TNAG-2004-FCO40-2852-Hong-Kong-political-parties-1990 — Page 77

14-JUL-1990 11:13

SECURITY BRANCH

+ 852 877 0636 P.05

2

pina News Agency that the Hong Kong Government "had no intention of allowing Hong Kong to be used as a base for subversive activities against. the PRC."

There are other factors which raise doubts as to the reasons for initiating prosecution in these cases; for instance:

the common use of laud-speakers by groups of tourists and other groups in Hong Kong, which is frequently allowed in such cases:

the fact that large-scale demonstrations and public collection of large sums of money without permits were allowed by the Hong Kong authorities last year in the aftermath of the June events in China;

the statement made by the United Kingdom Government in its Third Periodic Report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee in October 1989, which set out general guidelines "under which the use of

amplification equipment, other than hand-held loudhailers, might be banned" - thus implying clearly that hand-held loudhailers (the kind used by the people due to go on trial shortly) are normally not banned.

In view of this, we are concerned that those now facing trial appear to have been charged under the Summary Offences Ordinance for the peaceful exercise of their right to freedom of assembly and expression. If their conviction eventually resulted in them being detained for the exercise of these rights, Amnesty International would regard them as prisoners of conscience. We urge you to give this matter urgent consideration and to Bring it to the attention of the Attorney General. We also urge that that the relevant provisions of the Summary Offences Ordinance be reviewed to ensure that it does not permit the prosecution and detention of people for exercising their fundamental human rights.

We are also concerned by the case of Rev. Fung Chi Wood, who on 4 July 1990 was convicted on similar charges in North Kowloon Magistrate Court and fined HK$ 750. We understand that he intends to appeal against the court decision. We urge that his case be reviewed in the light of the matters raised in this letter.

I hope that you will give consideration to this matter without delay and would be grateful for an early reply.

Yours sincerely,

Ellingpkin

Christopher L. Avery For the Secretary General