SCMP: Hong Kong: keep out! (Excerpt)

Friday, May 18, 2001

Screening visitors: a valid visa is no guarantee of being able to enter Hong Kong. Some governments complained last week about their citizens being barred from the SAR. The Government denied it was because they were Falun Gong members. You step off the plane at Hong Kong International Airport and join the queues at the immigration counters. But the checking of your passport is to be no mere formality. The officer asks you questions, searches your luggage and declares you cannot enter. Suddenly, you are being escorted back to a plane which is about to depart. Welcome to fortress Hong Kong. This is not, of course, the typical experience of the vast majority of visitors to the SAR, who breeze through passport control without difficulty. But for 95 members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement last week, their trip was to be short lived.

The refusal to allow them entry, to stage protests at an international forum attended by President Jiang Zemin, raised concerns among foreign governments. These prompted Secretary for Security Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee to carry out a damage-limitation exercise, meeting with consuls-general from the United States, Britain, Canada and Australia, whose nationals were among those refused entry. [...]

The Falun Gong's convenor in Taiwan, Hong Gi-hong, claimed last week that immigration officers had told him they were ordered to take action against the group. Fears were also raised that the Government was using a blacklist. In January, 13 Falun Gong members were barred from entry amid scuffles with immigration officers at the airport. They had wanted to attend a meeting of the group at City Hall.

Allegations of targeting the Falun Gong have been strenuously denied by officials. But Ms Ip's comments, which imply the public interest prompting the expulsions was the smooth running of the forum, have done little to quell fears that the Government adopted an anti-Falun Gong immigration policy for that particular week. "They raise more questions than they answer," said Paul Harris, a barrister frequently involved in immigration cases, and a spokesman for the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor. "What was the nature of the public interest that led to their exclusion? Was it a threat of violence? If so, this would be a notable departure from Falun Gong's entirely peaceful protests. Or was it simply that the presence of Falun Gong might embarrass President Jiang and therefore they decided to keep the numbers down, to refuse a proportion of those who wanted to come without considering each individual case. That might be unlawful."

The controversy highlights the extensive powers of immigration officials. These powers extend beyond visitors, and apply to everyone who is not a permanent resident. It is an area where the Government is almost a law unto itself. Consequently, the system has again come under scrutiny. Could it be made fairer, with more transparency, independence and legal safeguards?

[...]

Solicitor William Clarke, who is involved in right-of-abode cases, said the first barrier was a practical one. "Someone turning up at the counter at the airport does not have an opportunity to do anything about it if they have a decision made against them." He said petitions to the Chief Executive typically took six months, during which time there was no right to remain.

Mr Clarke said: "It is time to be more open about how they [immigration officers] exercise their discretionary powers and whether it is really true that they don't keep some kind of blacklist."

He wondered how immigration officers had been able to identify the Falun Gong members who were refused entry. "As far as I know, these people were not coming in wearing [their distinctive] yellow T-shirts."

[...]

The immigration laws do not provide people refused permission to enter Hong Kong with the right to an explanation. Some Falun Gong members removed last week appear to have been told it was because of "safety" or "security" reasons.