On November 17, a seminar was held at the Asian Studies Centre in St. Anthony's College in Oxford, England. The speaker was Mr. Xiao Yang, President of the Supreme People's Court of China. The title of the seminar was " The Legal and Judicial Reform of China". Accompanying Xiao Yang on this visit was a group of 15 or so Chinese legal representatives.

Oxford University is renowned for Law studies and it is not surprising the seminar was well attended. The attendants were from various bodies including people serving in the law and order sector locally; local law students; visiting scholars from China; representatives from Amnesty International as well as reporters.

Falun Gong practitioners in Oxford were only too glad to go, hoping they will have the opportunity to ask one or two questions on China's crackdown on Falun Gong.

Despite the title of this seminar, Xiao Yang devoted about one third of his speech on "judges' robes" in China. (In this seminar, what everyone wanted to hear was how the judicial reform can work more effectively to protect the Chinese citizen's basic rights so that China can truly be ruled by the law. (No one is really interested in the reform of judges' robes) During which time there was sniggering among first the Chinese, then the English-speakers in the audience.

As usual, there was a question time after the speech. The first four questions were with the speaker before the seminar took place. Xiao Yang spent a good 40 minutes on answering these. Then came the real question time. A female law student from Oxford University asked about labour education. Xiao Yang replied that this is the administration punishment and not the law punishment. Implying that as President of the Supreme People's Court, he does not have the right or the obligation to intervene. After this came two other questions: one from a Westerner on the topic of the death penalty; the other from a Chinese on some criticism about Xiao Yang's work a little while ago. The questions were getting more and more difficult to handle. But Xiao Yang remained composed and even managed a smile now and again. However, the audience were not satisfied with most of the answers he offered.

The seminar was drawing to a close. The organiser for some reason decided to extend it for another 10 minutes. This announcement brought much excitement to the audience and lots of hands went up. One Falun Gong practitioner asked "Why is a peaceful practice for body, mind and spirit (such as Falun Gong), practised freely in over 40 countries around the world, including England, banned in China? Why does the Chinese Government sees it as a threat to public safety whereas no other government, including the British Government, sees it as a threat to public safety?" This question wiped out the smile on Xiao Yang's face. The countenance of the Chinese representatives dropped. All Xiao Yang could manage, in a stiffened voice, was that, "If a practice is perceived as a threat to the safety of the public and the stability of the society, then it must be suppressed."

The audience was obviously not satisfied with this answer and more hands went up. The organiser promised one last question and he picked someone from another part of the room---the second out of the three Falun Gong practitioners that went. She stood up and said in a gentle voice, "If a citizen who follows what the constitution has laid down to appeal to the National People's Congress by way of verbal or file, but was not accepted and instead detained, for example, Falun Gong practitioners who went to the National People's Congress to appeal peacefully but were arrested, who only exercised their right to freedom of belief which was enshrined in China's own constitution and is also guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which China has already signed. Then how can a government on the one hand tells its people they can express their opinion and exercise their rights, but on the other arrest them before they can present their case, says that it is ruled by law? Doesn't that show the government is abusing its constitution and its obligation to its people? Isn't the constitution then nothing more than a piece of paper?"

On hearing this question, the interpreter turned to Xiao Yang, lowered his voice and said, "It's another Falun Gong question." He did not even interpret the whole question. Xiao Yang's head dropped while the rest of their party looked on, embarrassed. With a stern-looking face, Xiao Yang finally said, "Being the Supreme People's Court, we cannot interfere with the work of the local court." The organiser announced the seminar has ended.

The second Falun Gong practitioner was saddened to hear the President of the Supreme People's Court of China would openly run away from his responsibility and misguided the audience there. She went up to them, holding the Amnesty International report on the crackdown on Falun Gong. (Inside which is a section which talks about the Supreme People's Court issuing a notice giving instructions to local courts on how to handle the cases of people charged with crimes for "organising or using heretical organisation, particularly Falun Gong. That showed Xiao Yang's answer was not true, he was lying to the audience.) She was hoping to clarify the issue with Xiao Yang. The latter left the room rather hastily under the protection of bodyguards, smelling of alcohol.

Western reporters, Amnesty International people as well as many others, praised the courage of the Falun Gong practitioners. One British law expert commented, "We know he was lying on answering the questions about Falun Gong, but that's the way they are." An Amnesty International representative said to the practitioner, "You are very brave to ask them these questions directly, really brave. You must be very careful." She also indicated that Amnesty International would be publishing a new report on Falun Gong situation soon. Many of the English-speakers expressed their admiration for the courage Falun Gong practitioners have displayed when facing the evil.

In contrast to this, the behaviour of the Chinese representatives was very rude and hostile. They asked the practitioner in an intimidating manner, "Where are you from? China? You have not been back for a while, have you? Becoming westernised I see. Studying law in Oxford?" Another said, "Your question is too challenging. You know it is like that in China. There is nothing we can do. It is different from over here." What he meant was: what the law says is one thing, but when it comes to carrying it out, it is another. That is the current situation in China. It is very clear that Falun Gong is a very sensitive topic to them. It also shows that many Chinese Government officials, including Xiao Yang, know they have been unreasonable on the treatment of Falun Gong. They also know that the Chinese Government has violated the law but they cannot or are not willing to do anything different other than to agree and follow what Zhang Zemin dictates. This makes them feel awkward when confronted by the righteous.

After the seminar, the practitioners felt glad they have been. To be able to reveal to the world how Zhang and his accomplices have violated the Chinese Constitution, at such a well-attended seminar, is a step forward.

From this incident, we can further appreciate Master Li's compassion to all the people. It seems the extra 10 minutes were purposely put aside for Falun Gong practitioners. Not even the organiser himself can really explain how this happened.

U.K. Practitioners

Nov. 17, 2000