Further Information

Overstayers Against the Arbitrary Change in the Final Verdict

On 2 August 2000, a group of violent right-of-abode seekers who threatened immigration officers to issue Hong Kong identity card to them at Immigration Tower splashed the paint thinner over the reception counter and set light on it, with the result that nineteen of the 50 people were injured in the blaze.

This blaze injured 50 people, including two immigration officers. Both suffered skin-burning.  One of immigrant officers whose 63% of skin were burnt out are under a serious condition now. Four abode seekers who suffered skin-burning were staying in the hospital custodial ward for medical treatment and further investigation. Others with minor injury, after medical treatment, were discharged.

This incident of the fatal blaze, according to the "Focus" in the SCMP, is probably initiated by a Tong Xin group, the radical protesters who prefer to employ more violent actions to affect the government policy. In the "Focus", it is discovered that abode seekers are divided into three groups, Right of Abode Committee, Parents of Abode Seekers Association and Tong Xin group. After the tragedy happens, none admitted any involvement into the case of the immigration office blaze. However, it is strongly suspicious that Tong Xin committee launched this violent attack against the immigration tower. According to the reply given by the representative of the 5,000-strong Right of Abode Committee, Tong Xin committee, consisting of a large number of overstayers, prefers a high profile way to express their discontent. For example, when the members of Right of Abode Committee suggest holding sit-in, Tong Xin members would suggest a march.

Although the division and difference in abode seekers are known, the seriously tarnished image of abode-seekers could not be improved much at the present moment. To make matter worse, this tragedy  would even arouse the suppressed hatred and discontent against the mainland immigrant. Actually there is no period that Hong Kong people had respected the mainland people. Even if some mainlanders are very rich, Hong Kong people may despise their manners and language as uncivilized or out-dated. In the 80s, there was a film which constructed an uncivilized new immigrants in Hong Kong and labeled him as "Ah Chan". From my memory, this uncivilized immigrant has a untidy short hair and a lot of pimple on his face. He is dressed in a dirty blue shirt and  a creased blue jean with a 人-shaped sandal. Also, he cannot speak proper Cantonese and fail to show a proper eating manner. This is our typical image of mainlanders. This image definitely contradicts one which Hong Kong parents expect their children to be.  

Under this cultural background and the cultural division between Hong Kong people and mainlanders, the dislike for the coming of mainlanders to Hong Kong is very prevalent.  With the arson attack, the dissatisfaction against the violent act of some overstayers would further catalyze the tension and animosity between "Hong Kong people" and "mainlanders" According to the news, an audience in the phone-in radio programme criticized vehemently that the coming of the mainland immigrants degraded the overall Hong Kong living standard and threatened the social order. Besides, many Hong Kong elitists such as the chairman of the Democratic Party, members of Liberal Party or the famous media critics pointed out that those who challenged the rule of law by initiating insensible action  should be subjected to legal trial and punishment. Even some thought that the appeal case initiated by abode seekers should be tried in a faster manner, lest dissatisfied overstayers would take more radical action.

Owing to this tragedy, the government imposes more stringent policy on overstayers whose two-way permit has expired. She does not allow mainland children to extend the date of staying in Hong Kong. Besides, she takes action to arrest those who has launched an assembly in June 24 at the Central Government Office. Perhaps, under the present atmosphere when few would pay sympathy towards the abode seekers, the police are more easily labeling them as trouble-makers which provoked the "stronger defense" of the policeman with use of pepper spray and physical attack. Definitely, this is a good moment for the government to take action to suppress them who are in isolation.

The current public atmosphere which has constructed the abode seeker as a bad element of social disorder and a culprit in the breach of law is really unfavorable to the mainland immigrants. This would definitely radicalized the hidden "difference" between Hong Kong people and mainlanders. In the past, the treatment for the mainland immigrants given by Hong Kong people may be criticized as unjust. Now, upholding the flag of rule of law, Hong Kong people can claim justly that mainland immigrant is the potential threat to Hong Kong, although only a few abode seekers commit this violent act.

Although many thought that the abode-seekers who set blaze at the immigration office are insensible and heinous, I think their illegal act is quite sensible. Remember that when the final appeal court gave a verdict to allow the mainland children of Hong Kong residents have a right to stay in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong government requested the Standing Committee of National People Congress to reinterpret the basic law section 24. As a result, mainlanders who could receive Hong Kong identity card under the verdict of Final Appeal Court suddenly fail to enjoy a legal staying in Hong Kong. Under this situation, the rule of law for some abode seekers is not a guardian of just society. Instead it is like the product of the powerful players. Only if you are powerful, the so called superior law could be changed in supporting more "just" public interest. Viewing from this way, those who use a radical and even illegal way to obtain the right of abode are a fully sensible being.

In the following day since the tragedy, the security at the Immigration Tower was stepped up and its security is questioned by the public too. From the television, it is seen that the security guards checked out all the staff's possession such as a milk bottle, a make-up box or a mirror before allowing staff to take an elevator. However the incident should not merely lead people to consider the immediate problem. Indeed and more importantly, it reminds us that we should not allow the government to intervene into the verdict of the Final Appeal Court through requesting the Standing Committee to reinterpret the Basic Law unilaterally. Otherwise, the legitimacy of law would not be recognized.

All in all, immigration officers and abode seekers are loser in this case, but the administrative ruling with strong orientation to unbalanced economic growth is a "winner".

Remark: there are triggered out two academic questions in the issue of Right of Abode which I will continue to explore in the near future. That is, what is the relationship between public interest and a legal system and how to strength the minority to strive for a better living standard.