Members present the president the honourable andrew wong wang-fat, O. B. E., J. P
Download 0.94 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- PRESIDENT
- Demonstrations 4. MR TSANG KIN-SHING
- SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: I do not think my question has been answered. Are these convictions for drug peddling or drug trafficking or are they for something else like keeping improper records? SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, they were primarily convictions related to the question of safekeeping of controlled drugs and record keeping. DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, a point of clarification. I do not think my question has been answered. PRESIDENT: Could you state your question again, Dr LEONG? DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: The question is, how many doctors or black sheep of the medical profession were actually convicted on drug peddling or drug trafficking in the last five years, through abuse, using their rights? SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Under the relevant ordinance, doctors have a right to possess and prescribe dangerous drugs. The question of abuse is not primarily addressed by legal access to the courts, rather it is primarily addressed by the disciplinary actions of the Medical Council. MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): Mr Fred LI has just mentioned the so-called "doctor of the pills". I have heard that in some cases a doctor can sell up to 100 000 pills. If each pill is priced at $20, the annual turnover will be to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. That certainly far exceeds the normal income that may be derived from medical consultation. Will the Government look into the territory-wide situation to see whether pills imported through normal channels are increasing unreasonably? If so and if the Government is monitoring the situation, will it consider exercising stricter control over the licensing of the sale of these drugs, or even enlisting assistance from the medical sector for the identification of alternative drugs that may substitute those drugs which may be easily used as psychedelic drugs? SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): The Department of Health has been, in addition to undertaking their normal work, keeping an eye on the quantities of drugs imported into the territory in order to investigate whether there are pharmacies which are purchasing extraordinarily large quantities of drugs or whether there are doctors who are purchasing large quantities of drugs from pharmacies. If such cases are detected, the Department of Health will pay special attention to these cases and will then proceed to investigate. As to whether there are other psychotropic drugs which may substitute a certain category of psychotropic drugs, I do not think that I am in a position to answer since I am not a medical practitioner. Demonstrations 4. MR TSANG KIN-SHING asked (in Cantonese): Mr President, on 28 September this year, a small group of demonstrators held a demonstration at Kai Lok Temporary Housing Area to protest against the Government’s delay in clearing some Temporary Housing Areas. Another group staged a peaceful demonstration at the Convention and Exhibition Centre on 29 September protesting against the attendance of guests at the People’s Republic of China National Day reception. During both demonstrations, the demonstrators were held back unreasonably by the police, resulting in conflicts between the demonstrators and the police. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council: (a) how many members of the police force were mobilized to maintain order on these two occasions; and what were the criteria adopted by the police to deploy its manpower; (b) what legal basis the police have in stopping demonstrators from staging peaceful demonstrations, and whether the police have taken into account the right granted to the public under the Bill of Rights Ordinance when taking such action; (c) whether appropriate internal disciplinary actions will be taken by the authority concerned against the police for using force on the scene against demonstrators staging peaceful demonstrations; and (d) whether the Police Force and the Security Branch will conduct internal reviews on how to avoid using force against demonstrators in the light of the experience gained from these two incidents? SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Mr President, there are four parts in this question and I shall answer them in turn. (a) 59 police officers were deployed on traffic and crowd control duties at Kai Lok Temporary Housing Area on 28 September, with 41 officers stood by in the vicinity on reserve. 63 police officers were deployed to maintain order outside the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre on 29 September, and 164 officers stood by in the vicinity on reserve. The number of police officers deployed in crowd control and the maintenance of public order vary according to the nature and location of the event, the size and the mood of the crowds, and the circumstances of each case. The objective is to prevent any possible breach of the peace, to protect property, to ensure the safety of demonstrators, police officers, and other members of the public, while at the same time allow the public to express their views peacefully and freely. (b) The police have a general power under section 6(b) of the Public Order Ordinance to control and direct the conduct of all public gatherings and specify the route by which any public procession may pass. Under section 45 of the Ordinance, any police officer may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to overcome any resistence to the exercise of this and other powers conferred by the Ordinance. The police also have a duty under section 10 of the Police Force Ordinance to take lawful measures for preserving public peace, for regulating processions and assemblies in public places, and for controlling traffic on and removing obstructions from public thoroughfares. These provisions are consistent with Article 17 of the Bill of Rights which recognizes the right of peaceful assembly, while permitting restrictions on the exercise of that right which are in conformity with the law and which are necessary in the interests of, among other things, public safety or public order. (c) The police have so far received two complaints of assault by police officers during the two incidents. Since these two complaints are under investigation, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on them, as to do so could prejudice investigation of the complaints. I should add, in this context, that 10 police officers sustained injuries during these two incidents. (d) It is the normal practice for the police to conduct an internal review after each major operation. The experience of these two incidents will be taken into account in planning future operations. MR TSANG KIN-SHING (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Secretary has just said that the two cases that I mentioned are under investigation at the moment. Now I want to cite another example. On 25 October this year, we, a group short of 30 people, marched from Mong Kok to the New China News Agency. About five or six policemen accompanied us in the busy districts until our procession reached the Sogo Department Store. However, the police set up iron railings outside the entrance of the New China News Agency. Why did the police not set up iron railings outside the Sogo Department Store? What would we destroy? Is it that no one would be disturbed outside Sogo? I wonder to what extent the power of the police is. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): I do not want to comment directly on the particular incident referred to by the Honourable TSANG Kin-shing because he has not described what happened then when he raises this question. However, I want to point out a normal practice which is that the police have to maintain public order and protect public safety. Their purpose is not to prohibit or make it hard for the public to hold a peaceful assembly and to express their views. The goal of the police is to maintain our people's right to hold peaceful assemblies and enjoy the freedom of speech while at the same time protect others from being disturbed as well as ensure public and traffic safety. Our actions vary every time. In every incident, the police are authorized or they can use their discretion to decide under what circumstance they are to set up road blocks. MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I want to follow up on Mr TSANG's question about the iron railings. According to past experiences, conflicts are usually set off by the iron railings erected to block the demonstrators when the police are dealing with peaceful demonstrations. And yet, the police have different arrangements when dealing with demonstrations outside Government House and the New China News Agency. Iron railings are seldom set up at the back door of Government House while railing after railing is set up in front of the entrance of the New China News Agency to ward off demonstrators and many a time conflicts are hence triggered. Why do the police adopt a double standard when dealing with the question of iron railings and on what legal ground is this double standard based? Has the New China News Agency requested the police to set up iron railings itself or do the police offer their services and set up iron railings to tarnish the New China News Agency's image of being close to the people of Hong Kong? PRESIDENT: Mr CHEUNG, you are straying away from the original question. MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I do not agree with your ruling as I was following up on Mr TSANG Kin-shing's question. You allowed him to ask about the arrangements concerning the iron railings outside the New China News Agency and let the Secretary for Security answer him. So this question of mine is valid. If you did not allow Mr TSANG Kin-shing to raise that question, then this follow-up question of mine could be ruled out. PRESIDENT: It does not come under any one of the four limbs of the question, except perhaps part (d) which would be the subject of the internal review, if one is conducted by the Police Force. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: I will give a general answer to that question, Mr President. Obviously, the measure taken by the police to protect public order and to ensure public safety in each and every demonstration would depend on the situation at the time, the number of people involved, the mood of the crowd and the geographical conditions of the area of assembly. It is ridiculous to suggest that because different arrangements are made for different places of public assembly or protest, therefore there are different measures of protection. It really depends on the circumstances of the case. There are over 1 000 ─ in fact I believe there were 1 700 － public assemblies and processions last year. I would say over 99% of them took place without any problem whatsoever. It is only in very rare cases, when maybe emotions ran high, maybe for other reasons, some of the demonstrators decided to stray beyond what was needed, in the view of the Police Force, to keep public order and public safety. MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, in part (a) of his main reply, the Secretary has said that 164 policemen were deployed on the evening of 29 September. Would the Secretary tell us the pre-estimated turnout of demonstrators on that evening and the number of people who did participate in the demonstration? Moreover, it has been said at the end of part (a) that the objective of the police is to prevent any possible breach of the peace and protect property. In fact, in many of the past processions, it was the police who were paranoid and caused the confusion. They were not just paranoid about the demonstrators but also about reporters as well. Could I ask the Secretary whether there are ways to mitigate such paranoia of the police in future? Also, what is the Secretary's opinion with regard to the real disrupters of public order in the past incidents being neither the demonstrators nor the reporters but the police themselves? SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Mr President, what the Honourable LEUNG Yiu-chung has said sounds like a speech. I cannot quite make out whether he has raised a question or delivered a speech. Nevertheless, I will do my best to answer him. It is true that there were only 10 to 20 demonstrators outside the Convention and Exhibition Centre that evening but we should not forget that other than the demonstrators, there were tens of reporters, many pedestrians as well as the guests who attended the People's Republic of China National Day reception. They were between 1 000 and 2 000 in number. Moreover, Harbour Road is a two-way street with four lanes in either direction. In such a busy place with people and traffic, such a small number of policemen to maintain the order of the assembly already indicated a considerable measure of restraint. Mr LEUNG has said that there were over 100 policemen but I have already mentioned that the number of policemen deployed to maintain order outside the Centre was in fact smaller than that as some of them were only standing-by in the vicinity and would only enter the scene when the situation got out of hand. Finally, I absolutely disagree that the police's attitude was to ask for trouble in the past. They have always held the attitude that arrangements should be made to allow Hong Kong people to take full advantage of their rights of peaceful demonstration and expression. Nevertheless, this must be subject to the principle that the police have a statutory duty to protect public safety in the territory and to ensure the safety of lives, property and traffic. I reiterate that, out of the 1 000-odd public processions and demonstrations every year, over 99% of them have taken place without incident. Why is it that at some particular time and under some particular circumstances and when some particular people are involved, conflicts would occur between the police and the people? MR CHEUNG HON-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, one of the wonderful things about Hong Kong which should not be destroyed is that her citizens not only have the right to attend the National Day reception but also the right to participate in peaceful demonstrations staged against it. Mr TSANG Kin-shing has said that the clash was caused by the police's unreasonable disruption of the demonstrators' activities, giving us the feeling that the whole incident was provoked by the police. First, I want to ask the Secretary if this is true. Second, against similar processions and demonstrations, what criteria do the police adopt with regard to deployment and what is the size of the detachment involved? SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): I have already mentioned in the main reply that the police will conduct an internal review after each major operation and after reviewing this operation they have concluded that on the whole their deployment was appropriate. MR ANTHONY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, in part (a) of his main answer, the Secretary has said that the number of police officers deployed varies according to the nature and location of the event, and the size and mood of the crowds. In the demonstration this year, the police deployed a total of 227 officers. In fact, since 1989, demonstrations have been staged against the National Day celebration every year. What is the number of police officers deployed in the maintenance of public order as against the number of demonstrators each year? When summing up the past demonstrations, have the police learned anything which has proved helpful to their handling of this year's demonstration? SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): I have already indicated earlier that the police always conduct a review after each operation to see whether their actions have been appropriate in the hope that future operations will be carried out more properly. Everyone knows that demonstrations have been staged against the National Day reception almost every year in the past with incidents happening in several of them. Of course, we do not wish to see incidents happen. In the vicinity of the location of the reception there are many people. For the protection of the lives and property of these people and ensuring traffic safety, we must deploy sufficient police officers there to prevent any mishaps. Lastly, please allow me to say it once again that only 63 police officers were deployed to maintain order outside the Convention and Exhibition Centre and the other 164 only stood by in the vicinity on reserve. As far as the situation on that day was concerned, there was no need to mobilize these 164 officers. MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): In part (d) of his main reply, the Secretary has said that the police will conduct an internal review after each major operation. Can the Secretary table the results of the internal reviews of the two operations in question to this Council in due course for discussion by this Council or the Security Panel of this Council? Secondly, can the Secretary table the reports of the internal reviews on the demonstrations staged against the National Day reception every year after the June 4 incident to this Council? SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Mr President, the report of the police's internal reviews are not made public. But if Members of this Council would like to discuss these incidents in detail with the police or the Security Branch, they can of course bring up these topics in the meetings of the Security Panel. MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I want to ask about the incident at Kai Lok Temporary Housing Area on 28 September in which the Secretary has said that 59 police officers were deployed. As compared with the National Day reception, I believe that in terms of the size of the crowds or any other aspects, the Kai Lok incident was on a smaller scale, but the difference in the number of police officers deployed was only four. At the scene that day, there were many people to maintain order, including the security guards of the Housing Department itself and the police officers deployed there. Why should the Governor's inspection tour of a temporary housing area need such a big parade of policemen and security guards? On the other hand, the Governor used to receive petition letters and items handed in by the demonstrators and normally nothing happened afterwards. Did the police advise the Governor not to receive petition items which subsequently led to the clash? After this incident, have the police advised the Governor not to receive the petition items handed in by demonstrators in future? SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Mr President, Mr FUNG's suggestion of what happened at Kai Lok Temporary Housing Area that day is completely incorrect. Outside the Convention and Exhibition Centre, other than the onlookers and the photographers and reporters, there were about 10 to 20 protesters. But at Kai Lok Temporary Housing Area that day, the number of protesters at times reached 400 to 500. Secondly, the police have neither requested nor advised the Governor not to receive any petition letters in future. And the Governor would not do this either. MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Secretary has stressed in his reply that the police are to maintain order. He has also stressed that of all demonstrations in the past, 99% took place without confusion and order was well preserved while clashes only appeared in 1% of them. From past experience, does the Secretary agree that in the 99% well ordered demonstrations fewer policemen were deployed and fewer road blocks were set up while the confusion which arose out of the remaining 1% was simply the result of the setting up of road blocks and the paranoia of the police as described by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung as too many of them were involved in crowd control? Will the Government conduct a review in this respect and agree that the 99% well ordered demonstrations were the result of the absence of road blocks and the presence of fewer policemen? PRESIDENT: I am afraid that subject matter will have to be asked separately as a separate question, or set down for debate perhaps. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Perhaps I should stop talking about the number of policemen. Part (b) of the main question asks whether the police have taken into account the right vested in the public under the Bill of Rights Ordinance when taking actions but the Government's answer mainly refers to Article 17 of the Bill of Rights concerning the right of peaceful assembly. I hope to bring to the attention of the Secretary the judgment made by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in March 1994 regarding a Finn woman's law suit against the Government of Finland. It was ruled that a government must, other than taking note of the right of peaceful assembly as provided in Article 17, take note of the right to freedom of expression as stated in Article 16. The right of expression referred to in the judgment relates to matters such as the number of policemen or the measures they take to block the slogans of the demonstrators from reaching the ears of their target audience or the signs lifted by the demonstrators being so heavily surrounded by the police that others cannot see them, particularly at the very moment of the target audience's entry into the location of the reception. In that case, it is considered that the right of peaceful expression of opinion, that is Article 16 instead of Article 17, is breached. I want to ask whether the Security Branch and the police have referred to these latest international human rights cases, especially cases in the last two years, and taken appropriate measures with regard to respecting the right of peaceful expression of opinion? SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Mr President, as to whether foreign cases are applicable to Hong Kong, as I am not an expert of law, I do not intend to answer. But I just want to point out that the police always hold on to the principle of using the least force with the utmost tolerance in their operation. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, I just want to clarify that the judgment was not made by the Government of Finland internally but rather it was made basing on the International Covenant on Human Rights. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I do not think that was a question, it was a clarification by the Honourable James TO. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, my last question is: will the Government refer to such precedent cases on international human rights rather than other countries' internal precedent cases when considering how the demonstrators' right of expression is to be respected, that is, basing on Article 16 instead of Article 17, because part (b) of the main answer only refers to Article 17. PRESIDENT: Mr TO, if you insist on that point, I am afraid it will also have to be set down as a separate question. And in fact, it might even be asking for a legal opinion as to whether or not such action conforms with Article 16 of the Bill of Rights, which would be against the Standing Orders. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, I was asking whether these precedent cases would be referred to, instead of asking the Secretary whether he considered those cases were correctly decided. PRESIDENT: It will have to be taken as a separate question. MR CHENG YIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I am one of the guests who have been regularly invited to the National Day receptions. Once, when I was on my way to the reception, I was chased by demonstrators over a few streets and was holed up in Windsor House for half an hour before I finally resorted to calling the police to set me free. I want to ask the Secretary how the Government can ensure the safety of the guests who attend the reception. Download 0.94 Mb. Share with your friends:
|