另外，中央政府駐香港聯絡辦公室警務聯絡部在2008年10月3日回覆香港入境處有關核實「Wang XingXiang」是否內地居民的信件裡寫道：「經我內地公安機關核實，貴方要求協查的人員Wang XingXiang確係內地居民。我方認為，此人有使用虛假出入境證件及套用他人身份獲取外國護照從事非法活動的嫌疑。」信中所指只是憑拼音「Wang XingXiang」來證明是內地居民，試問內地公安如何可以只單憑拼音來核實身份？在中國內地或其他地方都有可能有成千上萬的人的名字是這個拼音，何以內地公安可以肯定單憑拼音就能核實是內地居民的身份？
25 July 2011
UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Will Discuss Former June 4th Student Leader’s Case,
Zhou Yongjun’s Lawyers Respond to Chinese Government’s Reply to the UN Working Group
Former June 4th student leader Zhou Yongjun entered Hong Kong in September 2008 and he was later taken back to the mainland authorities by Hong Kong immigration. He was imprisoned to nine years’ imprisonment on fraud charges in January 2010. His case caught the eyes of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which will have a meeting to discuss the case on 29 August. Zhou Yongjun’s US lawyer Li Jinjin and Hong Kong lawyer Albert Ho will submit their legal advice to the working group in response to the Chinese government’s reply that China was a country of the rule of law and Zhou Yongjun’s rights were protected according to Chinese laws.
When Zhou Yongjun entered HK through Macau in September 2008, he was using a Malaysian passport with the name of Wang XingXiang. There was no written evidence in the information provided by the Commercial Crime Bureau of the Hong Kong Police and the Hong Kong Immigration Department that Zhou had ever told the immigration or the police he was originally from mainland China and his real name. Therefore, for what reason the immigration could bring him over to the Shenzhen public security? According to the available record, there is no indication whether that Zhou had any consent (expressed or implied) that he would be sent over the border and handed to Shenzhen public security. It is totally inconceivable that if Zhou had given such consent, the officials handling the matter would have omitted to record it.
On the other hand, the Central Government’s Police Liaison Office in Hong Kong wrote in a reply to the Hong Kong Immigration Department’s enquiry about verification of identity of “Wang XingXiang: “After the verification by our mainland public security departments, Wang XingXiang, the person you requested for verification of identity, is a mainland resident. We believe this person is suspected to have used a forged immigration document and used another person’s identity to obtain a foreign passport to conduct illegal activities.” According to what was written in the letter, the mainland public security only relied on the pinyin of the name “Wang XingXiang” to verify that he was a mainland resident. How could the mainland public security merely rely on pinyin to verify a person’s identity? There might be tens of thousands of people in mainland China and elsewhere whose names might have the same pinyin of “Wang XingXiang”. How could the mainland public security be so certain that they could verify that the person was a mainland resident simply based on the pinyin of his name?
Zhou was carrying the fake passport with the name of Wang Xingxiang when he entered Hong Kong. If he was discovered to be carrying a fake passport by the immigration officers in Hong Kong, why didn't the Immigration Department in Hong Kong follow its usual practice of either sending the concerned person to the place when he has just arrived from, in this case Macau, or sending him back to his place of origin? Zhou was holding a US green card and was about to get the US citizenship in one week at that time. Logically, he could be sent back to the US if he had revealed his real identity. But as he didn't reveal his real identity, why could the Immigration Department decide to send him over to the mainland Chinese authorites? It's against the usual practice as above mentioned.
The alleged offense was a fraud case concerning the Hang Seng Bank in Hong Kong. If the Commercial Crime Bureau of the Hong Kong Police suspected that Zhou, who was using the name of Wang Xingxiang with the fake passport, had committed the offense of deceiving the Hang Seng Bank in Hong Kong and if they had enough evidence, why didn't they charge him in Hong Kong? The case was ultimately heard in the Xiehong County People's Court in Sichuan but the alleged offense happened in Hong Kong. It thus raised the serious concern about whether the mainland court had jurisdiction to hear a case allegedly happened in Hong Kong. If it was considered appropriate, it might have serious implications about whether the judicial independence could be maintained in Hong Kong.
Letter from the secretary of UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to Zhou Yongjun's US lawyer Li Jinjin
Chinese government's reply to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (in Chinese only)
US lawyer Li Jinjin's written legal advice to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (in Chinese)
Letter from the Central Government's Police Liaison Department in Hong Kong to the Hong Kong Immigration Department in relation to verification of the identity of "Wang XingXiang"