2600027 C.S. 20 A
DESPATCH
SAVIN GIRIX M
From the Governor, Hong Kong
Commonwealth Affairs
To the Secretary of State for textes
Kepeated to:—
Repeated to:-
Date 27th Decemner, 1967..
My Reference...(17) in CR 3285/57
! CONFIDENTIAL
Your Reference...
No.
708
27
No.
No.
15
19
LIWA.
14/34
Your saving despatch No.353 of 13th December, 1967.
Public Order Ordinance
The following are my comments on the petition from the Reform Club of Hong Kong forwarded with my saving despatch No.351 of 21st November, 1967
P.2.
Paragraph 1. The Reform Club of Hong Kong, which claims membership of 30,000 has in fact a paid up membership of only 5,000. The remainder of the 30,000, in the main hawkers, fishermen and low salaried workers, are associate members who are issued with a club card upon one payment of $5 H.K. Only 150 of the paid up members have the right to vote at Annual Elections and ordinary meetings and of these, a group of about 30 including several expatriate and local lawyers, attend meetings regularly and take an active part in the affairs of the Club. It is known that this petition has not been circulated to any members of the Club other than those who make up this small group.
F.3.
Paragraph 3. It is agreed that a distinction should be kept. However, in a society like Hong Kong's it is a matter of opinion what provisions should fall into which category. As pointed out in my telegram 1793 of 30th November, the only emergency regulations which have been incorporated into this ordinance are those on intimidation. As you will recall from my saving despatch of 18th April, 1964, it has always been considered necessary to have in the day-to-day law firm statutory provisions relating to the control of meetings and public assemblies; it has also always been the intention to make unlawful assembly and riot statutory rather than common law offences. The fact that the events of this summer showed the need for this legislation even more clearly and led to its enactment seems to have given the Reform Club the impression that these provisions were hastily drafted and rushed into law.
F.4.
Paragraph 4. The phrase "technically published" is a misleading one. It is inaccurate to say that the Bill was not brought to the public's attention before its first reading on 1st November, 1967. The Bill was published in the Gazette on the 6th October, and was then on sale to the public; a detailed press release on the Bill was made on the same date. Apart from criticism as another 'facist measure' from the few communist papers in Hong Kong (representing about 15% of total newspaper circulation), the bill received prominent coverage and was generally welcomed by all the main local Chinese newspapers, some of whom considered its provisions none too strong in present circumstances. Two days after this extensive publicity in the Chinese language press, on 7th October, the largest circulating Chinese daily newspaper in Hong Kong, the independent Sing Pao Daily News, wrote an editorial supporting the bill and calling for heavier penalties to make it more effective.
LAST
RCF.
NEXT
REF.
19)
*NOISIAI
IT MERRIKORIE
+CONFIDENTIAL
8961NW* -L]
cont/.....
Page 120Page 121