It began as one of the most contentious decisions ever taken in Hong Kong, and now it ends rather shabbily in a piece of hastily prepared retrospective legislation. But there is no denying that the majority of the population will welcome the decision to end Hong Kong's role as a port of first asylum.
Secretary for Security Peter Lai Hing-ling announced the move with the same firmness of purpose he showed last autumn when denying the Government had any intention of changing the policy. But in opting to give a form of residency to 1,200 refugees while repatriating those who come here as economic migrants, he is appeasing both sides of the divide on the long-running Vietnamese question.
Assimilating the last remnants of that once-unstoppable tide of refugees into the community is a humane gesture. And there can be no argument against returning immigrants who come seeking work. If the decision to abandon the policy will not enhance Hong Kong's international image, what is of more immediate concern domestically is the move to make the legislation active today, before it is tabled by the provisional legislature.
It has long been Mr Lai's contention that it was unnecessary to abandon the policy because so few Vietnamese claim asylum. Of the 1,700 arrivals last year, only four sought refugee status. So the question arises of why there should be such a rush to bring in the new law, and whether it is, in fact, so essential to Hong Kong that it should be passed by the interim body.
The excuse about a tide of Ex-China Vietnamese illegal immigrants poised to take to the boats from Guangdong is far from convincing. Retrospective legislation always excites the suspicion that it involves something which is not quite above board. It is against the spirit of the rule of law and potentially unfair.
While we can be relieved that the Vietnamese problem is finally over, Hong Kong should now follow up by signing the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees in order to sustain the international standing of the SAR.
