red
res
blic
am
the
est
per
and
ige
the
ve
in
de
ter,
w,
ter,
the
ime bert
ה
ried
by and
ear,
sical
id a of
and
sure
and
the
itate
kong
local
ively
some
that basic Mr
n
5.<.M./osT
Immigration Bill amended, clears air
and becomes law
The much debated controversial Immigration Bill, which regulates the entry or stay of all categories of people in the Colony was passed into law in the Legislative Council yesterday following extensive changes made during the committee stage.
creates
a new
It defines "Hongkong belongers,' category of people: "Chinese residents," sets out the rights of what it calls United Kingdom belongers and also incorporates aliens and those British subjects who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
The final version of the
legislation, as the Attorney General and one Unofficial Member put it, was a more rational and fair one than the original version of the Bill which grouped people holding UK passports with all other aliens and classified them as immigrants, subject to deporta- tion.
The legislation, which was debated at length by two Unofficial Members, Mr P. C. Woo and Mr Oswald Cheung, will come into effect on a date
be to
the appointed by Governor.
Opening the debate on the Bill, Mr P. C. Woo noted the many adverse comments and criticisms in the press and by public organisations, some of which arose from misunderstanding of the explanatory memorandum of the Bill.
The vast majority of local residents, he said, knew no more of the Bill than what had been published in the Chinese press
The explanatory lement memorandum referred
60,000
hensive
to
Hongkong belonger an immigration parlance - but the repared phrase was nowhere defined in
the Bill itself.
n
or
e other housing
he. sent
if
a
public we the led to
or so
qualify
one or
proved
pup, or htbody lit that teadily
n
the
e units
self-
Mr
Woo noted the Immigration Department almost invariably extended to these people the rights of a belonger, although they remained subject to de- portation.
In fact, the Director of Immigration, in a letter to the S.C.M. Post in August, had said that certificates of identity and re-entry permits conferred on the holders permission to re- enter Hongkong.
A very different public reaction to the Bill might have resuited if the explanatory memorandum had contained this assurance by the Director, Mr Woo added.
have water and
ocks."
cation
et per quare which
not
very
"This matter is important in the sphere of 'closing the gap' between the Government and the people demonstrating Government's real concern for the de facto Chinese residents of Hongkong.
as a
"It is the opinion of my unofficial colleagues matter of great importance and principle, that their status
should be clearly defined..."
In this respect, the unofficial four members proposed categories of people: Hongkong belongers, Chinese residents, United Kingdom belongers, and all other immigrants including citizens of the Commonwealth and other Colonies.
The other Councillor who spoke on the Bill, Mr Oswald the Cheung, noted that privileges which would be accorded to Chinese residents would be found to be most valuable, and the grounds and processes prescribed under which they might be deprived of such privileges eminently fair and reasonable, and. consonant both with good sense and our own security.
A Chinese resident will have the right in law to remain here and might leave and re-enter Hongkong freely without let or hindrance. These rights would only be abrogated if the Governor-in-Council makes an order of deportation against him under certain conditions.
Deportation
There were three grounds upon which such a deportation order might be made by the Governor-in-Council:
if the Governor certifies that the case concerns the security of Hongkong or the relations of the UK Government with another country.
If the Chinese resident has been found guilty in Hongkong with an offence punishable with imprisonment for not less than two years.
If the Governor-in- Council deems it
to be conducive to the public good.
The second and third grounds, Mr Cheung said, were to be invoked only on the recommendation of a court or after consideration of a report of a Deportation Tribunal.
term
was
Speaking on the definition of a U.K. belonger, Mr Cheung noted that this classified as an immigrant in the original Bill, and subject to the provisions which applied generally to all immigrants.
"Unofficial members are of the opinion that on principle they cannot accept that a U.K. belonger should be governed by such provisions.
"They have long felt that legislation passed in recent years in the U.K. has not dealt satisfactorily with Hongkong belongers, in that it has abrogated the long established and fundamental privilege of a Hongkong belonger to enter the
U.K. as of right.
**And
while unofficial members have recognised that Her Majesty's Government have been faced with exigencies which made such legislation have necessary, they respectfully but assiduously petitioned Her Majesty's Government in this regard, and live in the hope that one day that this privilege of HK belongers... might be restored.
“Accordingly it would have been quite inconsistent with principle to deprive a U.K. belonger of the right to enter HK freely, and unofficial members are gratified that Government has accepted their views in this regard.
Mr Cheung also spoke at length on deportation and removal orders.
court
to
The power conferred on a recommend convicted deportation of a person already existed, he said. In future it would only apply to someone over 16 years of age and only in relation to offences punishable by at least two years' imprisonment.
or
The alternative process, Mr Cheung said, was an enquiry by a Deportation Tribunal consisting of a Judge of the Supreme Court District Court as President and two members selected by the Chief Justice from a panel. These members should be members of the public and not public officers.
The Tribunal, Mr Cheung said, would conduct its inquiry in camera the factor that finally determined it should be in camera was the harm that might befall man if no deportation order in the end was made.
a
A removal order would be different from a deportation order, in that it would be possible for a person removed subsequently to apply for permission to re-enter.
Moreover, a removal order could not be made against a Chinese resident.
Mr Cheung also dealt with a number of administrative details.
In reply, the Attorney General, Mr D. T. E. Roberts, said the changes sought to give a greater feeling of security to people who belong to Hongkong, yet to retain in the executive sufficient powers to get rid of those who abuse the welcome which Hongkong has traditionally extended to those who had
here to contribute and share in Hongkong's progress and prosperity.
to
come
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.