iFIDE
801, Tavistock,
May Road,
Hong Kong.
7
10th July, 1971.
DATIONS SECTION
RECVED IN
The Rt. Hon. Sir A. Douglas Home, M.P., REGISTRY No.51
The Foreign Office,
London, S.W.1.
England.
Dear Sir,
UKK 18/10
I am extremely disturbed to read in this morning's Hong Kong press reference to 'the Immigration Bill 1971', which is to be considered by the Hong Kong Legislative Council on the 21st July.
2 According to the South China Morning Post the Bill seeks to give the Hong Kong Government power to determine whether citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies may enter, work in or remain in Hong Kong. It is stated that the proposed law exempts only three types of persons from conditions of stay and from deportation or removal.
3 I have in my possession a passport issued by the Foreign Office in London which describes me as 'British Subject: Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies'.
4
So far as I can see the Hong Kong Government seeks to abrogate to itself the right/annul the status given by the Foreign Office in London, who are in fact the department from which the Hong Kong Government de- rives whatever authority it may have. I find it difficult to believe that the Government in London can permit such arbitrary aption as to deny basic rights of a citizen born in the U.K.
5 The Bill also includes another very disturbing section which em- powers the Colonial Secretary and the Director of Immigration to detain persons who have lodged an objection to the Governor against the Director of Immigration.
6
Further, under the Bill it will no longer be necessary to obtain a legal conviction before ordering the removal or deportation of a person in Hong Kong.
?
These powers are those of a Police State and constitute a complete negation of the traditional and democratic rights of U.K. citizens. One can only wonder why the Hong Kong Government seeks to arm itself with these powers. Does the Government intend to use these powers to stifle legitimate criticisms made by U.K. citizens residing in the Colony? Unfortunately for the citizens of Hong Kong the local Govern- ment is not elected, consisting merely of civil servants. There may be no practical alternative to this form of Government, but surely U.K. citizens should not suffer a dimunition of their basic legal rights anywhere in the world under the Union Jack. This is still British ter- ritory the ultimate responsibility for whose government is vested in Westminster and the British Parliament.
My wife and I have lived in Hong Kong for just over four years, prior to which we lived in Enfield, Middlesex in the constituency of the late Iain McLeod: Since 'Imps.' days before the war we have been active workers in the Conservative Party and I myself have held consti- tuency office. I cannot believe that a U.K. Government, and least of all a Conservative one can allow a Colonial Government to take such