Hong Kong’s pan-democrats are on the wrong track with express rail border checks row
Mike Rowse says instead of opposing what is a sensible travel plan likely to be welcomed by even Beijing sceptics in Hong Kong, the pro-democracy camp should address the incidents that make them fear for the rule of law
The pan-democrats are pledging to fight the idea tooth and nail on the grounds that it is a breach of the Basic Law, and will open the door to mainland officials exercising jurisdiction within the Hong Kong SAR, and so on. With great respect, I do not find any of the reasons offered very compelling. And I suspect many ordinary citizens of Hong Kong – including people who might be inclined to support the democratic cause in elections – feel the same.
Similar arrangements are in place at both ends of the Eurostar – you go through UK immigration in Paris, and French immigration in London. Does this offend the sovereignty of either country? Of course not.
Watch: Rimsky Yuen says joint immigration controls will conform to ‘one country, two systems’
The point is Hong Kong voters are very worldly and are familiar with these arrangements elsewhere. They know that such systems are not of themselves sinister; what matters is how they are operated. And the signs here are promising: the areas where mainland officials will be able to exercise their powers under mainland law will be clearly demarcated and secured. Attempting to exercise powers outside these boundaries would be clearly unlawful. Wandering into the premises accidentally would be impossible.
Six key questions on how dual jurisdiction will work at Hong Kong’s new rail terminus
Watch: Causeway Bay Books’ Lam Wing-kee speaks out
Such episodes – still not fully explained – undermine the rule of law and Hong Kong’s status as a safe city in which to do business. The idea that one may not be safe walking the streets of one’s own city is a legitimate concern and merits the outrage it evoked at the time. A practical arrangement for making a voluntary visit to the north does not.
Hong Kong police still lack answers from China about missing tycoon Xiao Jianhua
But let us look at the detail of how the terminus will operate in practice. A Hong Kong person or foreign national will go through our immigration to leave the city, then enter the enclosed area set aside for mainland immigration. If he is not going to be allowed in, he will be turned back at this point, surely preferable to going all the way to Shenzhen and being kicked out there. If he is wanted for whatever reason by mainland authorities, what is the difference between being arrested here or in Guangzhou?
Timeline: Hong Kong’s missing booksellers
The chances of that actually happening in practice is pretty remote.
The precedent argument is interesting from an intellectual perspective but not much more than that. Obviously we are not going to construct another high-speed rail and no one has suggested co-location at Chek Lap Kok for flights to the mainland, or at the various ferry terminals. Come to think of it, I can see advantages in clearing Macau immigration in Hong Kong, but let’s not stir up a hornet’s nest.
My main message to the democrats is this. Preserve your energy to prevent any repetition of the Lee and Xiao sagas. Fighting against pragmatic sensible arrangements is just opposition for its own sake.
Mike Rowse is the CEO of Treloar Enterprises. [email protected]