Whenever the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) deliberates on any immigration case it too is on trial, on trial, that is, in the court of public opinion. Nobody forgets what happened in 1999 when the still untested CFA interpreted the Basic Law broadly in recognizing the right of abode for tens of thousands of mainland children born to permanent residents of Hong Kong. The government almost immediately challenged the verdict by applying to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to overrule the CFA and so compromising judicial integrity in the eyes of many.

The CFA realized that its credibility was under scrutiny again when in July it reached a pair of controversial, and conflicting, verdicts concerning a child and a teenager, whose plight has gripped the public. The Court in the first instance ruled that Chong Fung-yuen could stay, even though his parents came ostensibly as visitors only to give birth to him in Hong Kong.

The court decision astounded the government concerned that thousands of other pregnant visitors from the mainland would circumvent the law the same way. The administration is justifiably worried because Hong Kong is under a constant immigration siege. Many claiming the right of abode guaranteed by the Basic Law demand urgent redress on compelling legal, constitutional and moral grounds. To let the CFA verdict stand would only complicate a very difficult situation and might undermine the orderly family reunion program.

Just over the past four years there have been 2,202 reported cases -- 232 involving illegal immigrants -- of mainland women delivering babies in Hong Kong and seeking asylum for their offspring and, eventually, themselves. The government cannot encourage the trend when it is already struggling to accommodate more than 150 legal arrivals from the mainland every day with its overtaxed social, healthcare, housing and education services. I have been one of those advocating a radical review of the current immigration policy and the addition of a new category of investors and skilled workers to generate the revenue to help defray some of the costs of catering for these people.

What we cannot accept is a pregnancy backdoor through which some can get ahead of others in the long family reunion queue. Privilege for one maybe justice denied for many more. As keen as the government was not to make an exemption for Fung-yuen, it has nonetheless opted not to challenge the CFA ruling. This time the authorities have not resorted to seeking another interpretation of the Basic Law by the NPC Standing Committee.

The Director of Immigration has also promised to be extra vigilant and, with the cooperation of the mainland authorities, to stop the pregnant from slipping into Hong Kong on two-way permits to give birth and seek asylum. To be lax is to invite abuse and deepen the injury to the aggrieved tens of thousands of permanent residents with split families and no immediate prospect of uniting with their loved ones in Hong Kong.

The CFA, likewise in July, reached another landmark decision in consenting to the repatriation of 14-year-old Agnes Tam, a studious pupil cherished by her classmates and teachers who have mobilized public opinion in her defense. All of us are touched by the campaign for Agnes as hundreds of people sign petitions, spread the word on the Internet and appeal for an exemption. To them, it would be cruel to wrest the girl from her loving, foster parents and return her to a place that is now alien and a future uncertain.

The Court, however, has no choice but to agree with the government that the right of abode is for biological rather than foster children of permanent residents. Many disagree with the judicial decision and also with the government. They say the principle of equality enshrined in law does not discriminate against children, adopted or not.

I understand the government's quandary in wanting to be compassionate and yet not wanting to tempt those who could fake adoptions -- a common ploy for many in getting around immigration restrictions now and in years gone by. For consistency sake, the Secretary for Security Regina Ip has opted to exercise discretion by not deporting Agnes who, like Fung-yuen, is not responsible for her predicament and should not be punished.

The jurists too mulled over the morals of the question and mitigating factors before reaching two opposite decisions on letting the boy stay and asking the girl to leave. No two cases are exactly alike. Exemptions for Fung-yuen and Agnes do not mean automatic waivers for others. I applaud the government for heeding the public view and declaring that the cases of Fung-yuen and Agnes are exceptional and do not mean any change to its current immigration policy and right of abode criteria.

We live in a flawed world in which not everyone gets the breaks he or she deserves. But Agnes and Fung-yuen are no longer statistics. The girl and the boy are bonded to Hong Kong and it would be wrong to deprive either their opportunity to grow up in their city and among people who evidently cherish them. Sometimes in life all we can do is to make not a major impact but a small difference as our conscience dictates and as our humanity requires. Hong Kong is Agnes and Fung-yuen's home. Others in the same situation might not be so lucky because there is a limit to tolerance and there is also the law.

Close Window| Print this page