|
Human Rights Issues -- January 2001
Falun Gong incident (January 2001 to March 2001)(Article 18)
The Probe Call for new Border Raid (17 January 2001)
A worry of the re-interpretation held in abode case (January 18, 2001) (Article 23)
Falun Gong incident (January 2001 to March 2001)(Article 18)
On January, the Falun Gong (Hong Kong district) organized an international exchange program 2001 for Falun Gong followers around the world and over a thousand of followers participated the program.
On January 12 and 13, the Immigration Department had rejected thirty-one visitors to enter Hong Kong and thirteen of them were Falun Gong followers. However, the Department declared that the Falun Gong members are not rejected for their Falun Gong identity. The members came from the United States, Australia and Japan. Some of them were detained for more than twenty hours and forcibly expulsed.
Mr. Kan Hung-cheung, the Falun Gong's Hong Kong spokesman, said that the Immigration officers had attempted to use the ropes to tie up Falun Gong followers and had abused its power.
On the contrary, the spokesman of the Immigration Department said that the Department assessed the application with reference to the designated regulations and procedures. The Security Bureau denied that the expulsion of Falun Gong followers due to the words of the central government. It stressed that under the "One country, two systems" principle, the organizations and communities at Hong Kong should abide by the law of Hong Kong.
Mr. James TO Kun-sun, vice chairman of the panel on Security of the Legislative Council, had doubt on why Falun Gong followers were being treated differently from the people with other religions. He criticized that the different treatment indicated a political or religious discrimination, which should be strictly prohibited.
On January 30, the Liasion Office of the Central People's Government strongly criticized that the Falun Gong had already politized and globalized in Hong Kong and the action of the Falun Gong followers had purposively focused on the central government. Moreover, the pro-Beijing businessmen and politicians, including Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference Standing Committee member Xu Simin, and the head of the Jujian Traders' Association Wong Kong-hon, outlawed the Falun Gong on the mainland as an evil cult and suggested to cancel it as a registered society in Hong Kong.
On February 1 2001, Mrs. IP Lau Suk-yee, the Secretary for Security, commented actively that the movement of Falun gong became more high profile and was targeting the central government for attack. In addition, Mr. Tsang Hin-chi, a member of the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC), said that Falun Gong was a political organization which the Government should deregister as soon as possible. He also said that he would propose the NPCSC to discuss Falun Gong activities in Hong Kong.
According to the Societies Ordinance (Cap.151) 5D, the Societies Officer may, after consultation with the Secretary for Security, cancel the registration or exemption from registration of a society or a branch under one of the following conditions:
(a) if he reasonably believes that the cancellation is necessary in the interests
of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public) or the protection
of the rights and freedoms of others; or
(b) if the society or the branch is a political body that has a connection with
a foreign political organization or a political organization of Taiwan.
However, the Societies Officer shall not cancel the registration or exemption from registration without first giving the society an opportunity to be heard or to make written representations.
On February 4 2001, Hong Kong Human Rights Commission (HKHRC), Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor and JUSTICE: Hong Kong Branch of the International Commission of Jurists had released a joint statement. They criticised that the government attitude towards Falun Gong and argued that the freedom of association, freedom of assembly and freedom of demonstration should be respected. Mr. HO Hei-wah, the chairperson of the HKHRC, worried that the government's action would adversely affect the enforcement of "one country, two systems" principle that this precedent of central government's intervention would be harmful to the interest of Hong Kong in the future.
On February 8 2001, the Chief Executive Mr. Tung Chee-hwa expressed that he and the government had kept a close watch to Falun Gong activities. He also branded the Falun Gong as "more or less bearing some characteristics of evil sect". An Executive Councilor Nellie Fong Wong Kut-man also urged the Government to consider enacting a subversion law to regulate the activities of the Falun Gong in Hong Kong.
This triggered the criticisms from the democratic parties. According to the South China Morning Post (February 9 2001), Democratic Party chairman Mr. Martin Lee Chu-ming accused the Chief Executive of putting on a pair of "Beijing spectacles" and another legislator, Mr. James To Kun-sun, also criticized the Chief Executive as "bad-mouthing" Falun Gong.
The Falun Gong incident also induced various community organizations to hold demonstrations. For example, the Democratic Alliance of Hong Kong, Social Democracy Forum, Frontiers and Hong Kong Christians Institute had respectively initiated a demonstration on the web by sending a huge sum of e-mail of protest to the Security Bureau. Rev. Fung Chi-yoo, the conveyor of the Social Democracy Forum commented that the Chief Executive should apologize for his comment to Falun Gong as there was no any evidence to prove that Falun Gong is an evil cult. Moreover, the Legislative Council's Home Affairs Panel had held a meeting on February 20, 2001 on asking the Government to define an evil sect.
On the other hand, Ms. Regina IP, the Secretary for Security Bureau, commented that some Hong Kong citizens had "one country two systems syndrome" which led them to respond strongly during discussing any sensitive political issue. She said that she was being criticized and suppressed by those people.
On February 20, Mr. Ye Xiaowen, head of the State Council's Religious Affairs Office of the Mainland Government, said that the SAR Government should deregister Falun Gong as it is a "poisonous tumour", whose comment was in line with Mr. Tsang Hin-chi, a National People Congress Standing Committee's member. Mr. Tsang said that he would not submit any proposals on how to deal with the sect as this is a matter for the SAR Government and it related to the "one country, two systems" policy.
On March 2 2001, Ms. Regina IP branded the Falun Gong a devious organization as many of the things in their writings can lead people into superstition. She claimed that Falun Gong had got enormous influence on the masses and hence it was normal for the Government to have close monitoring to it.
Ms IP's opinion raised the concern of those legislators. Non-affiliated legislator Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee, representing the legal sector, worried that it would raise the question of whether the Government intended to monitor people's thought and their speech. Another legislator, Mr. Wong Wang-fat shared similar opinion that he worried the government would criminalize the groups because of their beliefs rather than their actions. Besides, Mr. Kan Hung-cheung, spokesman for the Falun Gong in Hong Kong, criticized that the Government misled the public by creating a negative impression of the group.
A Consultation Paper of Code of Practice on Education of Disability Discrimination Ordinance (16 January 2001)
The Equal Opportunities Commission invited the public to give comment on the consultation paper of code of practice on education of disability discrimination ordinance. The code mainly focuses on the recruitment of students, setting the school syllabus, school facilities and methods of taking care of students with disability. The Chairman of Equal Opportunities Commission, Anna Wu Hung-yuk said the main propose of the code is to eliminate the disability discrimination on education and the court considered it for judgement.
The Probe Call for new Border Raid (17 January 2001)
The Legislative Council's security panel held a meeting for the allegation of illegal mainland police activities in Hong Kong. The daughter of Mr. Su Zhi-yi, Ms Su, accused of the Chinese Police escorted her and her father back to Hong Kong from the Mainland to extract evidences and to seize proprieties from her father's bank safe deposit box after her father was arrested for the alleged of embezzlement case in 1995.
However, the investigation report by Hong Kong Police insisted Ms Su allegation
was insubstantial even though there were lots of coincidences. The Deputy Secretary
for Security Raymond Wong Hung-chiu said there was insufficient evidence and
independent witness to prove mainland officers had undertaken police activities.
They also questioned why Ms Su did not ask for Hong Kong Police help during
the incident. All the information collected by the Hong Kong Police could be
concluded that the Chinese Police officers came to Hong Kong in a private capacity
although two Zhaoqing City Government civilian officials and Chinese Police
officers were found to have entered and left Hong Kong nearly at the same time
as Ms Su in 1995. In Ms Su's allegation, she said she was escorted to stay in
a hotel in Wan Chai before they went back to her apartment for seizure evidences.
Although the hotel bill record showed that it was Zhaoqing City Government civilian
officials to check it. But, the Hong Kong Police disagreed the allegation as
there was no evidence that Ms Su had stayed there.
After hearing the reporting, the members of the security panel accused police
of not making an all-out attempt to investigate and passed a motion asking the
police to conduct a fresh probe. The legislator Albert Ho Chun-yan criticized
the police gave "the impression of not defending Hong Kong people, but
rather the mainland officials." Independent legislator Audery Eu Yuet-mee
condemned the report could only treat three years old kid. She urged the Hong
Kong Police should have interviewed personally the mainland public security
officials involved in the case rather than depend on the reply from the Guangdong
Provincial Security Bureau.
A worry of the re-interpretation held in abode case (January 18, 2001) (Article
23)
On January 16, 2001, the Government made a submission to the Court of Final Appeal and it suggested that the Court should request the guidance from the National People's Congress Standing Committee before the ruling be done.
The case involved a young boy, namely Mr. Chong Fung-yuen at the age of three, who was born in Hong Kong while his mainland parents were visiting by two-way permits. The case won twice in both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal, which implied that the children born in Hong Kong to mainland parents automatically qualified for the right of abode. The Government worried that the ruling would lead to a large influx of illegal immigrants and advocate over-stayers and the people with two-way permits to give birth in Hong Kong.
The case hinged on Article 24(2)(1) of the Basic Law, which said that children of the Chinese citizens born in Hong Kong have the right of abode. In its submission, the Government argued that as the ruling would have a substantive effect on immigration controls and law and order on the Mainland China, it should have a strong relationship with the Central government. Moreover, the Government commented the Standing Committee had ruled on the definition of permanent residency expressed by the Preparatory Committee that the Court should take it into account.
However, Mr. Eric Cheung Tai-ming, assistant professor of the University of Hong Kong's Law faculty, commented that he could not see how the case related to the Mainland China. Moreover, Mr. Ronny Tong Kar-wah, chairman of the BAR Association, shared similar opinions as the case was only concerned with the definition of the Hong Kong citizens and irrelevant to the central government.
The Government's action elicited a huge social pressure from lawyers and human rights groups as it worried that the judicial independence of Hong Kong would be further deteriorated by more and more re-interpretations from the Mainland Government. As a result, the Government declared that it would not appeal for re-interpretation from Beijing even if it lost the case.
Professor Albert Chen Hung-yee, a member of the Basic Law Committee and dean of the Law faculty of the University of Hong Kong, said that the Government's action of requesting the CFA to seek guidance from Beijing was ideal. He estimated that seeking re-interpretation after the Court ruling would not be a common practice.
Moreover, Ms. Margaret Ng, legislative councilor of the law functional group,
criticized that the action of Immigration Department was inappropriate and it
would give an impression to the general public that it would seek re-interpretation
again when the ruling does not favor to the Government.
On the contrary, another legislator had an opposite view. Mr. Tsang Yuk-shing,
legislative councilor of the geographical region, said that the Government had
such right to make the request in the course of legal proceedings. He said that
this request inappropriately implied the misunderstanding of the conception
of judiciary independence.
In addition, Mr. Tsang Hin-chi, a member of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC), suggested the CFA to seek advice from Beijing because the Standing Committee would not re-interpret the Basic Law by itself. He criticized that the lower courts did not act in accordance with the 1999 re-interpretation, which led to the present problem. Oppositely, Mr. Ma Lik, another member of the NPCSC, said that it was the problem of the local courts and it should be handled by the courts of Hong Kong instead of the NPC.
The hearing will be held on March 5, 2001.