**************************************************

Speech by the Secretary for Security, Mrs Regina Ip, in the motion debate concerning the right of abode issue in the Legislative Council today (Wednesday) :

Madam President,

The Hon. LAW Chi-kwong's motion and the Hon. Mrs. Selina CHOW's amendment have reflected the deep concern of Members about the ways to implement the judgment of the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) and to absorb the additional number of persons eligible for the right of abode (ROA), which is likely to be considerable. Before Members give their views, I wish to make a statement on the issue raised in the motion and the amendment.

Judgment of the Court of Final Appeal

Let me first of all recapitulate the judgment of the CFA made on 29 January. The judgment has brought about major changes in the number of persons eligible for ROA under Basic Law Article 24 as well as the procedures for their entry to Hong Kong. The main features of the judgment are as follows:

(a) The Certificate of Entitlement (C of E) Scheme is consistent with the Basic Law. In other words, those who claim ROA under BL 24(2)(3) can only have their status as a permanent resident of the HKSAR established by holding a C of E;

(b) They must remain in the Mainland to apply for a C of E;

(c) The C of E need not be affixed to the One-way Permit (OWP). In other words, the issue of the C of E is no longer linked to the issue of the OWP;

(d) Children born in places outside Hong Kong (including the Mainland) to parents, either of whom was not a Hong Kong permanent resident at the time of their birth but subsequently became one, are also entitled to ROA;

(e) These children include those born out of wedlock to a father who is a permanent resident of Hong Kong.

As a result of (d) and (e), the number of persons eligible for the ROA under BL24(2)(3) has increased tremendously. During the past three months, the Administration was repeatedly urged by the Legislative Council to ascertain at an early date the exact number of these persons. In fact the issue had been actively studied in the past three months by a task force led by the Chief Secretary for Administration (CS), which instructed the Census and Statistics Department (C & SD) to conduct the assessment through a survey.

Survey of the Census and Statistics Department (C & SD)

As at mid-April, the C & SD had completed half of the survey. Although the survey is still under way, the figures derived from the analysis made in the past month have stabilized. It is believed that upon completion, the final figures will not vary much from the mid-term ones. Based on the findings of the survey as at mid-April, the number of persons in the Mainland with ROA in Hong Kong as a result of the judgment of the CFA reaches 1 675 000, of which 692 000 are eligible children of the first generation while 983 000 are eligible children of the second generation. The breakdown is as follows:

Category of eligible persons	First generation of newly eligible persons	Second generation of eligible persons (who become eligible when the first generation of eligible persons have resided in Hong Kong for seven years	Total
Children born within wedlock	172 000	338 000	510 000
Children born out of wedlock	520 000	645 000	1 165 000
Total	692 000	983 000	1 675 000

I must explain that in our view, "children born out of registered marriage" probably do not entirely refer to those born to mistresses or extra-marital relationship. We believe that the figure in fact covers a considerable number of those children born to the so-called "de facto marriage" in the Mainland. We understand that until early 90s, many people on the Mainland gave birth to children without having their marriage officially registered. Our survey reveals that there are 520 000 children born out of registered marriage. Many of them probably include children born to Hong Kong residents under "de facto marriage" in the Mainland, who eventually came to Hong Kong for settlement, leaving their children behind, while others came to Hong Kong without their spouses and set up another family after arrival.

I need to stress one more point. The above projection, i.e. the first generation of persons eligible for immediate residency in Hong Kong, might be an underestimation of the total number of eligible persons, as there are two types of persons not covered because their parents are not available for the survey. They are: (1) Mainland children of former Hong Kong permanent residents who have passed away; and (2) Mainland children of former Hong Kong permanent residents who have migrated. We must also note that since many Hong Kong residents still have spouses living in the Mainland and they will continue to give birth to children, and the number of persons eligible for ROA by virtue of their seven-years' residence will keep growing. Therefore, if we are to evaluate the number of persons eligible for ROA by virtue of their seven-years' residence in Hong Kong a week from now, the figure must be higher than the one today . The above figures are therefore merely a reflection of the present situation and probably an underestimation of the actual situation.

Progress of surveys in the Mainland

As for the Mainland, surveys have been conducted in three cities in Guangdong, namely, Dongguan, Zhaoqing and Maoming, and Quanzhou in Fujian to assess the number of children born to Hong Kong residents in the Mainland. Last week a representative of the Security Bureau paid a visit to Beijing with representatives of the Immigration Department and C & SD to find out the situation and learned that the surveys had been smoothly carried out. The findings are expected to be released shortly.

Preliminary Assessment of the Impact on Economy, Employment and Provision of Various Services based on the Survey Findings of the Census and Statistics Department

In light of the latest statistics provided by the C&SD, a thorough assessment is being made by the policy secretaries concerned under the task force headed by the CS. The assessment is to gauge the impact of the CFA judgement on the overall economy, employment, and various services and facilities, including housing, education, medical and health services, welfare services and the cost of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme. The assessment is expected to be completed next week. We will be ready then to give a full account to this Council of the interim survey report prepared by the C&SD, and of the assessment made by the policy bureaux in respect of the economy, employment, and supply of and demand for services and facilities.

Even before detailed reports are submitted by the policy bureaux, I can point out that the number of people to be absorbed by Hong Kong as a result of the CFA judgement, that is, some 1.6 million people, is likely to pose a very heavy (and even unbearable) burden to Hong Kong because:

• Firstly, under the provision of the Basic Law, once these people with ROA have lived lawfully in Hong Kong for seven years, their children born in the Mainland will also be entitled to ROA. And once these children have lived in Hong Kong for seven years, their children born in the Mainland in turn will be eligible for ROA, with the right passing onto the future generations indefinitely.

• Secondly, CFA ruled that the link between the issue of the C of E and the issue of OWP should be severed. In other words, the Government cannot control the arrival rate of Mainland residents who are eligible for ROA through the mechanism which limits the daily entry to only 150 under the OWP scheme. The CFA also decided that the C of E Scheme must be implemented at a "reasonable and fair" speed, that is, all the C of E applications must be processed at a reasonable speed and the issuing process must not be delayed by administrative measures. The Hon Law chi-kwong has just expressed his opinion on the definition of the term "reasonable". He said if the number of applications involved is substantial, a waiting period of over three or five years may still be considered reasonable. However, the definition of "reasonable" is highly controversial. According to our legal advice, at the end of the day, applicants are in the best position to decide for themselves what is "reasonable". For C of E applicants, such as those who staged a sit-in outside the Central Government Offices to press for ROA in Hong Kong, their families have been split up for a long time, and they may well consider it unreasonable even if they have to wait for just one more day. Since each applicant has his own view on what is "reasonable", it would be difficult for the Government to ask them to wait for 10 years and argue that the waiting period is reasonable. If we continue to admit only 150 persons each day, C of E applicants would have to wait for ten years or more. Under such circumstances, it is inevitable that the applicants would consider the wait unreasonable, and come to Hong Kong illegally, overstay or seek settlement in Hong Kong through legal proceedings. If we plan to admit all of the 700 000 eligible persons of the first generation within three years, we will need to admit, on average, 640 OWP holders each day. This figure, in fact, has included neither the 150 OWP holders admitted to Hong Kong each day under the present arrangement, nor the spouses of the 700 000 eligible persons of the first generation, nor the mainland spouse of these eligible persons' parents. The survey conducted by the C & SD found that of the 200 000 or more Hong Kong residents who have children in the Mainland, there are about 100 000 spouses still living in the Mainland. In other words, if we allow the first generation of eligible children to settle in Hong Kong, spouses of Hong Kong residents and spouses of these eligible children may consider that they are also eligible for settlement in Hong Kong under Mainland laws and policies the and they would make repeated requests to us . In other words, we may need to increase the daily quota for OWP to 1 000 in order to meet the various demands.

• Thirdly, if the first batch of 700 000 children and spouses of the first generation is fully absorbed within three years, the situation will be that after they have lived in Hong Kong for seven years, their children born in the Mainland, whose number is estimated to be about 920 000, in turn will be eligible for entry to Hong Kong. It means that we need to accommodate some 1 600 000 new arrivals (not including the spouses) within 10 to 13 years.

Today, the population of Hong Kong is almost 7m and our economic structure has already changed from labour-intensive to service-oriented and knowledge-based. We are now actively developing high technology and high value-added industries to seek economic revival, which, in the long run, can improve our living standard. In face of keen competition from our neighbours in Asia, the Government's fiscal restraints and the economic downturn, it is very difficult for us to absorb a large number of persons with ROA. The provision of adequate social services and facilities for these people, over one million in number, requires not only money but also vast land and human resources for the construction of public housing, hospitals and schools. Doctors, nurses and teachers are also required. A large number of job opportunities is also needed so that the arrival of these people will not worsen our employment problem and cause a heavy burden to the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme. These are all severe problems and it is not easy for the Government to find solutions.

Response to Mr. Law's motion

Here I would like to respond to the first part of Mr. Law's motion, which urges the Government to collaborate with the Mainland authorities to expeditiously formulate and promulgate the new procedure for vetting and approving C of E applications in accordance with the judgment of the CFA and the spirit of the Basic Law, verify the status of C of E applicants and issue the C of E within a reasonable period of time, so as to discourage them from sneaking into Hong Kong.

We fully respect the CFA judgment and hope to formulate the procedure for C of E applications as early as possible. In this connection, the Director of Immigration met with the Director of the Bureau of Exit-entry Administration (BEEA) of the Ministry of Public Security three times on 1 February, 10 February and 26 March respectively. Moreover, I myself also met with the Director of the BEEA to discuss the procedures for accepting and vetting new applications for C of E, verifying the status of children born out of wedlock, and arranging for C of E holders to enter Hong Kong legally and orderly.

As we have explained, we hope the BEEA can act as the agent for the Director of Immigration in accepting applications and carrying out part of the verification on our behalf. The BEEA has offices in various cities and provinces in the Mainland. If it is appointed as the agent, it will be convenient for eligible persons living in different places, especially those who have no relatives in Hong Kong, to submit applications or make enquiries about their applications at the nearest office.

However, after a series of discussions between the Director of Immigration and the Mainland authorities, it is found that the Mainland public security authorities will have much difficulty in helping us implement the above application procedures because of the following reasons:

• Firstly, the Ministry of Public Security needs to know the number of persons involved before determining the demand for additional resources and the deployment of manpower. Hence, it too has carried out a study for ascertaining the number of eligible persons.

• Secondly, the Ministry of Public Security has to consider how C of E holders may come to Hong Kong legally. Under the law in the Mainland, Mainland residents have to seek exit approval from the Mainland authorities for entering Hong Kong. While the CFA judgment of 29 January ruled against the requirement that a C of E must be affixed to an OWP, it admitted that it could not overrule the Mainland requirement for Mainland residents to seek exit approval for entering Hong Kong. Article 5 of the "Interim Measures for the Control of Chinese Citizens Travelling on Private Business to or from the Regions of Hong Kong or Macao" stipulates that with respect to Mainland residents going to Hong Kong for settlement, the quota procedures for examination and approval shall be implemented in order to facilitate the safeguarding and maintaining of the economic prosperity and social stability of Hong Kong. Besides, Article 3 of the Interim Measures also stipulates that Mainland residents travelling to Hong Kong should obtain exit permits issued by Mainland public security authorities leave the Mainland through the designated ports. Therefore the BEEA is facing great difficulties in arranging for Mainland residents to come to Hong Kong legally , I would like to stress that they have to enter legally, after the C of E Scheme is delinked from the OWP Scheme.

• Thirdly, Article 7 of the Interim Measures provides that only five categories of people, such as spouses seeking reunion, and dependent children and elderly seeking support from their relatives in Hong Kong, may apply for the permission to settle in Hong Kong. Although under the CFA judgement, some of the people falling outside these categories become eligible for ROA, the BEEA is still obliged to arrange for their entry to Hong Kong for settlement in accordance with the law, otherwise it might give rise to public discontent or even lawsuits. Solving all these operational problems is therefore no easy task.

As for the first part of Selina Chow's amendment which urges the Government to make corresponding arrangements for eligible persons to come to Hong Kong in an orderly manner, thereby preventing an influx of illegal immigrants and undesirable impacts on Hong Kong, I fully understand the motive of Selina Chow's amendment, which is in hope of alleviating the impact on Hong Kong in allowing the eligible persons to settle here. Yet I must point out that the Court of Final Appeal's judgement has clearly indicated that in processing C of E applications, the Immigration Department must not exercise unreasonable delay. In the circumstances, even when the Immigration Department receives a large number of applications, it has to deploy resources as far as possible and process them speedily without any delay. Thus, strictly speaking, conflict exists between processing applications of eligible persons within a "reasonable period of time" to satisfy their demands and making arrangements for these persons to come to Hong Kong "in an orderly manner".

The second part of Law Chi-kwong's motion urges the Government to make arrangements for persons with the ROA, without prejudice to the exercise of their right, to decide for themselves when to settle in Hong Kong after being issued with the C of E. As I have explained, according to Mainland laws, Mainland residents have to leave for Hong Kong within a specified period of time after they have been issued with a One-way Permit. In fact, after the CFA delivered its judgement, we have reflected to the Mainland authorities the views of the Hon Law Chi Kwong. However, the Mainland authorities consider the suggestion out of line with Mainland laws and policies. Moreover, the Mainland's immigration control system would be disrupted if the number of eligible persons is substantial and if they can decide to cancel their household registration and leave for Hong Kong at anytime they like. Under the circumstances, the Mainland authorities cannot accept Mr Law's suggestion.

I would also like to point out that, as the Hon Mrs Selina Chow has said earlier, it is her wishful thinking that those eligible persons will postpone their settlement in Hong Kong after being issued with the C of E , however, according to our experience in handling large numbers of applications and petitions, we believe that very few people would wish to do so. It is because these applicants have already been waiting for a long time and would like to come to Hong Kong as soon as possible to study, work or take care of their sick relatives. The suggestion therefore is hardly feasible.

The third paragraphs of both the Hon Law Chi-kwong's motion & the Hon Selina Chow's amendment urges the Government to help new arrivals from the Mainland to integrate into the community. While Mr Law's motion seems more focused on their right to enjoy social welfare, Mrs Selina Chow's amendment emphasises more on formulating measures to a absorb & train these new arrivals with a view to developing them into a new driving force for HK's economic development. Both of them are of good intention, but since the number of people involved is enormous, we might have to absorb the first generation of 700 000 eligible persons within three years, and the children of the first generation will obtain ROA after they have settled in Hong Kong for seven years. If we have to absorb this second generation of eligible children which amounts to over 900,000 within three years, we will have to absorb a total of 1600000 eligible children in 10 to 13 years. The number does not include their spouses and it is believed that once these eligible children have come to Hong Kong, their spouses will be eager to come too. This will create a heavy burden on Hong Kong, because even if the Government can cope with the demand for various services financially, land resources & manpower may not be able to do so. Tens of thousands of Mainland residents settling in Hong Kong within a short period will cause a rapid increase in our population and unemployment rate; a more crowded living environment. The hillside squatters and temporary housing problem may reappear. Education & medical facilities could not cope with the demand caused by such a population boom. Moreover there is a possibility that our environment, and our vulnerable ecological balance may be badly affected too. Because of all these questions, the Government has to carefully consider the long-term implications for our community before deciding on how to respond to the requests made by the two Hon Members in this respect.

End/Wednesday, April 28, 1999

NNNN