1969年6月16日英国驻泰国大使致电香港总督说：最近，韩国驻泰国大使告诉他，柬埔寨当局最近释放了两名被关押一年多的韩国人Park Chung Hwan and Chae Kyu Chang（按：应该是朴某和崔某）。韩国政府要韩国驻曼谷参赞Kim Dong Kun立刻带这两人回韩国，并已买好6月17日泰国曼谷至香港的TG 602航班机票和6月18日香港至首尔CX 400航班机票。这意味着他们将在香港停留一夜，韩国方面将给这两人颁发旅行证件，并请英方在上面加盖香港签证。至于打疫苗问题，如果这两人在柬埔寨金边尚未接种天花和霍乱疫苗的话，韩方将确保他们在泰国曼谷机场接种疫苗。英国大使回应说，如果他们不接种疫苗的话可能会被香港政府拒绝入境，或者即便允许入境也会被隔离起来。
6月17日上午11点10分港督回电英国驻泰国大使：港方不希望这两名韩国人在香港停留一晚，而且他们也没有必要啊，如果赶不上今天曼谷直飞首尔的TG 622次航班，可以等到6月19号搭乘同一班次的飞机啊？但如果他们确实将于今晚抵达香港，我们会把他们限制在机场内直至离境。
6月17日下午英国驻泰国大使致电港督解释说：韩国方面的要求是尽可能早把这两人送回韩国，所以只好在香港停留一晚。我已经向他解释说这两人会被限制在机场内，韩国大使说这样也比他们关在越共和柬埔寨的监狱里好。
6月25日，港府助理政治顾问（由英国外交部派遣）Mclaren致电英国驻韩国使馆的Gore报告了事态的后续发展：他说由于年初Lee Su Gun事件的坏印象，港府原本不希望接受这两名韩国人在香港停留一天，这次果真又发生了不愉快。当6月17日夜里，朴某和崔某到达启德机场后，还是上次在Lee Su Gun事件中动手打人的2名韩国驻香港外交官前来接机。当香港的移民官（他也经历了Lee Su Gen事件）拒绝朴和崔入境时，韩国外交官就开始同他争吵。鉴于上次的教训以及机场没有拘留设施，移民官决定将朴和崔关押在九龙警署，直至他俩离境。争吵再度加剧，香港警方出于谨慎，就在送朴和崔去警署的路上给他俩带上手铐。
6月18日早上，韩国驻香港总领事拜访港府政治顾问（按：英国外交部派到香港主管外交事务）Maddocks，他态度和蔼但又迂回的询问了为何朴和崔被送到警察局而且带上手铐，他说他需要向首尔报告此事。Maddocks在查询情况后做出说明，并指出对那两名韩国外交官手下的行为方式令人不满。最终6月18日下午，朴和崔乘机离港前往首尔。
Mclaren说他们从一开始就觉得此事蹊跷，处理此事的香港警察和移民官都感觉朴和崔其实是被押送回国，他们可能是在柬埔寨寻求避难未成的韩国逃兵，看起来都不愿意返回韩国。
按：Lee Su Gun事件，1969年韩国政府指控两年前以北朝鲜中央通讯社副社长身份叛逃韩国的Lee是朝鲜安插的间谍。1969年1月29日韩国政府要求港府逮捕即将飞离香港的Lee，但又不提供真实理由而只简单地说是证件问题，港府拒绝此要求，韩国外交官竟然在启德机场动手袭击Lee。1月31日Lee乘另一班飞机从香港抵达南越西贡，但在机场就被南越方面逮捕并移交给韩国，最终于5月10日在韩国被判处死刑并处决。
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～
RESTRICTED
From: Ambassador
Bangkok To: Governor Hong Kong 59
Dated: 16th June
1 969 Rptd: Phnom Penh, Seoul.
D.T.R.: 17th June
1969 0700 hrs.
Korean Ambassador here has approached us
on behalf of two Korean
citizens, Park Chung Hwan and Chae Kyu
Chang, who ho says have been released by Cambodian authorities
after over a year of imprisonment.
The plan is for them to pass through Bangkok tomorrow on their way to Hong Kong
and Seoul. Bookings have been made from Bangkok to Hong Kong for tomorrow 17
June on flight TG 602 and from Kong Kong to Seoul on 18 June on flight CX 400.
This means their spending one night in Hong Kong. They will be accompanied by
Mr. Kim Dong Kun,
Counsellor of the Korean Embassy here.
2.
Korean Embassy say that
they will issue both Park and Chae with Korean travel
certificates on which we will place the
appropriate Hong Kong visa. The
Korean Embassy will also
make efforts to see that the men are given smallpox and
cholera vaccinations at Bangkok Airport tomorrow, if this has not already been
done at Phnom Penh. I told the Ambassador that if this was not done the Hong
Kong authorities would probably refuse to admit the men, or if they
did admit them would keep them in quarantines.
3.
Grateful if you could let me know whether there
is any further action we or the Korean Embassy here can take to ensure the men’s
smooth passage to Seoul.
Grateful also if Phnom Penh could ask
Australian Embassy and advise whether smallpox and cholera vaccinations were
carried out in Cambodia, and if so
whether the certificates have been
issued.
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～
CONFIDENTIAL
CK L/M 250/69
25 June, 1969.
Park Chung Hwan and Chae Kyu chang
There was a flurry of telegrams, resting with Bangkok telegram No. 60 to Hong kong (not to all) about the transit through Hong Kong of the above-named Koreans who had
been released from jail in Cambodia.
2.
You will
have seen from our telegram No.26 to Bangkok that, with the case of Lee Su Gun (Su-kun Yi)
fresh in our minds, we were not keen to have these two Koreans in Hong Kong overnight. Our concern vas to some extent
justified. When Park and Chae arrived at Kai Tak late on
the evening of I7th June accompanied by Counsellor Kim of the Korean
Embassy in Bangkok, they were met
by the two Korean strongarm men who
caused so much trouble in the Lee Su Gun case.
These two began to argue when the Immigration Officer (also
a veteran of the Lee Su Gun
affair!) explained that Park and Chae would not be allowed into
Hong Kong. Bearing in mind what had happened on the previous occasion and the
absence of any detention facilities at the airport, the Immigration Inspector
then decided to have Park and Chae (but not, of course, Kim)
locked up in Kowloon city Police Station until their departure from Hong Kong.
This led to a further altercation, and as a precaution the Police decided to
handcuff Park and Chae for their journey to the Police Station.
3.
Early the following morning the
Korean consul General asked to see Arthur Maddocks.
In his usual amiable but devious fashion he asked why Park and Chae had been
taken to the police station and why they had been
handcuffed. He said that he would have to explain things to Seoul. After making
enquiries Arthur Haddocks gave the Consul General our version of what had happened and made it clear that we were by no means satisfied with the behaviour of his two officers. Park and Chae
eventually left for Seoul as planned on the afternoon of 18th June.
4.
We thought from the outset that there might be something fishy about this case and it
was certainly the impression of the Police and the Immigration Inspector that
Park and Chae were in the custody of the Korean
"Counsellor” who was accompanying them. It seems to us likely that the two
were deserters from the Korean army who had taken refuge in Cambodia and that
they may not have been altogether willing to return to Korea.
5.
I am
sending copies of this letter to John Sharland in
Far Eastern Department in the F.C.O. (together with copies of
the relevant telegrams) and also, for the record, to the Chanceries at Bangkok and Phnom Penh.
(R.J.T. Mclaren)
Assistant Political Adviser.
(to : ) M.E.J. Gore, Esq.,
Seoul,
S.
Korea.
出处：英国外交部档案 FCO 21/543
没有评论:
发表评论