XN000022-1996-05-22 — Page 28

8 -

In the course of scrutinising the Bill, certain concerns and criticisms have been expressed by a number of organisations and some Honourable Members which have been repeated in a number of speeches today. We have already responded to these criticisms and concerns fully in the Bills Committee, but I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the Administration's position.

First, a question is asked as to whether we need the Bill at all. The answer is "yes, we do." I have explained that the purpose of the Bill, when it was first introduced into this Council on 24 April, is to close a loophole. Let me emphasise that illegal immigration is a problem which Hong Kong faces every day. Detention of illegal immigrants, including Vietnamese illegal immigrants, is a necessary policy to deal effectively with this problem. We detain illegal immigrants not for the sake of detaining them. The ultimate aim is to effect their repatriation to their countries of origin as soon as possible. Clearly, we cannot stand by and watch our policy of detaining Vietnamese migrants being undermined, or clouded by uncertainty. The Bill is necessary to close a loophole which may be exploited by Vietnamese migrants who claim, on the basis of documents which are not even accepted by governments which reportedly issued them and which have been or may continue to be obtained in a dubious means, that they cannot be repatriated and therefore cannot continue to be detained legally. We already have to release over 270 Vietnamese migrants in the wake of a Privy Council judgement. We have no intention to re-detain them until and unless the Vietnamese government has given clearance for them to return to Vietnam and arrangements are made to effect their repatriation. But honourable members should bear in mind in this context there are still about 5,000 Vietnamese migrants in our camps whose clearance has yet to be given by the Vietnamese authorities. Further, so long as this loophole remains unplugged, we face the risk of further arrival of VM's in the future attracted by the prospect of being released into the community. Why should we wish to see Hong Kong exposed to such a risk?

Secondly, there have been misguided accusations that the Bill legislates for arbitrary and indefinite detention, thereby breaching human rights principles and our obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as applied to Hong Kong. The Administration disagree with such accusations and in this context, may I draw honourable members' attention to the comments by the legal adviser to this council as repeated by the Bills Committee chairman in his speech earlier today. In drawing up the Bill, we were mindful of the need to strike a balance between our detention policy on the one hand, and the individual's right to liberty on the other. There is a specific provision in the Bill which makes it clear that it does not, repeat, not preclude the courts from finding that a person has been detained for an unreasonable period of time. The remedies of judicial review and habeas corpus will also continue to be available to all those detained under S 13D of the Immigration Ordinance.