| Subject: My letter to the Sec. of Security |
Author:
Kaman
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 18:12:42 02/13/01 Tue
I'd like to share with you my letter to the Sec. of Security, as well as my views to the matter of suppression of freedom:
Dear Secretary for Security (Mrs. Ip),
I'd like to express my concern about your recent comment on Fa Lun Kung. I'm writing to you because I had always believed that the job of the Secretary for Security is to protect the people, their properties and their basic human rights in Hong Kong in accordance to the law of Hong Kong,
please correct me if I'm wrong on this. In addition, I suppose you may also have the duty to aid with implementing parameters on the execution process of the law.
I've noticed your comment on Fa Lun Kung a couple of days ago about some of their members being beaten up by some pedestrians. According to the newspapers, you said that their nuisance to the pedestrians might have triggered such violence against them. As with many people, my impression of your highly publicized comment is that you agree that the nuisance was so bad, making the violence sort of understandable.
While you might have the authority to judge/ comment on a case as such, I'd advise for the Security Bureau to keep its figure in the executive fashion. Judgemental comments is rather appropriate to be made by the judicial personnel. Your comment on Fa Lun Kung had not only caused local groups' feelings of their rights being unjustly threatened, but had also caused international concerns about Hong Kong's adminstrative independence from the
mainland -- I do think this result is an indication of a breach of duty on your part -- the arousal of feelings of being threatened (felt by a significant part of the population) by lawful authority is both ridiculous
and unecessary for a civilized city as Hong Kong.
Furthermore, I'd like to disagree with your implied meaning of Fa Lun Kung being a serious street nuisance to the public. According to the newspaper sources, those people practising Fa Lun Kung in front of the Mainland China
authorities' office were peacefully demonstrating, those people passing out flyers on the street were only passing out flyers in the same fashion as
does the other organizations. Their being of a registered organization in HK had also granted them the right to act as a group: what can possibly distinguish this group of Fa Lun Kung people from the other organizations? what can possibly distinguish this group of Fa Lun Kung people from the other citizens? what should distinguish this group of Fa Lun Kung people from the rest of the human kind?
I agree that it'd be reasonable for the Secretary for Security to be concerned of some groups that may place a threat to the general public. Yet, it'd definitely be wrong for the the Secretary to prejudge and suggest
the suppression of the group's acts as if it's already a threat. More importantly, it is actually the Security Bureau's duty to defend those people's rights -- their rights to speech, religion and assembly. The fact
that Fa Lun Kung's being considered a cult in mainland China, by the basic law, should have nothing to do with the Hong Kong administration. The fact that their political views are different from that of the central government
should not be used to preclude them from their basic rights, as it is their basic right to think independently and hold their own values. It is also not of the executive personnel's position to prompt the public on such matters; I think doing so is considerably a reckless act for political gain.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 