights that preserve the “sanctity of family values” and that their family should be free from vindictive actions of others who may disagree in ideologies. WE are civilised, afterall. no?
A sample of Online-responses: