Advertisement

Hong Kong’s rule of law must be protected in any agreement on joint immigration checkpoint for express rail link

Gary Wong says the government needs to reassure the public that judicial independence and ‘one country, two systems’ will be upheld before further discussions take place

Reading Time:2 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
A crowd outside Government House protesting against the express rail link in 2010. Today, fears are growing that a joint immigration checkpoint may open the door to mainland law enforcement or even arrest of Hong Kong citizens – in Hong Kong, by mainland officials. Photo: K. Y. Cheng

The proposal for a joint immigration checkpoint for the express rail link has generated much controversy. Some say separate checkpoints would render the costly HK$84 billion rail link less efficient than the existing intercity through trains. Most others, however, are sceptical about a joint checkpoint because of the constitutional implications. Enforcement of laws by mainland officials in Hong Kong, outside the realm of national defence or diplomacy, infringes on Article 18 of the Basic Law and impinges on “one country, two systems”.

Advertisement

A joint immigration checkpoint may also become a precedent that opens the door to mainland law enforcement or even arrest of Hong Kong citizens – in Hong Kong, by mainland officials – and ultimately leads to encroachment on our rule of law.

The intent behind a joint immigration checkpoint was to facilitate immigration procedures and shorten travelling times. But convenience should not override legal concerns
After his visit to Beijing last month, justice minister Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung said he had reached a consensus with officials from the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, and claimed that to accommodate a joint immigration checkpoint would inevitably entail allowing law enforcement by mainland officials at the West Kowloon terminus. Whether it is inevitable remains unclear; the crucial point is that the “one country, two systems” principle is upheld. We must defend the rule of law and ensure our citizens are protected.
Construction of the West Kowloon terminus, which will serve the Hong Kong section of the express rail link, has been ongoing since 2010. Photo: Felix Wong
Construction of the West Kowloon terminus, which will serve the Hong Kong section of the express rail link, has been ongoing since 2010. Photo: Felix Wong

The original intent behind a joint checkpoint was to facilitate immigration procedures and shorten travelling times. Nonetheless, convenience should not override legal concerns. If mainland officials are to operate in Hong Kong, the source and limits of their legal authority must first be scrutinised.

Looking at overseas cases, customs arrangements akin to those proposed by the government are usually undertaken bilaterally and on equal terms. For instance, Canadian and US officials may only exercise equal powers at the border. Outside their respective national territories, customs officials are only permitted to attend to immigration duties.

READ MORE: New ideas emerge on creation of joint immigration checkpoint for Hong Kong high-speed rail

A similar arrangement may work here, with mainland officials limited to duties like questioning individuals as they pass through immigration, searching luggage or denying entry. They would not have the authority to make an arrest. Except for immigration laws, the mainland and Hong Kong would defer to their own local legislation.

Advertisement