```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 65 (Friday, April 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5557-S5558]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    U.S.-HONG KONG POLICY ACT REPORT

 Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the March 31, 1995 report required by 
the U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act made some useful contributions to the 
historical record of Hong Kong's transition from a dependent territory 
of the United Kingdom to a special administrative region of the 
People's Republic of China. The report correctly assessed Governor 
Patten's highly touted legislative reforms as modest.
  The account given of threats to press freedoms was also important, in 
light of the People's Republic of China's recent actions against Hong 
Kong and other journalists. While the report included the case of Xi 
Yang, the Hong Kong reporter imprisoned inside mainland China for 
``stealing state financial secrets,'' it would have been appropriate 
for the report to have included the detail that the secrets were 
planned increases in interest rates and the sale of gold.
  Most important, the report expressed U.S. support for ``continued 
development of democratic institu- 
tions * * * and the conduct of free and fair elections after July 1.'' 
I hope the United States Government is making this position clear to 
the People's Republic of China in no uncertain terms.
  The report neglected to discuss a number of important developments 
which I highlight here because they are so critical to the future of 
the territory.
  Much as China's treatment of the press has had a chilling effect on 
Hong Kong journalists, the People's Republic of China's harsh and 
arbitrary treatment of businessmen is having pernicious effects in Hong 
Kong. The People's Republic of China frequently arrests, imprisons, and 
holds incommunicado, foreign businessmen--almost 20 in the past 3 
years--particularly those with whom People's Republic of China state-
owned enterprises have commercial disputes. For example, at the 
instigation of the People's Republic of China, James Peng, an 
Australian citizen, was arrested by Macau police and deported to 
Shenzen in Guandong Province. Mr. Peng's offense was that he won a 
legal battle to retain
 control of his company, a Sino-foreign joint venture listed on the 
Shenzen stock exchange. Another businessman, Zhang Guei-Xing, who holds 
an American green card, was jailed under horrific conditions in a 
detention camp in Zhengzhou for 2\1/2\ years. A Miami businessman, Troy 
McBride, has been detained in Anhui province since mid-March, his 
passport confiscated, because of a commercial dispute. In the People's 
Republic of China today, economic disputes have become economic crimes. 
Arrests, detention, and harassment of businessmen are just one more 
business practice. The ultimate goal is a settlement involving the 
surrender of property or other assets--in effect, a ransom payment.

  Hong Kong's Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] reports 
a sharp increase in corruption complaints as the People's Republic of 
China and Hong Kong markets become more intertwined. The People's 
Republic of China's treatment of businessmen, the absence of the rule 
of law, and the insidious spread of corruption from the mainland to 
Hong Kong, must be included in future U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act 
reports.
  The report's recognition of the lack of progress and even stalling on 
rule of law issues within the joint liaison group is also important. 
However, the report should have acknowledged that the role the joint 
liaison group has assumed in this transition period is contrary to the 
terms of the joint declaration, which expressly states that the 
 [[Page S5558]] joint liaison group is ``not an organ of power.'' Under 
the joint declaration's terms, Great Britain has the authority to 
govern Hong Kong until June 30, 1997.
  The People's Republic of China's manipulation of the joint liaison 
group is part of the People's Republic of China's 10-year pattern of 
reneging on its commitments under the joint declaration. 
Notwithstanding the recent public relations tour through the United 
States by Lu Ping, Beijing's top Hong Kong official, the People's 
Republic of China has repeatedly displayed its contempt for the joint 
declaration. Five years ago this week, in April 1990, Beijing codified 
significant deviations from the joint declaration in the basic law, the 
so-called miniconstitution for post-1997 Hong Kong that Beijing wrote 
and rubberstamped in its National People's Congress. The basic law 
subordinates the Hong Kong Legislature to the Beijing-appointed 
executive, and assigns the power of judicial interpretation to the 
standing committee of the National People Congress rather than to Hong 
Kong's judges. The basic law's provisions on the legislature may become 
moot however, since the People's Republic of China has promised or 
threatened to dismantle the Legco and Hong Kong's two other tiers of 
government.
  Beijing also threatens to abolish the Bill of Rights, enacted by the 
Legco in 1991 in reaction to the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and over 
the objections of the Hong Kong government. Finally, a high official of 
the Chinese supreme court has suggested that Beijing will replace Hong 
Kong's common law system, which is synonymous with individual rights 
and the rule of law within a civil law system. China's own civil law 
system is explicitly subordinated to the Communist Party.
  The status of plans for establishing a high court before 1997 is 
cause for concern as well, and here the report's brief treatment of the 
issue is troubling. The details of a Court of Final Appeal, to replace 
the Privy Council in London, as the territory's highest court were 
agreed to in the joint declaration. The U.S.-Hong Kong Policy Act 
report mistakenly accepts the 1991 agreement between the British 
Government of Hong Kong and China as a basis for the Hong Kong 
government's legislation implementing the court. The 1991 agreement 
explicitly violates the joint declaration and basic law. Accordingly, 
democratic legislators plan to amend it to bring it into accord with 
the joint declaration.
  I was surprised and disappointed that the report did not address two 
matters of tremendous significance in this transition period and to 
post-1997 Hong Kong. First, the report omitted any discussion of the 
Patten government's rejection of proposals by Hong Kong's democrats for 
an official human rights commission. Over the next 27 months, the 
commission cold define a human rights standard against which to judge 
the Hong Kong SAR government. The People's Republic of China's 
expressed hostility to independent and democratic government 
institutions after 1997 is an argument for moving full-speed ahead with 
a human rights commission and other institutional reforms, not for 
backing off.
  Also missing from the report was any mention of Great Britain's 
failure to report on human rights in the colony according to its 
obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political 
Rights.
  As 1997 draws near, there will be a greater need for accurate and 
timely reporting on developments in Hong Kong. There is also a need for 
a clearer recognition of the implications of the People's Republic of 
China's behavior for the people of Hong Kong. I look forward to future 
reports and hope that, in the intervals between reports, my colleagues 
in the United States. Congress and other friends of Hong Kong will pay 
close attention to the statements and actions of the Beijing and Hong 
Kong governments. Above all, there must be more attention to the voices 
and concerns of the Hong Kong people.

                          ____________________
```