|
Human Rights Issues -- August 2000
The Education Rights of Minority Children have allegedly been deprived. (4 August 2000)
The Immigration Department was blamed for the loss of an autistic Boy. (31 August 2000)
Police employed pepper foam without following the Police Guidelines (August 17, 2000)(Article 21)
The Education Rights of Minority Children have allegedly been deprived. (4 August 2000)
A survey concerning education of children form South-Asia was conducted by Yau Tsim District Outreaching Social Worker Team of Yang Memorial Methodist Social Service showed that more than 50% respondents have no idea where and how they could receive education subsidies, such as travel allowance in Hong Kong. 593 respondents from primary 5 to secondary 5 students coming from South-Asia were interviewed. The respondents were mainly from Pakistan, the Philippines and Nepal. 40% of them said they had problem to find a place at schools. One of the reasons was there were limited school places using English as a medium of teaching in Hong Kong. Some responded that education is the most urgent problem they were facing now. From the statistic, there are about 67500 children from South-Asia while only 20000 of them study at schools. The rest would be unemployed, employed and wait for a school place.
An illegal female Immigrant from the Mainland won a Legal Victory (26 August 2000)
The Immigration Department was again under a strong attack from human rights groups due to the case of Madam Yau Wing-mei. Madam Yau Wing-mei was sentenced for three months imprisonment when she was accused for giving away her mainland issued visiting permit to another person and lying to immigration authorities. The Immigration Department claimed that from its official record Ms Yau used her visiting permit to enter Hong Kong on 28 September on three-month visiting permit but someone used it to leave on 15 December. Therefore, when she turned herself in on 17 December, she was arrested. The Immigration Department said Ms Yau admitted she allowed her friend, whose was an illegal immigrant from the Mainland, used her visiting permit to go back to China.
Her case was appealed to the Appeal Court on 25 December 2000. In her appeal, she denied all the charges against her. She claimed that she was forced to admit all the charges against her as her counsel provided from Duty Lawyer Services had yelled at her and threatened she would face more serious imprisonment if she confess herself to be guilty. Furthermore, she claimed that she came to Hong Kong illegally on16 December instead of using a visiting permit to enter Hong Kong on 28 September. During her detention, she had no idea why the officer of Immigration Department had a visiting permit, in which there was another woman's photo but containing her personal information. Besides, she gave new evidences to the Appeal Court, which were receipts and pre-natal records from a mainland hospital for the time she was alleged to have been in Hong Kong. Just before the day of the appeal trial, this case was dismissed by the request of prosecutor. However, her three-month sentence was completed and her newborn infant also spent one month with her mother as her father had no time to take care of her.
The Immigration Department was blamed for the loss of an autistic Boy. (31 August 2000)
A fifteen years old autistic boy run away from his mother and maltreated as an illegal immigrant from the Mainland by the Immigration Department on 31 August 2000.
Yu Man-hon is an autistic boy and has a mental age of two and speaking problem. Only very limited Cantonese single words can be spoken by him. He ran away from his mother at Yau Ma Tei MTR. His parent immediately made a report to the Police. However, Man-hon appeared in Shenzhen custom alone. Nobody knew why Man-hon could slip through Hong Kong custom counters to Shenzhen. When the Shenzhen officer found the boy in China side, they sent him back to Hong Kong and asked the officer of Hong Kong Immigration Department to ratify the status of the boy. He was escorted to interview room after being handed over by Shenzhen. Two immigration officers questioned the boy and they found there was a great difficulty to communicate with him. They handcuffed Man-hon when he became emotional and pissed. Afterward, they decided to send him back to China but did not ask for any professional help. Furthermore, Police New Territories Command and Control Center duty supervisor took no action despite being asked by missing persons officer to brief all outdoor officers in the New Territories North and South about disappearance of Man-hon. Finally, at 7:05pm Man-hon was handed back to Shenzhen.
A report was released on 21 September 2000 following an internal Immigration Department inquiry after the incident of Man-hon. The report has blamed human error and identified four critical blunders by officers, including the fact that no help was sought from experts while Man-hon was being interviewed before he was sent over the border. The report contradicted Immigration Department's original claimed that mental handicap was not noticed.
Ms Anna Wu, chairman of Equal Opportunities Commission criticized the Immigration Department allegedly discriminated against mentally disabled person. Further training should be given to the frontline officers in order to have more knowledge about mentally disabled persons.
Man-hon has been missing nowadays.
Police employed pepper foam without following the Police Guidelines (August 17, 2000)(Article 21)
In June 26, a demonstration, which was organized by university students and people who fight for right of abode, was held in front of the Central Government Offices. However, there was a dispute and conflict between protesters and the police had employed pepper foam, namely Oleoresin Capsicum foam to attack the protesters. The protesters had filed a complaint to Complaint against Police Office (CAPO) for the police abusing its power. However, after its own investigation, the police concluded that the allegation that police abuse its authority and misuse the pepper foam was invalid and that the police did not have any criminal responsibility.
According to the Police Force General Order, which was an internal document, the police had not obeyed the guidelines before using the pepper fog machine. Before using the foam, the police should give a verbal warning to the protesters and order them to stand still or sit on the floor. Moreover, the foam could be employed to the protesters within NOT less than two ft. In addition, the police should provide a large amount of pure water to the protesters to wash their eye and put them to an open area to dry up. Furthermore, if it is possible, the police should check the health condition of the infected protesters and arrange medical care as soon as possible.
In fact, the police obeyed none of the above regulations and the protesters were badly wounded. However, the investigation report concluded that the police used appropriate force to the protesters and no brutality existed. Legislator Mr. James To Kun-sun criticized that the report was not reliable as the investigation was carried out by the police itself. Moreover, Mr. To commented out that the Police Force General Order was not legally binding. However, the police was not professional if it could not enforce its duty with respect to those regulations. The director of Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor, Mr. Law Yuk-Kai, stated that the police should compose a more detailed ordinance to regulate the police for using the pepper fog foam as the foam might be fatal to humans.