PA
1.
xi Yang
I took the opportunity of a call on 15 November by Zhu Changnian (Deputy Director of the NCNA Foreign Affairs Department) and his colleague, Li Hexie, to remind them of our concerns about Xi Yang. Xi had now been detained for some
seven weeks. During that time, he had been allowed no visits by colleagues at Ming Pao, by legal advisers nor even by members
of his family. The Chinese authorities had released very
little information about the crimes Xi was alleged to have
committed, or about his legal circumstances (for example when
How and if he would be tried) and
2.
I explained that I was not `trying to interfere in the process of Chinese justice, nor making any judgment about Xi's
guilt or innocence under Chinese law. But, as the NCNA would
have noticed and no doubt reported to Peking, this case had understandably caused concern in Hong Kong. Journalists whose
Job required them to operate in China were worried that
practices which were regarded as a normal part of their job elsewhere might in China get them into trouble. Wider anxieties had even been expressed about whether there might be a "political"dimension to the case; and there was humanitarian
concern about the lack of access to Xi. The best way to reassure the Hong kong public would be to explain in more detail
the nature of the charges against Xi; and to allow access to
him. We urged the Chinese authorities to take these steps.
3.
Xi
All this provoked a predictable response from Li. had broken Chinese laws, and was being dealt with in accordance
with them. Decisions about the release of information, and about Xi's judicial circumstances would be dictated by the
law.
(
People in Hong Kong had no reason to worry. Journalists operating in China actually had a pretty good idea of the limits
CONFIDENTIAL
20 9d
05:89 86 ЛОН ЭТ ЭП
*NOX NOH SNOH INAWUENOS