-
3
The closed centre policy was introduced to reduce, not stop, the rate of arrivals in Hong Kong. It is a deterrent. Since its introduction, in July 1982, arrivals in Hong Kong have decreased faster than in the region as a whole. For example, the regional decrease in 1984 compared to 1983 was 11%, whereas the figure for Hong Kong was 39%. It is also reported in the press that a substantial number of refugees coming in boats have chosen to continue with their voyage rather than to land in closed centres here.
Under the present conditions in Vietnam, the abolition of the closed camp policy is definitely not in the interest of Hong Kong. It is tantamount to opening the floodgates and inviting an endless influx of Vietnamese refugees to Hong Kong.
The recent report by the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons recommended that U.K. should relax the family reunion criteria for Vietnamese refugees. I whole-heartedly endorse this recommendation. However, this measure alone is not enough. If U.K. really wants to solve the Vietnamese refugee problem in Hong Kong, it should seriously consider accepting a reasonably large number of refugees from Hong Kong on top of the family reunion category. This lead by U.K. will be catalytic in effect. The major resettlement countries for our Vietnamese refugees have indicated that they would further reduce their respective resettlement offers if UK is not seen to be playing its full part. On the other hand, if UK increases its intake, they would follow suit.
Britain always claims that it has a special
responsibility towards Hong Kong, and has time and again assured Hong Kong that it will discharge this responsibility conscientiously. Hong Kong is at present under tremendous strain in tackling the Vietnamese refugee problem, is it not the most appropriate time now for UK to demonstrate to us its concern and sincerity by removing a significant portion of our refugee burden?
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.