|
Human Rights Issues -- February 2000
Teenager girl's jail ordeal (February 2, 2000) (Article 9)
New Guidelines for Euthanasia (February 3, 2000) (Article 7)
Judge released 11 migrants on bail (February 3, 2000) (Article 9)
A Taiwanese Businessman was wrongly accused by Immigration Department (February 9, 2000)
Barrister failed to fight client's right (February 9, 2000) (Article 14)
Postmen deposed letters freely (February 14, 2000) (Article 17)
Baptist University refused to open council records (February 19, 2000) (Article 19)
Personal-data Sites may need to register (February 23, 2000) (Article 19)
Inland Revenue Department exposed personal data (February 25, 2000) (Article 17)
Three Hong Kong Tourists were beaten and jailed in South Africa (February 25 & 26, 2000) (Article 9)
US raised Fears over Rule of Law (February 27, 2000) (Article 14)
Clinic fight Bill Banning Gender Selection Service (February 28, 2000) (Article 3 & 26)
Teenager girl's jail ordeal (February 2, 2000) (Article 9)
Ms. Lin Qiaoying, 17, was jailed for four months after admitting having a bogus passport, was released after the Court of First Instance had examined the passport was genuine. Her ordeal began when she was threatened to admit the passport was fake. She claimed that the officer waved a baton at her. He also said that if she were a boy, she would be beaten. The officer also ordered her to sign documents. Otherwise, she would be sent back to the mainland for execution. She answered in Putonghua while the officers asked her in Cantonese. In addition, it was speculated that the interpreter had forced Lin to confess a crime.
In view of this, the police was in charge of the investigation to make sure whether any people perverted the course of justice. The spokesman of the judiciary said that the interpreter, who had served for the Immigration Department before serving the Judiciary, had not reported to the judiciary. Mr. Leung Ping-kwan, Principal Immigration Officer (Investigation) denied Miss Lin had not been informed her legal rights. He agreed that Ms. Lin was partly responsible for the ordeal. As all persons in custody could contact their lawyers and relatives, Ms. Lin should also have sufficient chances to tell the truth.
After primary investigation, it was found that at least five suspects using Ms. Lin's mainland passport to leave Hong Kong between 1997 to 1998. However, Miss Lin's mother claimed that the documents had been stolen in a burglary in 1997 and the family surely did not have any time to carry out that illegal matter. The case was still under investigation and the legislator Mr. Lee Cheuk-yan proposed to make the findings into public.
New Guidelines for Euthanasia (February 3, 2000) (Article 7)
New guidelines will be issued to doctors on the decision towards passive Euthanasia, which is commonly regarded as the withdrawn of life support system from terminally ill or brain-dead patients. The chairman of medical council of Hong Kong, Dr. Lee Kin-hung, announced an official statement on the "care for the terminally ill" after public debate in the past fortnight. According to the new guidelines, it could be possible for the court to order doctors to switch off ventilators even though patients' relatives opposed it. Dr. Lee said relatives and doctors could both initiate a request to stop a coma patient's life support systems. Should any disputes arise, the parties could put the case to the hospitals ethics committee. Doctors could seek a court order if necessary. However, many patients rights group questioned whether the proclamation of new guidelines was due to the cut of medical costs.
Judge released 11 migrants on bail (February 3, 2000) (Article 9)
Mr. Justice Frank Stock, judge of Court of First Instance, released 11 migrants on bail and prevented the Government from removing them before those migrants raised the court challenge after two weeks.
Joseph Fok Senior Counsel, for the Director of Immigration, claimed that such action would let many people from the Mainland to have claims in court and escape freely. However, the judge did not believe that message. He said that he acutely aware of this but the Director of Immigration might have breached her own policy as she had claimed that migrants who had granted legal aid would be removed. It was contrary to what the Director's promise during Legco panel on legal affairs held in November 1999.
On the contrary, Gladys Li Senior Counsel, for the migrants, pointed out that claimants' right for asserting their rights in court would be deprived. Moreover, she disagreed with the permissive view that a leading great influx of new immigrants would be resulted.
A Taiwanese Businessman was wrongly accused by Immigration Department (February
9, 2000)
(Article 9)
A Taiwanese businessman missed his last chance to see his sick wife because immigration department wrongly accused him of using a bogus passport. Chuang Tsung-ling was stopped at Chek Lap Kok Airport when he was in hurry to go back to Taipei to see his cancer-stricken wife last September. He claimed that he was tricked into making a confession, spent four nights in custody and was not permitted to leave Hong Kong until eight days after his wife died. His nightmare began when there was a clerical error concerning his place of birth in his Guatemalan passport. He was arrested when the discrepancy was discovered at the Immigration counter. He stated that one officer told him the only way he could go back to Taipei would be to plead guilty.
Prosecutor Lily Wong said the Government had now taken steps to verify that the passport was issued lawfully. Ms Wong had applied for the passport and a Guatemalan identity card to be forfeited. She said the Government had received information that the card was false and that this had been used to obtain the passport. But the application was withdrawn after Mr. Hoo, Chuang's solicitor, challenged the prosecution to prove allegations. After the hearing, Mr. Chuang's ordeal ended when the prosecution offered no evidence against him and accepted his passport had been lawfully obtained.
Barrister failed to fight client's right (February 9, 2000) (Article 14)
The case, which Senior Counsel Desmond Keane accused the Director of Legal Aid of abusing his powers by disallowing people to choose lawyers to represent them into the court, was rejected. The judge said that claimant's argument was without merit.
During the legal plea, Mr. Keane had originally challenged his requests of
judicial review. However, he changed his request to avoid delaying the former
client's case. He demanded the court to declare that people who had granted
legal aid should have right to choose the lawyer that they preferred.
Mr. Justice William Stone claimed that even though the claimant was related
to the legal plea, he did not have sufficient interest involved in the legal
plea and hence he did not have Locus Standi (legal position). Furthermore, the
judge said that if people had absolute right to choose the lawyer they liked,
it would violate that the Director of Legal Aid had right to choose the lawyer
under cost-effective principle. It not only increased the cost of the legal
plea but also lowered the possibility to get win and the possibility to claim
back the money involved in the plea. It was more flexible to let the Director
to change lawyers or barristers.
Postmen deposed letters freely (February 14, 2000) (Article 17)
More than 1000 letters were deposed in a community center in a village of Tuen Mun. In the pervious days, postmen used to treat the community center as a "public post box". Postmen placed all letters in this public post box and inhabitants in this village would collect their letters in the center later. However, after the closure of the center, postmen still kept this postal method which led more than 1000 letters, including of some bank statements and telephone bills, deposed at a corner of the center. Spokesman of Post Office admitted that they made a mistake and they promised to send all letters back to the inhabitants' homes.
Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company and three commercial Radio Hosts were being sued over alleged defamatory (February 16, 17 & 25 2000) (Article 16)
Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company and three commercial Radio hosts were being sued over alleged defamatory remarks made about the Oriental Press Group during a phone-in program. The program, which was known as "Commercial Radio's The Power of Media Surveillance" was hosted by Ms. Lau Yuen-fun, Mr. Lui Tai-lok, and South China Morning Post columnist Mr. Andy Ho On-tat. A caller called to this phone-in program. He expressed his view on air that the Oriental Press Group used its newspaper to attack those who do not like or who had a conflict of interest with it. The Oriental Press Group asked for compensation for unspecified damages and an injunction order. On February 25, the jury decided the defence had failed to give any evidence to prove the remarks were either true or substantially fair comment. Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company was found reliable for defamatory remarks while three hosts did not need to bear any responsibility. Hong Kong Commercial Broadcasting Company was fined to pay HK$5,000 to Oriental Press Group and $12,000 to Oriental Daily News Ltd.
Baptist University refused to open council records (February 19, 2000) (Article 19)
The Baptist University refused to uncover its past council records of members' attendance to the public. However, five universities have agreed to show their council meeting attendance records in full. The Chinese University has consulted members on the disclosure of past records. The Baptist University claimed that it is inappropriate to make its council record to public because the council members were not consulted of disclosure when they accepted the appointments to the council. But the University is willing to release records of future council meetings. Members of University council were appointed by the Government. The Legislators asked for the release of records in order to use it as a means to democratize university administration.
Personal-data Sites may need to register (February 23, 2000) (Article 19)
Under a plan of the Privacy Commissioner's Office, Hong Kong-based sites, which collected personal information, might need to register with the above-mentioned office. This plan could be launched next year. Those who failed to register could incur a fine of up to HK$1000 under privacy laws. The Privacy Commissioner's Office hopee this plan can prevent online fraud, spamming and data theft. The Office believee that if those criminal crimes could be prevented, it could build trust and could encourage e-commerce. However, some experts and organization, e.g. Hong Kong Information Technology Federation, criticized this plan was useless as it was unnecessary for a public body to interfere in Internet business. This plan will go for public consultation and would be finalized this year.
Inland Revenue Department exposed personal data (February 25, 2000) (Article 17)
A reader of the Oriental Daily News, Mr. Lam, complained that the Inland Revenue Department paid no attention to deal with personal data. He was disappointed by the answer provided by the staff of the department. Mr. Lam received a letter given by Inland Revenue Department but it did not belong to him. The letter urged an artist, Mr. Liu Wai-hung, to pay back the owed salary taxes in 1996 to the Department. The letter clearly stated the personal data of Mr. Liu, such as the owed amount and address. However, when Mr. Lam reported that event to the department, the staff just asked him to hand it back to the department. The representative of Inland Revenue Department, Mrs. Kwok, admitted that it was a mistake and they were willing to apologize to Mr. Lam and to Mr. Liu. Mrs. Kwok said there was misunderstanding between the staff and Mr. Lam. One of the common methods to deal with wrongly sent letter was that the staff would ask the receiver to post back to the department, instead of handing back to them.
Three Hong Kong Tourists were beaten and jailed in South Africa (February 25 & 26, 2000) (Article 9)
Three Hong Kong people said they suffered from beating and wrongly jailed in South Africa when they had a tour there. The three people, holding the SAR passports or BN(O) passports, joined a seven-day tour to South Africa. They planed to visit their friends in Gabon after the tour and they were allowed to extend their tourist visa. However, when they were going to flight to Gabon after their seven-day tour, they were arrested before boarding. They were accused of having fake passport. As they were suspected of having changed the immigration stamp themselves. However, they said the change was made by the immigration officer when they extended their tourist visas. All of them stated their human rights were deprived. They were beaten and pushed to the ground when they refused to sign statements while being questioned by South African immigration officers. The immigration officers also used racial discrimination words, such as "Chinese pigs", to call them. They called friends to rescue them and their friends and the Chinese Embassy stepped in to help. The court discharged their case after failing to find any sufficient evidence. However, the court asked them must leave South Africa. They came home safety on 24 February 2000. The Travel Industry Council's chairman, Simon Hau Suk-kei, who stepped in to help their case, asked for the clarification from the South African government as they were still on the blacklist.
US raised Fears over Rule of Law (February 27, 2000) (Article 14)
The US expressed its concern over the rule of law in the Hong Kong SAR in its departmental annual report on international human rights. In this report, two high profile cases, in which the Government failed to prosecute Xinhua and former newspaper publisher Sally Aw Sian, were discussed and they had undermined confidence in legal system. There was a detailed coverage about the issue of right of abode. The report also covered a range of human rights issues in Hong Kong, including police violence, media self-censorship and discrimination against women. Moreover, the report showed a fear that Hong Kong was used as a transit point for smuggling. Many senior Hong Kong Government officials such as Deputy Secretary for Security Mr. Timothy Tong Hin-ming denied the above allegations. The report would be submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva next month.
Clinic fight Bill Banning Gender Selection Service (February 28, 2000) (Article 3 & 26)
The Gender Choice Clinic was the only clinic in Hong Kong that offered gender selection service. The technique of this service was pre-selecting baby's sex through separation of sperm and artificial insemination. The clinic only provided services to married couples who had given birth before. The Human Reproductive Technology Bill would ban sex selection of babies on any social ground. The Clinic was going to fight a new bill, which would outlaw the practice in a few months. The Health officials said that the clinic had to be shut once the bill was passed. The owner of clinic and principal scientist, Mr. Anthony Wong Shun-yun said the new bill would deprive people of choice. However, women's group warned gender selection would deteriorate the problem of gender discrimination. Mr. Wong admitted that 9 out of 10 of his clients requested a boy and many of them had three or four girls already, while no single case had been asked for the service on medical ground.