The controversy over right of abode for mainland offspring of Hong Kong permanent residents should come to an end with the ruling of the Court of Final Appeal on 10th January 2002. It spells out clearly that all those who arrived in Hong Kong after 29th January 1999 must return to the Mainland.

The ruling allows a small number out of 5,000-odd abode seekers to remain while the remainder must go back, and it will be a matter of undergoing proper immigration procedures before they are allowed in legally. The judgement of our Court is made in the spirit of the rule of law, the most compelling competitive advantage Hong Kong has as an international city.

In enforcing the Court's order, our Government has shown great sympathy and understanding for those who have lost their case. The Secretary for Security has announced a grace period of up to 31st March 2002 to allow them to spend Chinese New Year here with their families before leaving. In addition, there will be negotiations with the Central Authorities to set up a new channel to assist them to pursue SAR residency from the Mainland.

This humane approach to the issue is echoed by the high degree of tolerance and compassion shown by the Central Government. Many of the 5,000-odd abode seekers had overstayed in Hong Kong or entered illegally. Not only has the Public Security Ministry pledged not to press charges if they go back within the grace period, it will also then allow them to apply for a visit to, or to settle in, Hong Kong in the normal way. Under-age children whose parents are permanent residents here are given an undertaking that they will be reunited in the SAR within a year of formal application.

To encourage the abode seekers to return to the Mainland, the Liberal Party calls for flexibility in processing their applications. Many are anxious and uncertain; fearing they may not be allowed back here, or that they will be put at the end of the queue when they re-apply. Such anxieties must be allayed. It is only reasonable that we exercise appropriate administrative flexibility when needed.

Some may say Hong Kong cannot really support this new flood of immigrants from the Mainland. While we should not overburden our facilities, we should not forget that these newcomers, mostly children, when given proper education will grow up here with the knowledge and skills to enable them to contribute to our society, just like many migrants who arrived half a century ago.

We are happy to see that people in Hong Kong have been extremely patient towards these families, and are concerned that they be treated with fairness and dignity. In the last four years, their determination to fight for their rights within what is permitted by law has been matched by the public's appreciation of their rights, and the need for those rights to be honoured by law. Once again, we have proved to the world that "One Country Two Systems" works in a truly enlightened and liberal society like Hong Kong.

On a wider perspective, the greatest significance in this right of abode case is the consistency between the SAR and the Central Government, in showing their capacity for both compassion and respect for law. We shall continue to foster these values in Hong Kong where justice, compassion and family values are cherished.

Singapore has likewise allowed for the use of a "reasonable portion" of any print or electronic publication, amounting to a total of no more than ten per cent of the object's content or a chapter of a book. The Hong Kong government is now willing to modify its earlier hard stance but still it has to give more so as to give to the honest people and businesses their fair access to published information and opinions.
I would think, therefore, a person should be able to fax or email my article without trouble from the law but should cease and desist if he were to reproduce pages upon pages of the Morning Post op-ed section for resale.

Close Window| Print this page