MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I always agree that the immigration policy and the One-way Permit (“OWP”) system in Hong Kong can be improved and revised based on actual circumstances. But any improvement or revision should be founded on Hong Kong’s population policy, economic development and social capacity with the backup of comprehensive studies. As long as we have concrete justifications, we may hold discussions with the Central Authorities and strive for their support. Nevertheless, any attempts to ascribe all social problems to the OWP system and demonize new arrivals are actually mere political orchestration aiming to stimulate social conflicts and in turn discredit the Government. They are simply not intended for resolving any problems for Hong Kong.
At the same time, I must bring up one point. Any conflicts among social groups or races may produce very serious consequence. We must learn a lesson from the various incidents involving bloodshed in various places of the world in recent years. While the topic for discussion today is “Reforming the immigration and admission policies”, the main focus is still on OWP entrants. Are OWP entrants really a burden to Hong Kong? Or, have they also made contribution to Hong Kong? I think the community should sort this out through discussion before it can pass a judgment.
According to many people in society, OWP entrants are mostly Mainland women married to grass-roots people in Hong Kong. They say that their education level is not very high, and they occupy our public housing and live on Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (“CSSA”) after moving to Hong Kong. Actually, most OWP entrants are indeed grass-roots people. But today, those with a low education level who live on CSSA are only in the minority. According to the Government’s survey, 90% of the adult OWP entrants to Hong Kong in 2018 had middle school qualifications, and 23% possessed university qualifications. Their median age was 33, and around 60% of them indicated that they prepared to seek employment in Hong Kong. Those who did not intend to do so were mostly homemakers. Members should be clear about the social contribution of homemakers. Besides, some have contended that new arrivals come to Hong Kong for our welfare benefits. This is not true either. The survey found that only 5.5% of the respondents were recipients of government financial assistance.
The above figures show that OWP entrants from the new generation are mostly young and vibrant, and their average education level is also on the rise. While they are new forces for elementary jobs in Hong Kong, their contribution to Hong Kong’s economy is evident to all. Over the past 20 years, around 1 million OWP entrants have come to settle in Hong Kong. But Hong Kong’s overall population has recorded a net growth of only 220 000 people. Without new arrivals, Hong Kong would have lost 400 000 workers in the labour force. Members can come to imagine this. If our various industries, such as retail, catering and service industries, are stripped of these workers, the repercussion will be inconceivable indeed. At the same time, due to the persistent ageing of Hong Kong’s population, we will need large numbers of elementary workers to provide services in Hong Kong in the future.
In fact, 98% of the OWP entrants come to Hong Kong for family reunion. While Hong Kong people are certainly entitled to the right of abode in Hong Kong, family reunion in Hong Kong is also a basic human right for the spouses or parents of Hong Kong people, one which is protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In the past, whenever political issues were discussed, the opposition camp would hold this international covenant up high. But in our current discussion on new arrivals, they have forgotten all about it. If they even hold double standards in human right discussions, how can they possibly convince others? The opposition camp has also argued that they may go to the Mainland to reunite with their families. This is totally unreasonable. Suppose the father of a family works in Hong Kong. How can he possibly go to the Mainland to reunite with his family? Another important issue is precisely the length of wait. As also mentioned by the Government, overseas family members of foreigners married to Hong Kong people simply need not join the queue, and they may apply directly for residence in Hong Kong as long as they meet the requirements, such as receiving support from a sponsor. Usually, it takes six weeks to complete the vetting and approval process. But the Mainland spouses of Hong Kong people have to wait a couple of years before they can move to Hong Kong under the OWP system. Today, some Members have proposed to introduce a similar sponsor requirement for the OWP system. But at present, most of the OWP entrants are not CSSA recipients. After the introduction of the sponsor requirement, OWP applicants may move to Hong Kong forthwith as long as they fulfil the relevant requirements, just like family members of foreigners married to Hong Kong people. The quota system cannot possibly exist anymore; or else it may give rise to discrimination. I believe this is something that the opposition camp will hate to see even more.
As for those Mainland talents who have moved to Hong Kong under various talent admission schemes, they are actually facilitators of Hong Kong’s economy, and their contribution does not compare less favourably with that of overseas talents in Hong Kong. Many people in Hong Kong adhere to one mentality, thinking that Hong Kong is still “a goose that can lay golden eggs”, and it does not need any contribution from outsiders. This kind of celestial mentality is in fact totally erroneous. Hong Kong has long since relied on its established strengths to maintain its very survival. It is prosperous on the surface, but its competitiveness is actually dwindling, and it only relies on financial and real estate services as support for its whole development. Therefore, we are in dire need of talent importation and also the Greater Bay Area for increasing our competitiveness and expanding the market respectively.
Furthermore, some have argued that OWP entrants have robbed us of our social resources, and that they are even the main culprit for the overload on our hospitals. This assertion is indeed questionable. According to media information, those who seek treatment at Accident and Emergency Departments are mostly elderly people, and the main cause is population ageing. The median age of OWP entrants has stood at 33 in recent years. While some OWP entrants are also in their sixties, the number of such OWP entrants is within the range of a few hundred and some 2 000 a year, and they merely account for a few percentage points of the overall number of OWP entrants. Even though middle-aged or young people may likewise get sick, it is still impossible to say that OWP entrants, who are mainly middle-aged and young people, are precisely the main culprit for the overload on our hospitals. As reported, the Government is now compiling comprehensive statistics. We may look at the figures in the future before passing a judgment.
Besides, some have also contended that the relevant reclamation projects are mainly intended for constructing housing for new arrivals. This assertion is simply a ridiculous exaggeration. Even if new arrivals apply for public housing upon settling in Hong Kong, they must still queue up behind the existing several hundred thousand applicants in the line. How can they possibly say that our reclamation projects are aimed to provide public housing to these people in the future? It is impossible that they can receive public housing allocation before others. Hong Kong people are always smart. They know deep down their heart which government policies are for the good of Hong Kong people.
Several years ago, Members kept saying how they were envious of the public housing system in Singapore. Our reclamation projects today are precisely modelled on Singapore’s example. Initially, this was a big piece of good news, as everybody would be provided with housing in the future. But now, some have nonetheless told people that we should not proceed with reclamation, lest new arrivals may benefit. As a result, everybody will be stripped of any housing. All such assertions are indeed extremely ridiculous. Instead of envying Singapore, we should follow its example of creating land through reclamation, so as to provide housing with better living conditions to everybody in the future.
I so submit.