Rt. Hon. Norman Fowler MP
House of Commons
LONDON
SW1A OAA
24 Markham Road
Sutton Coldfield
West Midlands
B75 6QR
18.7.90
Dear Mr Fowler
I have, this morning, received news from friends in Hong Kong of an extraordinary court case which is pending there. As I have more influence in Hong Kong than
they have MP
I can write to my MP, as I am doing, whereas they do not have an I feel a responsibility to exercise that influence.
Six well-known and respected Hong Kong citizens are being prosecuted on two charges arising out of a public meeting which protested against the promulgation of the undemocratic 'Basic Law' with its conspicuous lack of safeguards for human rights.
The charges are:
a) Use of a loudhailer in a public place without a permit. In fact, loudhailers are used extensively by tourist guides, teachers with groups of students, and at previous public meetings, without permit. Indeed, there is no clearly-established procedure for obtaining a permit.
b) Collecting donations in a public place without a permit issued by the Director of the Social Welfare Department. Collections are frequently made for religious or political purposes without objection, as these have been seen as outside the concern of the Social Welfare Department. In June 1989, $20 million was collected publicly for the people of China without any prosecution.
The
The
In the November 1988 U.N. Iluman Rights Committee Meeting, the Hong Kong law against using loudhailers in public places without a permit was challenged. underlying reason is obvious. How can a rally be held without the use of a loudhailer? The prohibition is, in effect, a direct curtailment of the freedom of speech. The British delegation promised to look into the matter. In October 1989, in its report to the U.N. Human Rights Committee, the Hong Kong Government stated that it has already set out general guidelines "under which the use of amplification equipment, other than hand-held loudhailers, might be banned." clear implication was that hand-held loudhailers, the kind used by these six people, should not be banned. That being the case, how can the six be charged?
Whatever may be said in this country about separation of Government and Judiciary, a pragmatic Chinese will recognise without hesitation that the prosecutions are really directed, not against actions which in the past have been unchallenged by the police, but against the holding of public political meetings. Such action is deeply resented by Hong Kong Chinese, but will be welcomed by the government in Beijing.
I visit Hong Kong from time to time, and in the last 3 years have been reluctant to admit, to people who do not know me, that I am British. I am, frankly, ashamed of the conduct of the British Government. Since 1985, China has started to make demands on how Hong Kong should behave. The British/Hong Kong Governments have consistently complied. For instance, a very clear promise was made by the British Foreign Secretary in April 1984 and in the Hong Kong Government White Paper on "Further Development of Representative Government in Hong Kong" published in November 1984 that there would be direct election in the Legislature in 1988. There was no such election in 1988. Nor in 1989. And there is no clear indication of when the promised election will be held.
This latest action by the Hong Kong Government, with at least the awareness, if not the guidance, of the Government in London, will ensure further fall in the