Advertisement
Advertisement

Time for an explanation on the passports issue

Politics is mostly about handling public controversies. Barely a week after their appointment, the new deputy ministers already have one on their hands. Several find themselves embroiled in a public row over who has a foreign passport. The government says they have been hired because of their ability and professionalism. Here is a chance for the new appointees to exercise their political skills. They ought to be able to explain what their stance on the matter is, and reveal whether they hold a foreign passport or not.

But the way they have been handling the situation - or rather failing to handle it - does not speak well for their political acumen or help to improve their public image. Virtually all of them have kept silent, yet they are supposed to help the government improve governance and promote policies to the public.

The same can be said of the administration that hires them. So far, it has stuck to the line that the Basic Law bars only principal officials and heads of disciplinary forces from holding foreign citizenship. This may be correct from a purely technical legal standpoint, but it is also beside the point. Those who are raising the issue are presenting a political challenge, and it can only be met by taking a principled policy stance. Unfortunately, up to now, the government has not declared what its policy is. It has only itself to blame for failing to anticipate that the nationalities of the new appointees may become an issue. It has, after all, played up the patriotism card, repeating Beijing's line that those who serve in the government must love Hong Kong and China. It should not be surprised that this has now been turned against it and that questions are being raised about the loyalty and commitment of appointees who may or may not hold foreign passports.

The new political appointments are part of an attempt to expand the controversial accountability system. It adds layers of undersecretaries and political assistants to the ruling class of bureau secretaries. The Basic Law was promulgated before the system was created in 2002. Its aim is for the top policymakers to be Chinese citizens who are permanent Hong Kong residents with no right of abode elsewhere. Since political appointees will have a hand in determining government policies, it is legitimate to ask whether the spirit of the law requires the ban on holding foreign passports to be extended to them as well. After all, there will be times for them to be acting chiefs when the secretaries are away on business or holiday.

Nonetheless, the controversy is not a major political scandal. Merely owning a foreign passport should not cast doubt on someone's loyalty or integrity. Civil servants and 20 per cent of legislators are allowed to hold foreign passports. As an international city, Hong Kong people live and work closely alongside expatriates at all levels of society and business. If the new appointee system is really about seeking the best talent, there is no reason to bar people with passports from other countries from being selected. Many of these, indeed, will be Hongkongers.

Many Hong Kong people emigrated before the handover. But the success of the 'one country, two systems' concept has reversed this brain drain. Many have returned with foreign passports. Their commitment and love of the city is not in doubt. However, if they do join the upper echelon of government, they should be required to declare their nationalities. Ultimately, as befits an aspiring democratic city, the issue should be up to the people to decide. But for now, the government must, at least, explain its position.

Post