October, 2007

Self-initiated Movement: The Right of Abode Issue in Hong Kong

Jackie Hung Ling Yu
（Translated by Lee Mun Yan）

(The author is a project Officer of Justice and Peace Commission of the Hong Kong Catholic Diocese.)

Self-initiated Social Movements

Since 1997, communities from different social classes have arisen to fight for their rights. Such movements were in the past mainly initiated and supported by political parties, especially during the time of election. However, since the handover, most are initiated by the people themselves, who may welcome the involvement of political parties but may not expect them to be the leaders. These communities also regularly take part in mass social campaigns, such as July 1st march, in a sign of supporting the local community and showing self-independence.

Those whose families are divided apart between Hong Kong and the mainland are the most obvious examples. We may have forgotten the pains they got through from January 29th 1999, when the Court of Final Appeal’s（CFA）ruling gave hope of reunion for the families, to June 26th the same year, when the Chinese central government reversed the ruling, leaving the families in despair. But for the families themselves, and those who have walked the way with them, this old but unresolved nightmare remains. How would they face it at this moment?

For these many years, people who concern about the right of abode issues have appealed to the public from the perspectives of human rights, righteousness and humanitarianism. We may find the shortsighted government adopting only profit-oriented population policies, and the selfish society as a whole. It is even alleged that selfishness and indifference of the general Hong Kong people are the very culprits leading the movement for the right of abode to a tragic ending.

During the fight for their rights, the abode seekers’ families have lived in fear, discrimination and stigmatization. Losing one legal case after another, the parents and their children have made the best of their own strength and courage to fight for what they deserve.

The families also suffer from political systems both in Hong Kong and the mainland, and the January 29th ruling hence did not work. Despite these adverse realities, they have not given, they kept on articulating their requests by demonstrations, hunger strikes and assemblies from 1997 to 2002.

‘How many chances in a lifetime can you have to fight for your rights? Though the cost is high, having all the family members in one spirit is priceless. We strive together for our reunion, and such is a picture we’ve never thought of when we were in China.’ said Ai, one of the participants in the movement, frustrated but with no regrets.

Is it irrelevant to us?

Many Hong Kong people see the issue of the right of abode irrelevant. The biggest and only concern is that the mainland immigrants may become a burden for Hong Kong. So long as we do not have relatives in the mainland, such issue does not matter.

Let us look back to what happened ten years ago.

The Basic Law and the Provisional Legco

July 2nd 1997, the first working day of the Special Administrative Region government, about 1,500 parents and their children swarmed to the Immigration Department and requested the Commissioner to recognize the identity of those who were born in the mainland from legal Hong Kong citizens with accordance to Article 24.3 in the Basic Law.

July 9th 1997, the “Bill of Immigration Regulations (Amended) (No. 3) 1997” was passed by the Provisional Legislative Council within a day, stating that children in the mainland are allowed to live in Hong Kong only if they have certificate of the right of abode, and the bill was effective back to July 1st 1997. The decision then triggered some of the parents to file law suit against the deportation of their children back to the mainland. Finally, parents won the first round of the fight as on January 29th 1999, the CFA ruled that a one-way immigration permit was not necessary to go alongside with the certificate of the right of abode, and that either the father or the mother being a Hong Kong citizen would guarantee his or her children the right of abode.

January 29th 1999

This was the day when the CFA’s ruling gave the only hope to those who had been longing for reunion with their families. However, they were all painfully disappointed. The then-Secretary for Security Regina Ip Lau Suk Yee announced in April that, there would be by estimation 1,675,000 qualified mainland immigrants, and Hong Kong could not contain such a large population flooding in; therefore, Ip requested the LegCo to plead to the National People’s Congress (NPC) by May for interpreting the corresponding articles in the Basic Law.

On June 26th 1999, the interpretation of Articles 22.4, 24.2 and 24.3 in the Basic Law was passed by the NPC, stating that only children, on whose birth date at least one of their parents was already a Hong Kong permanent resident, could claim the right of abode.

During the high tide of the movement around 1997 to 1999, many local people questioned why the mainland children had to come here for family reunion. Are they like the ‘gold searcher’ eyeing the economic well-being in Hong Kong? Those were the years of economic recession, badly hit by the Asia financial crisis and downfall of the property market. High unemployment rate, negative equities, etc, were enough troubles for the local people, and they therefore wondered, what motivated the mainlanders to come here. Whatever the reason, and to set aside economic development, how should we strike a balance in every social issue, so that we could avoid depriving others of their rights? If we were those mainlanders, shall we render it justified?

People in a No-win Situation

Since 1997, the Hong Kong government had been fighting the case with the right of abode advocates. To save costs, it was based on four individual cases which represented all the other families. The government lost the case; however, it did not obey the CFA’s ruling, but pleaded to the NPC for legal interpretation which as a result overturned the ruling. How comes the authority for the government to do so? None of the general Hong Kong citizen has such a might.

We cannot get into details of each family’s situation, judging individually who need or need not immigrating here. That is not the point. Rather, what deserves most concern is the unjustified way the government has handled these cases. On the one hand, the mainland children were grudgingly bullied, negatively stereotyped and despised. On the other hand, this is a matter of the right of choice. The CFA’s ruling did not necessarily mean immigration was the only choice. But, quite to the contrarily, the government were leaving them no choice but to be deported back to the mainland. What many of these abode seekers wanted was simply an identity card, which allows them to cross the border whenever necessary.

According to a survey by Justice and Peace Commission of the Hong Kong Catholic Diocese in 2000, over 95% of the children abode seekers had never been with their parents for longer than a month. This was not a picture familiar to the well-to-do Hong Kong people. But is it fair to exploit the others for our well-being?

Almost at the same time, the CFA also ruled that the relevant families lost in the case of adopting mainland children by Hong Kong citizens. However, all of a sudden the local community was stripped of their usual indifference, and several members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) even showed off their benevolence by writing to the authority begging for exclusive treatment. Can we treat everyone more equally? If exclusive right can be applied in the case of adopting children, why not for those of blood relation? Why not their benevolence be shared equally with those children? To go further to the question: should we classify people into these hierarchical categories? Who should define the criteria? And who is qualified to live in Hong Kong?

In the movement for the right of abode, the affected families and their companions are emotionally committed. The advocates themselves thus found it confused of what they were doing. Was it just a mere occupation or a voluntary work answering the need of the others? However, we realize the importance for the church to walk with the people. When these people get marginalized again and again, the church should not add insult to injury, but strengthen them and share their burden like the cross that the society heaves upon their shoulders. To walk with the weak should always be the church’s obligation and responsibility.