The sad passing of local democracy icon Szeto Wah provides a rare opportunity for Hong Kong to claw back some of its high degree of autonomy that seems to have been surrendered in recent years. That is, the right to determine who can and cannot enter our city and on what conditions.
Uncle Wah was almost unique in political circles here for having an unblemished record of public service. No one doubted his integrity, his sincerity or the strength of his convictions. He earned respect from all corners of the political spectrum.
Nor was his fame limited to Hong Kong. As leader of the Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China, Szeto played an important role in helping many of those involved in the 1989 protests on the mainland to escape overseas after the June 4 crackdown. Naturally, those who now live safely in exile wish to pay their respects by attending all or some of the ceremonies to mark his passing.
Their desire to come to Hong Kong for that purpose leaves our minister for security, Ambrose Lee Siu-kwong, stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place. On the one hand, attendance at funeral ceremonies of someone who has had a major impact on your life is perfectly natural for people to want to do. On the other, the one absolute about Hong Kong's privileged position under the 'one country, two systems' formula is that we must not be a base for subversion against the central government.
How can we square this circle? We should start by being honest with ourselves and, for that purpose, we need more information.
The mainland immigration authorities are understood to maintain a list of people whom they regard as subversives and whom they bar from entering the mainland. Has the Hong Kong Immigration Department been formally informed of the names on this list? If so, was the list accompanied by a directive to apply the same ban here, or was it to be simply a factor for Hong Kong to 'take into account'? In the former case, we ought to be told the legal authority for such application. In the latter, it could be argued that the pressure thereby exerted unduly fettered the director of immigration in the exercise of his discretion. His appointment is, after all, one that needs to be approved by Beijing, according to the Basic Law. The same applies to the security secretary, who would no doubt be giving the director a policy steer.