I am surprised that our Chief Executive should say that accepting the estimated 1.67 million mainlanders eligible for right of abode would have 'unimaginable consequences'.
After all, the policy secretaries demonstrated in the Legislative Council on Thursday that they had very vivid imaginations.
We were not spared one iota of the dire consequences which would ensue even though the guesstimates have nothing to do with reality.
The Government has slipped up though in painting this nightmare scenario. The Acting Chief Secretary for Administration told the Legislative Council that the Government had a responsibility 'to assess the demand for various services and facilities on the assumption that all eligible persons will exercise such a right'. Why then has the Government not taken into account that those persons living outside Hong Kong but not on the mainland who have the right of abode or who might become eligible for the right of abode 'will exercise such a right?' More importantly, why did we not hear a single word about the benefits of accepting permanent residents for settlement? I suppose that we suffer for having no professionals among the ranks of our policy secretaries, since no self-respecting professional would present only the negative consequences if asked to assess the impact.
Although I do not represent and cannot speak for the Open University of Hong Kong, having been associated with it since it first opened its doors as the Open Learning Institute, I can see nothing but good for the institution if only a fraction of those estimated to be over 20 years of age come to Hong Kong to take up permanent residence based on the Government's guesstimate figures. The Open University is self-financing. The bulk of its students come from the over-20 age group and are entirely unsubsidised by government which only provides partial funds for the university's capital projects on an 'ad hoc' basis.
The institution depends almost entirely on the income from fees for its survival.
