116/0/1
CONFIDENTIAL
detainee made any complaint to him on this score. Indeed, the only complaints received related to the quality of the rice supplied, the lack of variety in the diet and the monotony of the daily routine.
7.
The "Letter of Protest" says that detainees are not allowed political publications; this is correct, but neutral newspapers in both Chinese and English are provided daily, and detainees are allowed non-political literature either from the Centre's library or brought by relatives or friends. They are
als provided with radios for selective listening.
8.
The reference in the "Letter of Protest" to malnutrition is of course pure propaganda; the detainees' medical history sheets and weekly weight charts refute this allegation decisively. Detainees receive the normal Prisons diet for working prisoners (although not required to work), and this is supplemented by additional rice and cooking sauces. In addition they can receive fruit, sweets and chocolates from visitors. A Government Medical Officer sees each detainee once a week.
9.
The representative of the International Red Cross in Hong Kong has in fact just made a second visit to the Detention Centre and I enclose a copy of his report. This (like the first report) clearly disposes of the contention that detainees are mistreated. Mr. Hefti has no objection to these two reports being made available to Mr. Johnson, M.P., to reassure him on conditions in the Centre, provided he is also given a copy of Mr. Hefti's letter of 25th June, containing the I.C.R.C.'s comments on the Centre. On this basis we would wish Mr. Johnson to have a copy of our letter of 8th July to Mr. Hefti. No doubt Mr. Johnson, if he finds these reports reassuring, could simply inform Mrs. Elliott that he has been satisfied, by reports prepared by a neutral, reliable party, that there is no truth in the Communists' allegations of maltreatment of detainees.
10.
The I.C.R.C. Headquarters has informed Mr. Hefti that it has no objection to the publication of his two reports on the Centre, provided they are published in full together with his letter of 25th June. I do not favour publication at this stage because:-
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
11.
it would appear to be a defensive reaction to the recent Communist propaganda campaign in Hong Kong alleging inhuman treatment of detainees, and would not in fact make the slightest impression on the Communists (who know very well what the conditions are in fact);
the Communist campaign has not produced the slightest reaction or support from the neutral or right-wing Press, nor from the general public. The latter is well aware that conditions in Hong Kong prisons are good, and are unlikely to be deceived by Communist allegations about conditions in the Detention Centre.
such reports are designed, in Hong Kong's case, to satisfy both the Red Cross and Her Majesty's Government that detainees are properly cared for; they should not be released here unless there is genuine and widespread public concern.
For these reasons I would suggest that the approach to Mr. Johnson suggested in paragraph 9 above is the correct one in this case.
IML/mjc
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.