VZCZCXRO1161
OO RUEHCN RUEHGH
DE RUEHHK #2513/01 1670840
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 160840Z JUN 06
FM AMCONSUL HONG KONG
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 7327
INFO RUEHOO/CHINA POSTS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 HONG KONG 002513 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR EAP AND EAP/CM 
NSC FOR DENNIS WILDER 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/16/2031 
TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL PINR CH HK
SUBJECT: DEMOCRATIC PARTY RESISTS REVEALING MEMBERSHIP 
 
REF: HONG KONG 2211 
 
Classified By: E/P SECTION CHIEF SIMON SCHUCHAT; REASONS 1.4 (B, D) 
 
¶1. (C) Summary:  The Democratic Party (DP) is the only one of 
Hong Kong's four largest political parties which has failed 
to comply with a long-existing but only recently publicized 
legal requirement to release its membership roster.  While 
the DP initially announced that it would publish its list on 
June 1, it subsequently reversed its position and requested a 
judicial review of the requirement by the Department of 
Justice (DOJ).  If that appeal is unsuccessful, then the DP 
promises to move the issue to the courts for resolution.  The 
Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor is supporting the DP's 
position, arguing that the disclosure requirement not only 
will inhibit the development of political parties, but also 
could adversely affect other groups of a sensitive nature, 
such as human rights activists, and more generally infringe 
on freedom of association.  The DOJ has promised that it will 
give "urgent consideration" to the DP's request for a legal 
review, and expects to reach a decision before the end of 
June.  In the interim, however, the DP may remain liable for 
prosecution for failure to comply with the law.  Both the DP 
and the Civic Party, which already has released its 
membership roster, have called on the Government to enact 
legislation specifically designed to regulate political 
parties, but the Constitutional Affairs Bureau claims that 
"now is not the right time" for new legislation in this area. 
 In the case of the DP, in addition to the legal and human 
rights principles involved, the reluctance to comply with the 
legal requirement stems from long-standing fears, compounded 
by recent reports of attempted infiltration and bribery, that 
mainland officials would use their membership information to 
pressure or intimidate DP members.  End Summary. 
 
Democrats Hold Out 
------------------ 
 
¶2. (SBU) Since the eruption of the political party membership 
list issue in March (ref), three of Hong Kong's four major 
parties -- first the Civic Party (CP) on May 19, then the 
Democratic Association for the Betterment and Progress of 
Hong Kong (DAB) and the Liberal Party (LP) shortly thereafter 
-- have, albeit reluctantly, released their membership lists. 
 As of June 16, only the Democratic Party (DP) has not 
complied with this legal requirement.  After first announcing 
that it would publish its list on June 1, the DP -- amid 
rumors that 10-12 of its more prominent members were 
reluctant to have their past or present membership made 
public -- then reversed its position and decided to contest 
the requirement.  Specifically, the party questioned whether 
application of Section 98 of the Companies Ordinance (CO), 
which mandates disclosure of members' names and addresses, to 
political organizations was consistent with the Basic Law. 
On June 1, the DP invoked Section 99 of the CO to close its 
membership register for thirty days while it sought 
governmental and/or judicial relief from the requirements of 
the ordinance. 
 
¶3. (C) On June 7, the DP announced that it would withhold the 
names of its members and seek a judicial review if the 
Government attempted to force it to comply with the law.  On 
June 8, DP Vice Chairman Albert Ho and several other DP 
representatives met with Solicitor General Robert Allcock to 
discuss whether the disclosure requirement was consistent 
with the protection of privacy and freedom of association. 
Ho characterized the CO as a commercial regulatory regime 
that was not appropriate for application to non-profit groups 
such as political parties and nongovernmental organizations; 
he suggested that the Government should waive political 
parties from the membership publication requirement.  Allcock 
told the DP representatives that the DOJ would examine the 
legal issues to determine if there were any human rights 
implications.  At the same time, however, Allcock told the DP 
that he could not guarantee that the DP would not face 
prosecution for refusal to disclose their list under existing 
law.  Non-compliance could result in a HKD 10,000 (USD 1,300) 
fine, plus HKD 300 (USD 40) for each additional day of 
violation.  The DP has said it would challenge any penalties 
in the courts, if necessary. 
 
Human Rights Monitor Weighs In 
------------------------------ 
 
¶4. (SBU) Also on June 8, Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor 
Director Law Yuk-kai entered the debate, telling the press 
that the disclosure requirement would infringe the 
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 
and could cause difficulty for some current DP members, deter 
 
HONG KONG 00002513  002 OF 003 
 
 
others from joining the party, and adversely affect the DP's 
development.  Law also claimed that the requirement would 
have an adverse affect on other groups of a sensitive nature, 
such as human rights activists, and in general infringe on 
freedom of association.  According to Law, political parties 
and other non-business organizations had little choice in 
this matter, since registration under the Societies Ordinance 
(SO) would be even more difficult.  (Note: The SO, which was 
enacted during Hong Kong's colonial era to control the 
formation of criminal groups such as triads, delegates 
considerable power to the Police Commissioner to monitor and 
interfere with the operations of organizations registered 
under it.  A society or group may be exempted from the SO's 
registration requirements only if it is established solely 
for religious, charitable, social, or recreational purposes; 
such requirements would exclude most politically active 
groups.) 
 
¶5. (C) On June 16, Director Law told poloff that in his view, 
neither the SO nor the CO was appropriate for political 
parties and NGOs.  Neither ordinance was "conducive to 
freedom of association" and these types of organizations were 
entitled to exemptions.  Law was critical of the CP's 
agreement to publish its membership list; he said the press 
leak of the names of most CP members caused the party, as a 
face-saving gesture, to claim they had "nothing to hide." 
Law also noted that numerous other countries, including the 
U.S., Canada , the U.K., Germany, France, Australia and New 
Zealand, did not mandate public disclosure of political party 
membership lists. 
 
Next Steps: Government Action 
----------------------------- 
 
¶6. (C) On June 14, Solicitor General Allcock told us that the 
DOJ would give "urgent consideration" to the DP's request for 
a legal review, and he expected his department to reach a 
decision before the end of June.  That said, however, Allcock 
noted that there might be a "prosecutorial question" if the 
Hong Kong Companies Registry formally requested a DOJ opinion 
on whether to prosecute the DP for failure to comply with the 
CO requirement to make its membership list available to the 
public.  If that were to happen, Allcock said the DOJ would 
be forced to issue a decision, after which he was certain the 
matter would land in the court system for adjudication. 
 
Next Steps: New Legislation 
--------------------------- 
 
¶7. (C) Both the DP and the CP have called on the Government 
to enact legislation specifically designed to regulate the 
establishment and operation of political parties.  According 
to CP legislator Margaret Ng, a legal framework that requires 
groups to meet standards of transparency, accountability and 
good governance is important for the continuing development 
of political parties in Hong Kong.  Allcock told poloff that 
he had passed the DP's request for a legislative solution to 
the "relevant bureaus" for consideration.  He noted, however, 
that this issue already had been discussed in Legco and that 
the Constitutional Affairs Bureau already had stated publicly 
that "now is not the right time" for the government to 
present new legislation in this area because it "may not be 
the best means of encouraging the development of new 
political parties."  Allcock, while claiming that Hong Kong's 
Companies Ordinance was similar to that of the U.K. and 
"difficult to fault," agreed that the law had not been 
intended to regulate political parties or other 
non-commercial organizations. 
 
Why Are the Democrats Nervous? 
------------------------------ 
 
¶8. (C) Some members of Hong Kong's two pro-government 
parties, the DAB and the LP, criticized the DP's reluctance 
to reveal its membership.  DAB Legco member Chan Kam-lan 
speculated that a political party, which "is not a triad", 
must have something to hide if it refuses to disclose its 
membership.  Less caustically, LP Chairman James Tien said 
his party did not support the DP's effort to amend 
legislation, although his colleague Miriam Lau observed that 
application of the CO to political parties was not 
appropriate. 
 
¶9. (C) The DP long has sought to keep its membership secret 
to avoid pressure on individual members from the mainland 
government, which the party fears might attempt to influence 
DP Legco members' votes and policy positions.  In recent 
months there have been press reports and rumors that 
unidentified people or organizations were attempting to 
 
HONG KONG 00002513  003 OF 003 
 
 
"infiltrate" the party, presumably to learn the identities of 
its members as well as to gain information about its 
operations and positions.  The DP formed a task force to 
investigate the issue but has not announced any findings. 
Also, in mid-May two senior party members experiencing 
"financial difficulties" reportedly were offered large sums 
of cash by mainland contacts. 
 
¶10. (C) The party leadership also might fear that the 
disclosure requirement could inhibit recruitment of new 
members, which has been anemic: a June 10 "South China 
Morning Post" article reported that four district councilors 
recently had resigned from the DP, bringing the total number 
of departures to 46 since January 2005, compared with 40 new 
members recruited during the same period.  (Party membership 
currently totals about 600.)  DP Secretary-General Cheung 
Yin-tung denied that there was an "exodus" from the party, 
claiming the departees had quit for "different reasons" but 
remained "friends in the path of democracy."  Finally, the 
Hong Kong press has speculated that there may be some top 
officials who joined the party out of "youthful idealism" 
when they were junior civil servants; even if they had since 
resigned, full disclosure as required by the CO would reveal 
their identities.  More concretely, the PRC long has banned 
DP leaders from travel on the mainland, and some of the 
members who are reluctant to have their membership become 
public information might be concerned about losing their 
mainland travel permits. 
Cunningham