Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Ratification: 1997)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to section 21(a) of the Prisons Ordinance (Cap. 234), under which any officer of the Correctional Services Department or other person employed in the prisons, who, after having duly engaged to serve as such, absents himself from his duties, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for six months (which involves an obligation to work).

The Committee notes the Government’s information that there have been no cases concerning the application of section 21(a) of the Prisons Ordinance.  The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of section 21(a) of the Prisons Ordinance in practice, supplying copies of the relevant court decisions, if available.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving the obligation to work as a punishment for expressing certain political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted the following legislative provisions, under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour, pursuant to section 38 of the Prison Rules) may be imposed in situations covered by Article 1(a) of the Convention:

• – printing, publishing, selling, distributing, importing, etc., of seditious publications or uttering seditious words (section 10 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200);
• – various violations of the prohibition on printing and publication (sections 18(i) and 20 of the Registration of Local Newspapers Ordinance, Cap. 268; regulations 9 and 15 of the News Agencies Registration Regulations, Cap. 268A; regulations 8 and 19 of the Newspaper Registration and Distribution Regulations, Cap. 268B; regulations 7 and 13 of the Printed Documents (Control) Regulations, Cap. 268C);
• – various contraventions of regulations of public meetings, processions and gatherings (sections 17A, 17B, 17E and 18 of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245).

The Committee noted that the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concern about the application in practice of certain terms contained in the Public Order Ordinance, such as “disorder in public places” (as provided for by section 17B) and “unlawful assembly” (as provided for by section 18), which may facilitate excessive restriction on civil and political rights. It also expressed concern about the increasing number of arrests of, and prosecutions against, demonstrators. The Committee also noted the Government’s indication that in August 2017 the Court of Appeal sentenced three persons to six–eight months’ imprisonment in relation to the mass demonstration in 2014 for inciting others to take part in an unlawful assembly, or for taking part in an unlawful assembly under section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance. While noting that the Government reiterated that freedom of the press, as well as freedom of opinion and expression are protected under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383), the Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that, both in law and in practice, no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed as a punishment for holding or expressing political views.

In its report, the Government indicates that the application of the Convention remains unchanged and that no modification in law and practice has been made. It also states that from 2017 to 2020, except under the Public Order Ordinance, no convictions were recorded under any other provisions mentioned above. According to the Government’s report, four defendants were convicted under section 17A of the Public Order Ordinance for organizing, participating and inciting others to take part in an unauthorized assembly and sentenced to immediate imprisonment from seven months to one year. In this case, the magistrate pointed out that, over 9,000 protestors besieged the Police Headquarters for more than 15 hours in an unauthorized assembly, posing a threat to the personal safety of those at the scene and at the same time causing serious disruption to the traffic for which penalties with deterrence were necessary. The Government also refers to the statement made by the Chief Justice of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal during the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2020, that “we see clear limits in the law to the exercise of rights. The enjoyment or insistence on one’s rights does not, for example, provide any excuse to harm other people or their property, or to display acts of violence”.

The Committee further notes that on 7 January 2021 the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) voiced deep concerns over the arrests of over 50 individuals under the new National Security Law of 2020. These latest arrests indicate that the offence of subversion under the National Security Law is indeed being used to detain individuals for exercising legitimate rights to participate in political and public life. The OHCHR and the UN independent human rights experts have repeatedly warned that offences such as subversion under the National Security Law, are vague and overly broad, facilitating abusive or arbitrary implementation (UNOHCHR, communication of 7 January 2021). The Committee also refers to its observation on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), in which it raises concerns in relation to the application of the National Security Law.

Referring to its General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, the Committee once again recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of “any form” of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The range of activities which must be protected from sanctions involving compulsory labour comprises the freedom to express political or ideological views (which may be exercised orally or through the press and other communications media), as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views. However, certain limitations may be imposed by law on these rights and freedoms, which must be accepted as normal safeguards against their abuse (paragraphs 302 and 303). The Committee considers that it is not necessary to use prison sentences involving compulsory labour to maintain public order. Nevertheless, the protection provided for by the Convention does not extend to persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence.

The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that, both in law and in practice, no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed or are imposed as a punishment for peacefully holding or expressing political views, by clearly restricting the scope of the provisions under the Public Order Ordinance, the relevant provisions of the National Security Law as well as the provisions under the Crime Ordinance and other regulations mentioned above, to situations connected with the use of violence, or by repealing penal sanctions involving compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on decisions issued under these provisions in order to assess their application in practice, indicating in particular the facts that gave rise to the conviction, and the penalties applied.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Article 1(c) of the Convention. Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to section 21(a) of the Prisons Ordinance (Cap. 234), under which any officer of the Correctional Services Department or other person employed in the prisons, who, after having duly engaged to serve as such, absents himself from his duties, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for six months (which involves an obligation to work). The Committee notes the Government’s repeated statement that there have been no cases concerning section 21(a) thus far. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of section 21(a) of the Prisons Ordinance in practice, supplying copies of the relevant court decisions, if available.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving the obligation to work as a punishment for expressing certain political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted the following legislative provisions, under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour, pursuant to section 38 of the Prison Rules) may be imposed:

• -printing, publishing, selling, distributing, importing, etc., of seditious publications or uttering seditious words (section 10 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200);
• -various violations of the prohibition on printing and publication (sections 18(i) and 20 of the Registration of Local Newspapers Ordinance, Cap. 268; regulations 9 and 15 of the News Agencies Registration Regulations, Cap. 268A; regulations 8 and 19 of the Newspaper Registration and Distribution Regulations, Cap. 268B; regulations 7 and 13 of the Printed Documents (Control) Regulations, Cap. 268C);
• -various contraventions of regulations of public meetings, processions and gatherings (section 17A of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245).

The Committee noted that, in its concluding observations regarding the report of Hong Kong, China, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concern about the application in practice of certain terms contained in the Public Order Ordinance, such as “disorder in public places” (as provided for by section 17B) and “unlawful assembly” (as provided for by section 18), which may facilitate excessive restriction on civil and political rights. It also expressed concern about the increasing number of arrests of, and prosecutions against, demonstrators.

The Committee notes the Government’s repeated statement in its report that freedom of the press, as well as freedom of opinion and expression are protected under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383). The Government once again indicates that no cases relating to the application of the Convention have been brought before the courts.

However, the Committee notes that, in its concluding observations of 3 February 2016, the UN Committee against Torture (CAT) expressed its concern at consistent reports of massive detentions of persons in the context of demonstrations and the alleged restriction to the detainees’ legal safeguards. According to the information provided by the Government to the CAT, 511 persons were arrested in connection with an assembly that followed an annual march on 1 July 2014 (CAT/C/CHN-HKG/CO/5, paragraph 12). The CAT also expressed its concern at consistent reports of excessive use of tear gas, batons and sprays against protesters during the 79-day protest of the so-called “umbrella” or “occupy” movement in 2014, as well as at consistent reports that police resorted to violence against more than 1,300 people, and around 500 were subsequently admitted to hospitals (paragraph 14).

The Committee also notes that, on 18 August 2017, a court decision was handed down against three persons in relation to the mass demonstration in 2014 for inciting others to take part in an unlawful assembly, or for taking part in an unlawful assembly under section 18 of the Public Order Ordinance. During the first instance, three defendants respectively received 80 hours’ community service, 120 hours’ community service and three weeks’ imprisonment with probation for one year. Upon the application of the Public Prosecutors for the review of the case, the Court of Appeal considered that the sentences of the first instance were inadequate and could not possibly reflect the gravity of the offences. It therefore sentenced the three defendants to 6–8 months’ imprisonment respectively.

The Committee once again recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, of persons who, without having recourse to violence, express political opinions or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It also points out that the protection conferred by the Convention is not limited to activities expressing or manifesting opinions diverging from established principles; even if certain activities aim to bring about fundamental changes in state institutions, such activities are covered by the Convention, as long as they do not resort to, or call for, violent means to these ends. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that, both in law and in practice, no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. In order to ascertain that the above provisions are not applied to acts through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on their application in practice, supplying copies of court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to section 21(a) of the Prisons Ordinance (Cap. 234), under which any officer of the Correctional Services Department or other person employed in the prisons, who, after having duly engaged to serve as such, absents himself from his duties, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for six months (which involves an obligation to work). The Committee notes the Government’s repeated statement that there have been no cases concerning section 21(a) thus far. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide, in its future reports, information on the application of section 21(a) of the Prisons Ordinance in practice, supplying copies of the relevant court decisions, if available.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Imposition of prison sentences involving the obligation to work as a punishment for expressing certain political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. For a number of years, the Committee has been referring to the following legislative provisions under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour, pursuant to rule 38 of the Prison Rules) may be imposed:

• – printing, publishing, selling, distributing, importing, etc., of seditious publications or uttering seditious words (section 10 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200);
• – various violations of the prohibition on printing and publication (sections 18(i) and 20 of the Registration of Local Newspapers Ordinance, Cap. 268; regulations 9 and 15 of the News Agencies Registration Regulations, Cap. 268A; regulations 8 and 19 of the Newspaper Registration and Distribution Regulations, Cap. 268B; regulations 7 and 13 of the Printed Documents (Control) Regulations, Cap. 268C);
• – various contraventions of regulations of public meetings, processions and gatherings (section 17A of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245).

The Committee notes the Government’s repeated statement that freedom of the press, as well as freedom of opinion and expression are protected under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383). The Government also indicates that no cases relating to the application of the Convention have been brought before the courts.

In this connection, the Committee notes that, in its concluding observations regarding the report of Hong Kong, China, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concern about the application in practice of certain terms contained in the Public Order Ordinance (e.g. “disorder in public places” or “unlawful assembly”), which may facilitate excessive restriction to civil and political rights. It also expressed concern about the increasing number of arrests of, and prosecutions against demonstrators. With regard to freedom of opinion and expression, the UN Committee expressed concern about reports that the country has seen a deterioration in media and academic freedom, including arrests, assaults and harassment of journalists and academics. (CCPR/C/CHN-HKG/CO/3, 29 April 2013, paragraphs 10 and 13).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, of persons who, without having recourse to violence, express political opinions or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope that appropriate measures will be taken with a view to bringing the above provisions into conformity with the Convention, either by limiting their scope to acts of violence or incitement to violence, or by replacing sanctions involving compulsory labour with other kinds of sanctions (e.g. fines), in order to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. In order to ascertain that the above provisions are not applied to acts through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on their application in practice, supplying copies of court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for expressing political views.  In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to certain legislative provisions under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour, in accordance with Rule 38 of the Prison Rules) may be imposed for the following offences:

–      printing, publishing, selling, distributing, importing, etc., of seditious publications or uttering seditious words (section 10 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200);

–      various violations of the prohibition of printing and publication (sections 18(i) and 20 of the Registration of Local Newspapers Ordinance, Cap. 268; regulations 9 and 15 of the News Agencies Registration Regulations, Cap. 268A; regulations 8 and 19 of the Newspaper Registration and Distribution Regulations, Cap. 268B; regulations 7 and 13 of the Printed Documents (Control) Regulations, Cap. 268C); and

–      various contraventions of regulations of public meetings, processions and gatherings (section 17A of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245).

The Committee notes the Government’s statement in the report that freedom of the press, as well as freedom of opinion and expression, is protected under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383), as well as the Government’s repeated indication that there have been no cases involving the application of the provisions referred to above.

While noting these indications, the Committee reiterates its hope that measures will be taken in order to bring these provisions into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, so as to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee again requests the Government to continue to supply information on the application of these provisions in practice, including copies of the relevant court decisions, if any.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline.  In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 21(a) of the Prisons Ordinance (Cap. 234), under which any officer of the Correctional Services Department or other person employed in the prisons, who, after having duly engaged to serve as such, absents himself from his duties, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for six months (which involves compulsory prison labour).

The Committee has noted the Government’s repeated indication in its reports that there have been no cases involving the application of section 21(a) so far. However, the Committee reiterates its hope that measures will be taken in order to bring this provision into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, so as to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed as a means of labour discipline. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee again requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of section 21(a) in practice, supplying copies of the relevant court decisions, if available.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

normal'>(notification: 1997)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Punishment for expressing political views. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the following legislative provisions under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour, in accordance with rule 38 of the Prison Rules) may be imposed:

–      printing, publishing, selling, distributing, importing, etc., of seditious publications or uttering seditious words (section 10 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200);

–      various violations of the prohibition of printing and publication (sections 18(i) and 20 of the Registration of Local Newspapers Ordinance, Cap. 268; regulations 9 and 15 of the News Agencies Registration Regulations, Cap. 268A; regulations 8 and 19 of the Newspaper Registration and Distribution Regulations, Cap. 268B; regulations 7 and 13 of the Printed Documents (Control) Regulations, Cap. 268C);

–      various contraventions of regulations of public meetings, processions and gatherings (section 17A of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245).

The Committee notes the information concerning the application in practice of section 17A(3)(b)(i) of the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245), provided by the Government in its report, as well as the Government’s repeated indication that there have been no cases that would involve offences under other provisions referred to above.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It also refers in this connection to paragraph 154 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, where it observed that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence; but sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision.

The Committee expresses the hope that, in the light of the above explanations, measures will be taken in order to bring the above provisions into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, so as to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed as a punishment for holding or expressing political views. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to continue to supply information on the application of these provisions in practice, including copies of court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

Article 1(c). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to section 21(a) of the Prisons Ordinance, Chapter 234, which lays down penalties for misconduct and provides that any officer of the Correctional Services Department or other person employed in the prisons, who after having duly engaged to serve as such absents himself from his duties, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for six months (which involves compulsory prison labour).

While having noted the Government’s repeated indication that there have been no cases involving the application of section 21(a) so far, the Committee expresses the hope that measures will be taken in order to bring this provision into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice, so as to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed as a means of labour discipline. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of section 21(a) in practice, supplying copies of the relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its earlier comments, and in particular, the Government’s indications concerning the application in practice of sections 20, 30 and 33 of the Telecommunications Ordinance (Cap. 106), as well as clarifications concerning the right to strike, including the Government’s statement that the labour legislation in the HKSAR contains no provisions according to which a strike may be declared illegal. The Committee has also noted the Police (Discipline) Regulations (Cap. 232A), Customs and Excise Service (Discipline) Rules (Cap. 342B) and other pieces of legislation containing disciplinary provisions in the disciplined services, communicated by the Government with its report.

1. Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee previously noted the following legislative provisions under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour, in accordance with Rule 38 of the Prison Rules) may be imposed:

-  printing, publishing, selling, distributing, importing, etc. of seditious publications or uttering seditious words (section 10 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200);

-  various violations of the prohibition of printing and publication (sections 18(i) and 20 of the Registration of Local Newspapers Ordinance, Cap. 268; regulations 9 and 15 of the News Agencies Registration Regulations, Cap. 268A; regulations 8 and 19 of the Newspaper Registration and Distribution Regulations, Cap. 268B; regulations 7 and 13 of the Printed Documents (Control) Regulations, Cap. 268C);

-  various contraventions of regulations of public meetings, processions and gatherings (section 17A of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245).

The Committee notes the information concerning the application in practice of section 17A(3)(b)(i) of the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245), provided by the Government in its report, as well as the Government’s indication that there have been no prosecution or enforcement actions under other provisions referred to above. Recalling that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system, the Committee requests the Government to continue to supply information on the application of these provisions in practice, including copies of court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, in order to enable the Committee to assess their compliance with the Convention.

Article 1(c). 2. The Committee has noted the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Passenger Ships - Training) Regulation, Chapter 478AE, made under section 134(6) of the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) Ordinance. It would appreciate it if the Government would continue to supply, in its future reports, information on any other regulations made under the Ordinance, which might prescribe offences in respect of contraventions to the regulations punishable with imprisonment for a period of up to two years, as laid down in section 134(6) of the Ordinance.

3. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that section 21(a) of the Prisons Ordinance, Chapter 234, lays down penalties for misconduct and provides that any officer of the Correctional Services Department or other person employed in the prisons, who after having duly engaged to serve as such absents himself from his duties, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for six months (which involves compulsory prison labour). It requested the Government to indicate any measures taken or envisaged regarding this section to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour are being imposed as a means of labour discipline. Noting the Government’s indication that there have been no cases involving the application of section 21(a) so far, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of this section in practice, supplying copies of relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its previous direct request.

1. Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee notes the following legislative provisions under which penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour, in accordance with Rule 38 of the Prison Rules) may be imposed, namely:

-  printing, publishing, selling, distributing, importing, etc., of seditious publications or uttering seditious words (section 10 of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200);

-  various violations of the prohibition of printing and publication; sections 18(i) and 20 of the Registration of Local Newspapers Ordinance, Cap. 268; regulations 9 and 15 of the News Agencies Registration Regulations, Cap. 268 sub. leg. A; regulations 8 and 19 of the Newspaper Registration and Distribution Regulations, Cap. 268 sub. leg. B; regulations 7 and 13 of the Printed Documents (Control) Regulations, Cap. 268 sub. leg. C);

-  various contraventions of regulation of broadcasting and telecommunications services (section 5 of the Broadcasting Ordinance, Cap. 562; section 20 and section 30, read in conjunction with section 33, of the Telecommunications Ordinance, Cap. 106); and

-  various contraventions of regulations of public meetings, processions and gatherings (section 17(A) of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap. 245).

The Committee recalls that Article 1(a) of the Convention prohibits the use of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It therefore requests the Government to provide information on the application of the above provisions in practice, including information as to whether the provisions have been enforced and copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, and on any measures taken or contemplated in order to ensure the observance of the Convention in this regard.

2. Article 1(c). The Committee notes the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Disciplinary Offences on Board Ships) Regulation made under sections 107 and 134 of the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) Ordinance. It hopes that the Government will supply, in its future reports, information on any other regulations made under the Ordinance, which might prescribe offences in respect of contraventions to the regulations punishable with imprisonment for a period of up to two years, as laid down in section 134(6) of the Ordinance.

3. The Committee previously noted that section 21(a) of the Prisons Ordinance, Chapter 234, lays down penalties for misconduct and provides that any officer of the Correctional Services Department or other person employed in the prisons, who after having duly engaged to serve as such absents himself from his duties, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for six months (which involves compulsory prison labour). It requested the Government to indicate any measures taken or envisaged regarding this section to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour are being imposed as a means of labour discipline. The Committee has noted the explanations provided by the Government concerning the application of section 21(a) and certain provisions of the Prison Rules governing disciplinary proceedings. It requests the Government to provide information on the application of section 21(a) in practice, supplying copies of relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

4. The Committee has noted the Public Service (Administration) Order, as amended, supplied by the Government with its report. According to section 6, this Order is without prejudice to any law providing for the punishment of officers by the Chief Executive or any other officer or authority. The Committee requests the Government to supply copies of any such laws with its next report.

5. Article 1(d). The Committee previously noted the provision of article 27 of the Basic Law, according to which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region residents shall have the right and freedom to strike. The Government indicates in its report that adequate protection has been accorded to employees with regard to the right and freedom to strike. The Committee again requests the Government to supply a copy of the legislation regulating the right to strike. Please also indicate whether there are provisions according to which a strike may be declared illegal and what sanctions are applicable to participants in illegal strikes.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee has taken note with interest of the Government's first report on the application of the Convention.

1. Article 1(a) of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report, with regard to persons coming within the purview of Article 1(a) of the Convention, that these persons are not and will not be subjected to forced or compulsory labour in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The Committee would appreciate it if the Government would supply copies of the laws governing the press, assemblies, meetings and demonstrations.

Article 1(c)

2. The Committee notes that under section 107(1) of the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) Ordinance, the Secretary for Economic Services may make regulations to impose fines on seafarers committing disciplinary offences. The Committee also notes that under section 134(6) of the same Ordinance, any regulations made under this Ordinance may prescribe offences in respect of contravention to the regulations, and may provide for the imposition in respect of any such offence of imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years. The Committee requests the Government to supply copies of any regulations made under section 107(1) and 134(6) of the Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) Ordinance.

3. The Committee notes that section 20C of the Prisons Ordinance, Chapter 234, regulates offences against discipline by Chief Officers, subordinate officers and other persons employed in the prisons and provides that if one of the abovementioned persons commits or is charged with a disciplinary offence, the matter shall be investigated and the officer or person concerned, dealt with in the appropriate manner provided under the Prisons Ordinance or in the rules made under section 25. Section 25(1)(c) and (d) of the Prisons Ordinance regulate the power of the Chief Executive in Council to make rules, inter alia, for the duties and conduct of the officers of the Correctional Services Department and other persons employed in the prisons and hostels and for the acts which shall be disciplinary offences on their part. The punishments provide for disciplinary offences under section 25(1)(d) include, inter alia, performance of extra duty. According to section 25(2), any rule made under the Ordinance may provided that contravention thereof shall be an offence, and may provide that such an offence be punished with imprisonment of up to six months.

The Committee also notes that section 21(a) of the Prisons Ordinance, Chapter 234 lays down penalties for misconduct and provides that any officer of the Correctional Services Department or other person employed in the prisons, who after having duly engaged to serve as such absents himself from his duties, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for six months.

The Committee further notes that rules 247(b), 248(b)(vii), 254(a)(vii) and (b) and 255 of chapter 243A of the Prison Rules provide for the imposition, by the Superintendent, the Commissioner and the Governor, of extra duties as a punishment of a Chief Officer, subordinate officer or other persons employed in the prisons who are found guilty or plead guilty to a disciplinary offence.

Referring to paragraph 110 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced or compulsory labour, the Committee recalls that the Convention does not protect persons responsible for breaches of labour discipline that impair or are liable to endanger the operation of essential services or which are committed either in the exercise of functions that are essential to safety or in circumstances where life or health are in danger. However, in such cases there must exist an effective danger, not mere inconvenience. Furthermore, the workers concerned must remain free to terminate their employment by reasonable notice.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or envisaged regarding section 21(a) of the Prisons Ordinance and the abovementioned rules of the Prisons Rules to ensure that no sanctions involving compulsory labour are being imposed as a means of labour discipline. It also requests the Government to indicate any further rules, not included in the Prisons Rules, that may have been made under section 25(2) of the Prisons Ordinance, insofar as they provide for the punishment of disciplinary offences by persons employed in the prisons.

4. The Committee also requests the Government to supply a copy of the Public Service (Administration) Order.

5. Article 1(d). The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that exaction of forced or compulsory labour is not and will not be used as a punishment for having participated in strikes and that article 27 of the Basic Law provides that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region residents shall have the right and freedom to strike. The Committee would appreciate it if the Government would supply a copy of the legislation regulating the right to strike.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes the indication by the Government in its report that the proposed Hong Kong Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) Bill is expected to be enacted in early 1991, and that the proposed legislation contains no provisions similar to those in sections 221 to 225 of the United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as applied to Hong Kong, and will in effect repeal those sections. It also notes that in practice, as far as the record can be ascertained, the provisions of sections 221 to 225 of the 1894 Act have never been invoked. The Committee hopes that merchant shipping legislation will thus soon be brought into conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will indicate the measures taken.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes with interest the indication by the Government in its report that the proposed Hong Kong Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) Ordinance is in its final drafting stage, and that the proposed legislation contains no provisions similar to those in sections 221 to 225 of the United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as applied to Hong Kong, and will in effect repeal those sections. It also notes that in practice, as far as the record can be ascertained, the provisions of sections 221 to 225 of the 1894 Act have never been invoked. The Committee hopes that merchant shipping legislation will thus soon be brought into conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will indicate the measures taken.