detectable, apparently, in the immigration statistics.
It is reliably reported that even this paltry figure was arrived at after sharp discussion in the Cabinet. The Foreign Office, mindful of the need to encourage other countries to take in refugees which Britain will not, stood out for one thousand, but was beaten down.
468 refugees, spread over two years, represents just 20 men, women and children every month. At such a rate the closed camps would finally release the last of their current inhabitants in about the year 2020.
New Threat
In another move, the British Ambassador to Hanoi, Mr Emrys Davies, declared recently after a visit to Hong Kong that he would be pressing the Vietnamese government to 'think seriously about accepting back certain categories of people'. (Dateline Hong Kong, October 2 1987.)
Is this well-tailored phrase designed to appease Hong Kong's mounting irritation at Britain's apathy? Or does it weaken still further the words of assurance which have been regularly meted out to Hong Kong's refugee population, trapped in the closed camps, but protected by the code of the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, to which Britain is a signatory?
The acute sense of vulnerability felt by those in the camps was demonstrated to the outgoing Minister responsible for immigration, Mr David Waddington, who mentioned the word 'repatriation' during a visit to Chi Ma Wan camp earlier this year. 'Everyone was horrified. It took us a week to assure them all that they were not being sent back.' (London Independent, 18.6.87)
Such insensitivity ought to surprise us more. The British government is well aware of conditions in Vietnam, and is one of the principal supporters of the United States' embargo on aid to Vietnam. It was, after all, only in January of this year that the Home Office Minister currently responsible for immigration policy, Mr Timothy Renton, then Minister responsible for Hong Kong at the Foreign Office, declared on behalf of the government that 'repatriation could take place only when we and other major resettlement countries are much more convinced than we are now about, for example, human rights in Vietnam, and how such migrants would be treated and looked after if they went back to Vietnam.' (Hong Kong Link 5).
New Influx
The human tragedy to which these words make appeal was once again brought to public attention during the summer, when more small craft,
sinking under their weight of people, replenished the slowly falling ro the closed camps.
September
By
the refugee population had doubled, two centres had been re-opened, and H Kong was holding some 8,000 people in closed camps.
The twist this time was that most of the refugees were Vietnamese coming from the other direction—from China. Members of the large community of Vietnamese accepted by the People's Republic after 1979, they took to the sea, it was reported, because there were rumours that in 1987 Britain was going to declare a last amnesty. From 1988, the rumour went, there would be a cordon sanitaire around Hong Kong, and Vietnamese refugees from the sea would be expelled with the same ruthlessness as Chinese immigrants who jump the border with mainland China.
The scale of this misperception of reality is deeply moving. It is a true measure of the desperation of these people, that so many will flee across the sea, at terrible risk, for a whisper of hope or 'amnesty'.
It is no less telling a reflection on Britain's current generosity of spirit that our government should applaud itself for making an effort of hospitality that amounts every month to just two rows of seats on a Jumbo jet.■
HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA
In September Amnesty International published a report on human rights in China entitled China: Torture and III- Treament of Prisoners. It is a searing indictment of the penal system though Amnesty welcomes China's decision to sign the UN Convention against Torture last
year, and recognises that the Chinese government is concerned to stamp out abuses and torture, which had become institutionalised in many parts of the country.
If you want to obtain a copy, write to Amnesty International, 1 Easton Street, London WC1X 8DJ.
DAYA BAY
In the last Update on the controversy surrounding China's decision to site a nuclear power plant at Daya Bay (see
Hong Kong Link 3 and 6), we quoted Rev. Fung Chi Wood, co-ordinator of the anti-nuclear campaign in Hong Kong, who said the critics had little chance of success unless there was another Chernobyl.
Almost at once, however, a new incident has arisen. The Chinese authorities have been forced to call a halt to construction on discovering that faulty foundations have been laid. According to the London Financial
members said they were shocked and concerned ---- and also disappointed by the explanation which the consortium running the project had offered them.
Whether the news will breath new life into the anti-nuclear campaign remains to be seen.
UPDATE:
Times (10.10.87), "The Hong Kong PROVIDENT
government has asked for a full report and calls have been revived for an independent group to monitor the project'.
Less than half the necessary metal reinforcing bars have been set in the first of five layers that will make up the power plant's cement foundations. According to Guangdong Nuclear Investments, the error was due to 'misinterpretation of drawings by the designer'.
The incident will confirm the fears of those who declared that China is not able to sustain the quality control necessary for a nuclear project. At a meeting on October 9th, LegCo
10
FUND
In Hong Kong Link 5 we reported on the growing demand for an effective pension fund for Hong Kong employees and the resistance of employers to the idea.
―
In September, Catholics added their voice to the call for reform. According to UCA News a petition asking the government to set up a compulsory provident fund was presented to Hong Kong's Legislative and Executive Councillors on September 20. It was signed by 5,600 Catholics, and sponsored by six Catholic