***Update to Action Alert dated 6 January 1995*** On 17 January 1995, B. J. Bresnihan, Secretary for Security at the Hong Kong Government Secretariat wrote to the WiPC headquarters in London, on behalf of Governor Christopher Patten to whom PEN had written about its concerns for over 30 Vietnamese writers and journalists who are in […]
***Update to Action Alert dated 6 January 1995***
On 17 January 1995, B. J. Bresnihan, Secretary for Security at
the Hong Kong Government Secretariat wrote to the WiPC
headquarters in London, on behalf of Governor Christopher Patten
to whom PEN had written about its concerns for over 30 Vietnamese
writers and journalists who are in danger of imminent
repatriation. Mr. Bresnihan referred to a previous letter sent to
the Hong Kong (English-speaking) PEN centre, saying that he had
nothing to add to this text, and enclosed the names of seven
writers and journalists on PEN’s list who had either been
repatriated, or granted refugee status.
With reference to PEN’s request for a review of the status of the
writers and journalists who are among those seeking asylum in
Hong Kong, Mr. Bresnihan replied “…The Hong Kong Government has
completed the screening of the Vietnamese migrant population. It
has been a costly and time-consuming process and there can be no
question of it being reopened. We stand by the decisions made and
I fear that we cannot agree to freeze the repatriation of any
Vietnamese who have been determined to be non-refugees. However,
there are existing safeguards to ensure that no one who is of
concern to the UNHCR is repatriated on an orderly Repatriation
Programme flight.” (The UNHCR can, in exceptional cases, order a
Mandate of Review which may recommend a reversal of a decision to
repatriate an individual. Positive recommendations are, however,
rare.)
In response to PEN’s requests that the Vietnamese government be
urged to provide stronger guarantees that no person repatriated
to Vietnam will be punished for their writings either in Vietnam
or abroad, Mr. Bresnihan replied “The Vietnamese have given
guarantees of non-persecution of the migrants who return home.
Those guarantees have been honoured. 62,000 Vietnamese have gone
back to Vietnam since 1989 and there has not been a single
substantiated case of persecution. In the circumstances, a call
on the Vietnamese authorities [to provide additional guarantees]
appears both unnecessary and unwarranted.”
UNHCR monitors based in Vietnam who oversee the situation of the
returnees do indeed report that no writer or journalist returned
to Vietnam appears to have been persecuted for their writings.
However, PEN has received unconfirmed reports from Vietnam which
suggest that returnees may have been placed under surveillance
and that they fear that they may be subject to reprisals once the
UNHCR monitors leave the country.
Mr. Bresnihan provided an update to the list of cases of concern
to PEN which was reproduced in the Action Alert of 6 January:
Dang Ngoc Giao was forcibly returned; Nguyen Van Thuyet, Dao
Nghat Bo, Le Hoai Nam, Le Minh Chien and Mac Dinh Tuan have
returned voluntarily; Hoang Xuan Loc was granted refugee status
and is in a transit centre in the Philippines.
The depth of the anxiety of the asylum seekers about their
imminent return to Vietnam is reflected in the reports of the
recent forcible repatriation of a Vietnamese writer from the High
Island camp earlier this month as reported by Hong Kong’s
“Eastern Express” on 16 January 1995. The newspaper reported the
use of 800 police and Correctional Services Department officers
in full riot gear who stormed the camp to remove 103 detainees
for forced repatriation. The security operation was initiated
after camp inmates had set fire to their dormitory huts and
stabbed a guard a few hours after being told of their imminent
repatriation. The threat of forced removal persuaded 98 of the
103 inmates to leave the camp without further protest. However,
by the following morning, five detainees — writer Ly Quang Thuy,
his wife and two children, and an unidentified woman — had
refused to leave. This led to what the “Eastern Express”
described as a “four hour standoff with security forces as riot
troops were gathered, helicopters shuttled in and out and the
media massed on a dam wall above High Island.”
Photographers followed Ly Quang Thuy as he climbed onto a
perimeter fence and spent two hours clinging onto the razor wire
“in a sad and hopeless gesture of resistance.” By 3pm, the
newspaper reports, 50 busloads of security officers armed with
teargas and batons took up positions at the camp’s entry points.
“The realization that this small army had come only for them
shattered what remaining resolve the five possessed and within
minutes they gathered their belongs and left for the ride to
Victoria Prison.” There they await repatriation.
Mr. Bresnihan is quoted by the newspaper as saying that, “The
deployment of force was very effective in the achievement of our
objectives…. I can only surmise they saw the trucks coming over
the wall and changed their minds.” He added that the next forced
repatriation will take place in early March.
Although not known to International PEN prior to this incident,
Ly Quang Thuy is said to be a dissident writer who fled Vietnam
in 1989 after serving a prison term for political activities.
Such heavy handed tactics were widely criticised by refugee
workers who say that forced repatriations should never be
required, believing that refugees can be convinced to return
voluntarily. Pam Baker, a lawyer working with the Vietnamese
refugees said, “It is a very sad day when you have hundreds of
police coming to get five terrified people.”
The Hong Kong (English-speaking) Centre of International PEN is
currently carrying out research within the Hong Kong detention
camps on claims by detained writers and journalists that they
will face persecution if returned.
