Mr Taylor asks what assurances we have that those who are returned
are not maltreated. We do, in fact, have strong evidence that this is the
case. One of the most reliable sources of this evidence is the first-hand
testimony of the would-be immigrants themselves who are sometimes caught making their second or third attempt to cross, and who would have no reason to minimise the severity of the punishment they face if sent back. From this, and other sources, we know that the Chinese authorities regard attempts to cross into Hong Kong without permission as a civil misdemeanour, for which the normal punishment is a period of "social re-education" and,
in certain circumstances, fines.
The people who arrive from Indo-China on the other hand are normally regarded as refugees and are recognised as such by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). It is the policy of the Hong Kong Government to accept into Hong Kong any such Indo-Chinese who arrive in their own boats, or who are picked up by Hong Kong registered ships, or ships whose next scheduled port of call is Hong Kong. Such people are allowed, on humanitarian grounds, to enter Hong Kong temporarily and to remain there while the UNHCR arranges for their onward travel to their countries of permanent settlement: at present there are some 1,245 Indo- Chinese refugees in Hong Kong awaiting permanent resettlement elsewhere (this is in addition to over 10,000 former residents of Indo-China who have been allowed to settle in Hong Kong).
In Brunei, for whose foreign relations we are indeed responsible, the problem is on a smaller scale: the 49 refugees who have arrived there. from Indo-China since 1975 have now all been permanently resettled in
Australia or the United States.
I am returning Mr Taylor's letter.
t
(DAVID OWEN)
eve
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.