The Honorable
Mr..David Owen,
Department of
Foreign Affairs.
homas .. J.G
i.0.Box 129
Church Streik Station New York, N..10007
The Honorable Attorney-General
ong. The british Colony.
Ho
Dear Sir:
Copy for your file record
October 15, 1977
As i am a human being. I believe that I am entitled to a lawful trial before I could be declared "guilty"
Hongkong Government is made of Government Officers, by the Government Officers and for the Government Officers. Your letter to me says that your job is rendering service to Hongkong Govern ment and not for the people. It just accidentally happens that I am an education officer. Although I am Education Officer of the lowest echelon, nevertheless, I am part of the Hongkong Gove rnment. Without the government officers, Hongkong Government would be an empty house. As a Hongkong Government officer, I therefore believe sincerely that I am entitled to your service in the performanence of your duties to protect and preserve the justice and buman rights which have been savagely violated by the unethical and the injudicious conduct of a greedy and corrupt magistrate who has willfully and disgracefully abuse i the sacred power and authority. in conspiracy with the prosecution witness to make the Hongkong magistrate Court as his private family court which has become his most beautiful instrument to make money. This is not a case of ordinary human error. It is a case of seriouslly moral turpitude of the magistrate himself in blatant violation of the most important human rights, while the victim has no fault of his owḥ1. As part of the Hongkong Government itself, I respec tfully beg you to ask the District Court of Victoria to declare this illegal judgent null and void with a lawful trial on the grounds of your esteemed advice:
JU
(1) Your March 14th, 1976 letter advises me: "A julge should dis qualify himeu! from trying a case where he has had previous contact with y of the parties to the proceedings Whereas Magistrate to ling-shing has clandestingly solicited to try my case as a stalking horse for conspiracy and extortion. (2) Your same letter advises me: "It is illegal for any witness
to demand monay from any party to any court proceedings.. whereas ka istrate Lo Hing-shing ordered me in the open court to go out with the prosecution witness Tam Hung to Kongso (bargain for bribe).
H
(3) Your sane letter advises me: "It would be improper for a judge
to suggest in a criminal case that the defendant should speak to the witness
whereas Magistrate Lo Hing-shing ordered
*
me to follow the witness outside the courtroom to i ongso. (4) Your 29th December, 1971 letter advises me: I can assure you
that it would be entirely wrong for a judge to convict and sent ence a defendant without giving him an opportunity of putting forward his defence" Your May Ist. 1972 letter advises me: 'If the complainant demands money from the defendant alleging that he can intercede with the trial judge, the defendant should report the matter to the court" but Magistrate Lo forbade me to put up my defence and suddenly declared an illegal judgment of guilty" against me without trial. Your advice does not agree with Magistrate Lo Hing-shing,
This is why respectfully beg you to make good your advice in your deed as well as in your word. Yours most respectfully,
Thomas F.M.TUNG
Airkung: