The Editor, The Times,
Printing House Square, London, E.C.4, ENGLAND.
Dear Sir,
19th November, 1968.
HELD IN PEKING
Mr. P.C.M. Sedgwick, reproducing a statement by the Hong Kong Government which has since been totally rejected by the Committee of the Hong Kong Bar Association, purports (November l4) to refute my letter of November 11, characterising it as "highly tendentious." I would be grateful for an opportunity to reply for, whether the head of Reuters or others - realise it or not, some of the things happening in Peking cannot be understood without an appreciation of what has been happening in this Colony for which the British Government has the overall responsibility.
My essential point was that if we show that we are prepared to waive the rule of law when it suits us we cannot be surprised or feel aggrieved if the Chinese Government are unimpressed by our protests when they in their turn waive the rules of international relative when it suits them. The Hong Kong Government makes no answer to this directly but instead avers that the cases of Mr. Grey and those locally detained without trial are quite different.
The main ground is that Mr. Grey is innocent while the local detainees were "deeply and openly involved" in violent activities. Thing begs the entire question. Since the evidence against the detainees has never been examined by any independent fact finding body we can have no conviction that some of those detained are not as innocent as Mr. Grey. If they were deeply and openly implicated in criminal activities it is doubly difficult to see why they could not have been brought to trial.
A
1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.