+
Secretary of State
HKK2433
See (15
1. FC ==",
Cik - but list t
ск
Cargast fr Ambassade
ar intenzi
to
7% Gill: Kochentar Repatriatie
VIETNAMESE REFUGEES IN HONG KONG
iffere
See 15
J 291. See
See HICK 24315 (9)
1. During my visit to Hong Kong last month I saw the scale of the refugee problem and I believe that we should do all we can to help them at this difficult time. I discussed three specific points with the Hong Kong Government:
a)
b)
c)
See HKKJ43/5 (60)
whether Hong Kong's Ordinance for the detention of Vietnamese refugees in closed camps and the rules for the administration of the camps are in breach of our obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
a request by Hong Kong that the UK should take a new quota of Vietnamese refugees;
a request by Hong Kong to investigate the possibility of involuntary repatriation to Vietnam of newly arriving refugees.
I said I would give further consideration to these points on my return. On 6 January I chaired a meeting of officials of HKGD, SEAD, UND and Legal Advisers to discuss them.
Closed Camps Policy
2. The number of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong in April 1982 was 10,000 and beginning to rise. To deter further arrivals Hong Kong introduced legislation in July 1982 to confine new arrivals in closed camps. The camp rules were based on prison rules.
3. FCO Legal Advisers' view is that Hong Kong's legislation is in breach of our obligations under Article 9 of the Covenant (concern- ing the right to liberty and recourse to the courts). They also take the view that the application of the present prison rules to the administration of the camps will put us in breach of a number of articles of the Covenant. The Hong Kong Government accept the need to amend the rules, and this aspect will have to be considered again when we see their draft amendments. They are, however, unwilling to amend the Ordinance itself in order to comply with Article 9, as they feel that this would not be possible without undermining the policy itself.
4.
We are therefore faced with either accepting the legislation in the knowledge that it breaches our human rights obligations, or disallowing it. I believe that the political consequences of a decision, for legal reasons, to disallow the Ordinance would be serious. To the best of my knowledge a Hong Kong Ordinance has not been disallowed in recent years. We would face a direct clash with
A
CONFIDENTIAL
/Hong Kong