process can be improved dramatically and, I believe, confidence in it established. I write that as someone who feels it is necessary to consider whether mandatory repatriation to Vietnam of the right people may yet be required, providing there are guarantees and safeguards firmly in place; but I fear today that we seem to be willing to run the risk of returning the wrong people. If this is so, I believe our actions would be indefensible. At times to date, our attitude has been, I believe, counter-productive to our aims; and our policies seem to be less than cost-effective in financial terms. The former does not inspire confidence. I believe that injustice is occurring through nobody's fault, and I am not sure it is recognised as yet as such. A burden shifting exercise is going on, with people in various parts of the system blaming others for obvious shortfalls which are no individual's fault. Government is quick to remind people that responsibility lies with the UN for certain matters. Yet, it is understaffed and simply cannot meet the demand. With all that said, I believe it important to emphasise a point made recently in the South China Morning Post: -
-
"The Government can claim to have a clear conscience in its overall
treatment of the Vietnamese, given its limited resources and the advanced state of compassion fatigue in Hong Kong. Sadly, however, the world does not judge Hong Kong on its 11-year record of hospitality to the Vietnamese, but on specific incidents like the forced repatriation of 51 boat people a year ago. Hong Kong will have to repair its reputation by reminding the international community that it does not stoop to the inhumane practices condoned in some Port of First Asylum countries, because где territory is bound to be judged by a different standard."
I imagine that much of that is true, and I suspect that the earlier forced repatriation was wholly unjustifiable in principle. But I have yet to do the research.
CONCLUSION
Subject to agreements for access and so forth, I am willing to take it on myself to try and draw up a new scheme; thus, this part of my paper is not an exercise in criticism; it is meant to be constructive. It does not articulate concluded views. These are still only early thoughts. My aim is to devise a system which (a) makes the Immigration Officer's task easier, while (b) providing a checking mechanism to show that the asylum-seekers case has been fairly and accurately recorded. This will make the task of the RSRB more manageable. The benefit to genuine asylum-seekers is obvious. Further, I would like to go to Vietnam in order to research the "guarantee" issue, and prepare a paper on that at both central and regional levels. A repatriation scheme justly presented as being based on directed efforts to get at the real issues will be the only type of programme which could ever be