-
14 -
I think the UN Commission on Human Rights is fully aware of our position on democratic development in Hong Kong. I am not sure whether a reference in our report to the treatment of honourable members in China would be relevant. It might be more relevant if China itself was a signatory to the International Covenants and that, of course, is the most important way in which China could underline its commitment to the application of those covenants in Hong Kong. At present there are undertakings in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law that the International Covenants should be applied to Hong Kong and within the International Covenants themselves there are specific references to the reporting obligation. So there is no question in my mind, in the mind of the UN Human Rights Commission, in the mind of the European Union or in the mind of the International Commission of Jurists, that China has an obligation to report under the International Covenants after 1997.
Mr Cheng Ka-fu (in Chinese): A simple follow-up. So far I have not heard that there will be any appropriate avenues from the British Government that can help us. At least five of the members of this Council had Home Visit Permits confiscated. We are the United Front Against the Provisional Legislature, I think the Hong Kong Government and the British Government share our views. We used this status to visit Beijing and our Home Visit Permits are confiscated, I would like to know what avenues you can use to help us recover our Home Visit Permits?
Governor: I have said to the honourable member earlier that if the Chinese Government confiscate a valid Chinese document from a post-97 citizen who is travelling, there is a limit to what either the Hong Kong Government or the British Government can do to make them change their mind and disgorge the document. We, as the honourable gentleman knows, raised the issue with the New China News Agency vigorously. It has been referred to by the Chief Secretary during her visit to London. I have referred to it this afternoon. And unfortunately, the authorities in Peking persist in believing that the honourable gentleman represents some sort of threat to state security. I am not quite sure that I have ever regarded him in that alarming light and I am not sure that many other people around the world would be quite so worried about the honourable gentleman. He seems like a perfectly amiable fellow to me.
Mr Lawrence Yum Sin-ling (in Chinese): Mr Governor, I would like to know whether you are going to go through the JLG to reflect our treatment in Beijing, because our Home Visit Permits have been confiscated? This may undermine the acknowledgement of the future SAR passport by other countries in future.
Governor: I answered the question on the JLG earlier, saying that I was not sure under what heading we would deal with the confiscation of Chinese travel documents by the Chinese authorities. But we can certainly consider the matter before the next JLG in September. I hope that what happened on Monday won't raise doubts about the SAR travel document and the returnability of people with the SAR travel document because if that was to happen it would send an extremely bad signal around the world. Let me emphasise again why it should have no bearing, reprehensible as it was, on the question of greater ease of travel for people with the SAR travel document.