********************************************************
Following is a question by the Hon Alan Leong and a reply by the Secretary for Security, Mr Lai Tung-kwok, in the Legislative Council today (July 6):
Question:
Five Hong Kong people who were shareholders or employees of the Causeway Bay Books went missing one after another from October last year to early this year. Last month, Mr Lam Wing-kee, one of the missing persons, made public what he had experienced on the Mainland, which included his being detained by Shenzhen Customs and placed under residential surveillance by officials of the central special investigation task force for eight months. He was even forced to sign a document giving up his right to hire a lawyer and inform his family. On the other hand, in accordance with the Arrangements on the Establishment of a Reciprocal Notification Mechanism between the Mainland Public Security Authorities and the Hong Kong Police, the circumstances under which the Mainland Notification Unit shall notify the Hong Kong Police include the imposition of criminal compulsory measures by the Mainland public security authorities on Hong Kong residents suspected of having committed crimes, and the criminal compulsory measures concerned include summons for questioning, putting on bail, residential surveillance, detention and arrest. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that the detention of Hong Kong residents and their being placed under residential surveillance on the Mainland are within the scope of notification, and Mr Lam had been detained and placed under residential surveillance by the Mainland authorities, whether and when the Government has received the relevant notifications; if it has not, whether it has approached the Mainland Notification Unit to find out the reasons for that;
(2) whether the Government has so far received any notification concerning each of the other four missing persons of the Causeway Bay Books; if it has, of the respective dates of receiving such notifications, and whether it knows the offences they were suspected to have committed or the judicial proceedings which they will be subjected to; whether the imposition of criminal compulsory measures by the central special investigation task force on Hong Kong residents is within the scope of notification; and
(3) as some members from the legal profession have pointed out that the process during which Mr Lam was interrogated and detained by the Mainland has breached a number of provisions concerning the rights of criminal suspects under the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, whether the Government will negotiate with the Mainland authorities to safeguard the legal rights of those Hong Kong people who have been imposed criminal compulsory measures, and ensure that no Hong Kong people will be investigated and dealt with by Mainland's law enforcement and judicial authorities without the knowledge of HKSAR Government for acts committed within the boundary of HKSAR which do not contravene the laws of HKSAR, so as to safeguard the rights, freedoms and legal protection enjoyed by Hong Kong people under the Basic Law?
Reply:
President,
The HKSAR Government attaches great importance to the case associated with a bookstore in Causeway Bay, as well as the personal safety and rights of Hong Kong residents. The question of Hon Alan Leong concerns four Hong Kong residents; my consolidated reply is as follows.
Since 2001, the HKSAR Government has, by way of an administrative arrangement and on the basis of mutual respect for the relevant laws of both sides, put in place a reciprocal notification mechanism with the Mainland in respect of cases involving unnatural deaths and imposition of criminal compulsory measures on residents from the other side, so that notification could be made as soon as practicable. Upon receipt of notification from the Mainland authorities, the HKSAR Government will inform the family members of the persons concerned as soon as possible so that the latter can consider whether to engage a lawyer or to seek other assistance through the HKSAR Government.
Besides the reciprocal notification mechanism, the Hong Kong Police have been maintaining a police co-operation mechanism with Mainland law enforcement authorities and engaging in co-operation using the mode of co-operation similar to that of international police co-operation laid down by the Interpol.
As regards the case of four Hong Kong residents raised in this question, the Police have been making enquiries to and seeking assistance from the Mainland authorities. In principle, we will not disclose case details. However, we fully understand the extensive concern of the community. In the past few months, the Police have disclosed the progress of the case and the latest situation of those four persons as far as possible, including:
(i) On November 5, 2015, the Police received a report that the informants were unable to contact three men surnamed Lam, Lui and Cheung. Having understood the cases, the Police categorised them as cases of "missing persons" which were followed up by the Regional Missing Persons Unit of Hong Kong Island. Thereafter, the Police made enquiries to and sought assistance from the Mainland authorities regarding the above three persons.
(ii) In January this year, the Police received a report that a Mr Lee was found missing and immediately made enquiries to and sought assistance from the Mainland authorities. A written reply was received from the Interpol Guangdong Liaison Office of Guangdong Provincial Public Security Department (Guangdong PSD) on January 18, stating that "having understood that Lee Po is in the Mainland". The Police wrote to Guangdong PSD on the same night and January 23, respectively requesting to meet with Lee Po and further understand the situation of the incident.
(iii) On February 4, the Police received a written reply from Guangdong PSD, stating that it was understood that Mr Lui Por, Mr Cheung Chi-ping and Mr Lam Wing-kee were suspected to be involved in illegal activities in the Mainland. Criminal compulsory measures were imposed on them and they were under investigation. The Police then wrote to Guangdong PSD requesting it to assist in following up with the incident, and to pass on a message to Mr Lee Po that the Police still wanted to meet with him as soon as possible.
(iv) On February 28, the Police was informed by Guangdong PSD that Mr Lee Po agreed to meet with the Police. On February 29, two officers of the Police and the Immigration Department (ImmD) met with Lee Po alone and took statement with him in a guesthouse room in the Mainland. Regarding the cases concerning the other three missing Hong Kong persons, the Police requested for confirmation and provision of more details from Guangdong PSD.
(v) On March 2, the Police received a written reply from Guangdong PSD, stating that Mr Lui Por, Mr Cheung Chi-ping and Mr Lam Wing-kee were suspected to be involved in a case relating to a person surnamed Gui and compulsory measures were imposed on them earlier. They would be put on bail pending investigation in the next few days. The Police have informed their families in Hong Kong and continued to follow through the missing person cases, as well as written to Guangdong PSD requesting for further details.
(vi) In early March, the Police met with Mr Lui Por and Mr Cheung Chi-ping respectively who had returned to Hong Kong from the Mainland. Although they requested the Police to cancel their missing person cases and stated that they did not require any assistance from the HKSAR Government or the Police, the Police still continued to follow through with the other two missing person cases with Guangdong PSD.
(vii) On March 24, the ImmD and the Police met and took statement separately from Mr Lee Po who had returned to Hong Kong from the Mainland for further investigation.
(viii) On June 14, the Police met with Mr Lam Wing-kee who had returned to Hong Kong from the Mainland. In view of the situation stated by Mr Lam to the media on June 16, the Police have taken the initiative to contact Mr Lam since that night for further understanding the case and taking appropriate follow-up investigation. The Police will continue with its work.
On July 5, the Ningbo public security authorities released information relating to Mr Lam's suspected illegal activities on the Mainland, relevant laws of the Mainland, compulsory measures imposed on him, responsible authority in charge of the case, etc.
President, I am not aware of the "Central Investigation Unit" mentioned by Mr Lam Wing-kee at the press conference on June 16. It is clear from the release by the Mainland authorities that the Ningbo public security authorities are in charge of the investigation of the case. Under the principle of "one country, two systems", any person who is in breach of the laws of Hong Kong will be subject to sanction under the legal system of Hong Kong in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong. Similarly, any person who is in breach of the laws of the Mainland will be subject to sanction under the legal system of the Mainland in accordance with the laws of the Mainland. As such, any persons, wherever they go, should abide by local rules so as to prevent themselves from contravening the law inadvertently.
The duration of detention by the Mainland public security authorities during the process of establishing a case for investigation, making an arrest and sending a person to the People's Court for prosecution is governed by the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. However, the duration of detention is subject to factors such as the seriousness and difficulty of gathering evidence of the case. If the Hong Kong resident who is being detained or his family requests to reflect his views to the relevant Mainland authorities, the HKSAR Government will reflect the request of the subject or his family to the relevant Mainland authorities via the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau.
On June 20, the Chief Executive (CE), while meeting the media regarding the incident of a bookstore in Causeway Bay, clearly stated that he attached great importance to the case and understood the concern of the community. He stated that he had made three decisions: First, he would write to the Central Authorities on June 20 to express the concern of Hong Kong people over this case; secondly, the Hong Kong people should observe the local laws when they are in the Mainland or other places. If a person from Hong Kong in the Mainland contravenes the laws of the Mainland, a notification mechanism has been in place between the HKSAR Government and the Mainland. The HKSAR Government will review the arrangements under the notification mechanism with a view to improving the notification time frame and its transparency, so as to facilitate the HKSAR Government's early understanding of the situation of the Hong Kong people concerned, so that the Government could inform his family as soon as possible and ensure his personal safety and protect his rights under the law, as well as provide practicable assistance. Thirdly, if necessary, the CE would dispatch government officials to the Mainland to follow up on the above decisions.
The Central Authorities attaches great importance to HKSAR Government's recommendation of improving the notification mechanism. In the reply to the HKSAR Government on June 27, the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council (HKMAO) agrees to commence discussion. On July 5, the Secretary for Justice, the Secretary for Security, Acting Commissioner of Police, Director of Immigration and Commissioner of Customs and Excise met with the Mainland authorities including the Ministry of Public Security and the HKMAO in Beijing for initial discussion with a view to improving the notification mechanism. Both sides agreed that under the guiding principle of "one country, two systems", they would steadfastly act in accordance with the law, protect human rights, identify common and mutually beneficial grounds, and maintain mutual support. The two sides will continue the discussion in accordance with these principles and focus on revising and perfecting various aspects of the notification mechanism, including its timeframe, content, scope and channel, so as to better protect the lawful rights of residents of both sides, tackle cross border crimes, and maintain prosperity and stability of the societies.
Ends/Wednesday, July 6, 2016
Issued at HKT 17:38
NNNN
