political
to
nature of collecting money in respect of charitable and
tivities are entirely different, and with the establishment of itical parties and increasing participation of public in political affairs, collecting money for the purpose of political affairs will surely increse. Will the government consider distinguish these two kinds of activities
two kinds of activities in applying for a permit? Is it suitable and fair to empower the Director of Social Welfare to deal with all cases concerning collecting money? How many cases of application for a permit by political organizations have been rejected? Do the government department give a reasonable explanation?
As the police enjoys full discretionary power, when the Ordinance will be used depends entirely on the judgement of the police. Comparing the recent charges of these democrats with the large-scale assemblies and processions held last year which are free from prosecution, it manifests that the enforcement of these ordinances are rather arbitrary. With reference to such abuse of police power, we are deeply worried about the limitation of civil rights and personal freedom being imposed on us.
In view of the above, we strongly request:
1. Cancel Part Three of the Public Order Ordinance from Section 6 to Section 17, and rewrite the Part with effect that it will not contravene the International Convenant on Civil and
Political Rights.
2. The police need only be notified when there is public assembly. and procession. Since freedom of assembly and procession are basic human rights, they should not be obstructed or deprived by any individual or Government. Thus, we suggest that instead of applying for a permit as the existing ordinances stated, the organizers merely need to inform the police about the time, place, route, and number of participants of these activities. The function of the police is not to impose restrictions on these activities; rather, they should play the role of maintaining order and protecting freedom of expression.
The
3. Amend Section 4 (17) of the
the Summary Offences Ordinance concerning collection of money in public places. I t is suggested that different kinds. of
of money-collection (like political or charitable) should be processed fairly. Ordinance should provide means for appeal and the government should give reasonable explanation for rejection application. Moreover, conditions like alms-collection in places for religious worship should be exempted from application by stating out specifically.
of
4. Amend Section 4 (29) of the Summary Offences Ordinance on the use of loud-speaker in public places. Since the existing definition of "public places" is too board, it is suggested that all the conditions in restricting the use of loud-hailer in the Ordinance should be substantially described. Moreover, police should not stop people from using loud-speaker unless it is complained by people nearby. In this way,
freedom of expression through the use of loud-hailer can be protected in a better way.
5. Before the enactment of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, many ordinances which show infringement on human rights must not be employed. Also, in order to ensure the protection of human rights to the largest extent, the Bill of Rights should be enforced immediately.