A stain on 'two systems' that won't go away
Separate legal systems lie at the heart of 'one country, two systems'. The circumstances in which a Chinese dissident came to be handed over to mainland authorities, who tried and jailed him for nine years for a crime committed in Hong Kong, therefore warrants an explanation - not just for him, but for all of us. It raises concerns that our system and our autonomy on immigration matters have been compromised. Yet nearly a year and a half later, the circumstances remain largely a mystery. The government's refusal to provide more information has exacerbated those concerns. Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee Siu-kwong's appearance before lawmakers this week to answer questions was a chance to address them.
Instead, we are none the wiser. Lee's denial that the government knowingly handed over Zhou Yongjun , a leader of the student protests 21 years ago in Tiananmen Square, and that he himself had made any serious mistakes in handling the matter, is not helpful. It leaves many worrying questions unanswered. It is disappointing that Lee said he could not reveal information to the Legislative Council.
The usual line that the government does not comment on individual cases is a weak excuse, since he had already commented in this instance. Lawmakers have a legitimate interest in the operation of 'two systems' and there is no suggestion considerations of the security of Hong Kong or the nation are involved. The reluctance to provide more information only raises the suspicion that the administration fears it would be embarrassing, or give rise to embarrassing questions.
It was left to an anonymous insider to repeat previously leaked explanations that immigration officers did not know Zhou's real identity when they handed him over and that, when told he would be sent to the mainland, he did not state that he had residency in another country - the United States.
To be sure, Zhou hardly helped his own cause. He arrived from Macau in September 2008 on a fake Malaysian passport. Normally, however, someone who tried to enter the city with suspicious travel documents would either be prosecuted in Hong Kong or sent back to where they came from. In Zhou's case, that would have been Macau or, alternatively, the US. Officials still have not revealed their reasoning in driving him over the border and handing him to mainland authorities. What is even more puzzling is that although Hong Kong police questioned Zhou about a suspicious attempt to withdraw money from a local bank account in the same name as the fake passport, it was mainland police who laid fraud charges. Zhou's case is more disturbing than previous examples of people being tried on the mainland for offences committed in Hong Kong because they were first apprehended there, not inexplicably sent there. We remain in the dark about why he was tried in a Sichuan court, the evidence on which he was convicted and who supplied it.
Zhou's background as a leader of the 1989 pro-democracy protests and his connection to a banned mainland sect inevitably give rise to questions about the motives for his detention and transfer by car to the mainland. Lee and the well-placed source who declined to be named were unconvincing, leaving more questions than answers. The Zhou affair will not go away, even if his lawyer does not go ahead with an appeal.
'One country, two systems' matters in very real ways to all of us. We need to have confidence that our government follows the spirit and the letter of the formula and that, when there is any suggestion that it may have been violated, we can receive clear and timely explanations sufficient to put our minds to rest.
