Chris Patten and other talking heads should examine UK visitor controls before criticising Hong Kong’s

Grenville Cross says the UK has barred numerous individuals from entry for political reasons, yet British politicians prefer to obsess about Hong Kong’s immigration system, following the decision to deny entry to activist Benedict Rogers, rather than ensure their own house is in order

Reading Time:3 minutes

Benedict Rogers speaks at a demonstration for Hong Kong democracy outside Parliament in London on September 28. Photo: Benedict Rogers/Twitter

Published: 10:39am, 20 Oct 2017Updated: 7:04pm, 20 Oct 2017

If anybody thought there was a God-given right to enter Hong Kong, the exclusion of Benedict Rogers will have disabused them of that notion. It is not uncommon for people to be refused entry into countries. In the UK, for example, former home secretary Jacqui Smith revealed in 2009 that, on average, five people a month were barred from entering Britain and reminded everyone that “coming to this country is a privilege”.

Rogers, a minor political functionary linked to Britain’s governing Conservative Party, lived in Hong Kong for several years after reunification, apparently without acquiring permanent residency. Now he dabbles in Hong Kong politics, albeit from afar. Having hosted various opposition figures visiting London, he paradoxically hailed Joshua Wong Chi-fung and Nathan Law Kwun-chung as “heroes”, which might bemuse the 10 security guards injured when they staged what the Court of Appeal called “a large-scale unlawful assembly, involving violence”.

Student leaders Nathan Law and Joshua Wong walk into the Hong Kong High Court to face the verdict on charges relating to the 2014 Occupy Central protests, on August 17. Photo: Reuters

British lawmakers to quiz Theresa May’s government over human rights campaigner being barred from Hong Kong

Rogers insisted he was coming to Hong Kong for a private visit, but this was clearly not a sightseeing holiday. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hua Chunying said Rogers “must have been very clear as to whether he intended to interfere with the affairs of a special administrative region and the independence of Hong Kong’s judiciary”. Beijing presumably did not want to admit an activist who might cause tensions at a sensitive time.

Although the Basic Law Article 154 entitles the Hong Kong government to apply immigration controls to “persons from foreign states and regions”, Article 12 provides that the central government is responsible for “foreign affairs relating to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region”. If, therefore, the central government, often privy to matters not known to local officials, considers a visit by a foreign political figure to Hong Kong inimical to its interests, it has an overarching power to prevent such entry, as in the UK.

British Prime Minister Theresa May speaks at 10 Downing Street in central London on Tuesday. May was home secretary when the UK adopted guidelines that could prohibit foreign visitors from entering if it was not “conducive to the public good”. Photo: EPA-EFE

Greater transparency would ease concerns

UK Home Office rules indicate that visitors may be denied entry if they were previously imprisoned. Through guidelines adopted in 2015, while Theresa May was still home secretary, they may also be barred if their presence is not considered “conducive to public good because of their conduct, convictions, character, associations or other reasons”. These generalised criteria leave people at the mercy of the Home Office. May also revealed that hundreds had been barred for “hate speech”.