港聞回顧 逃犯條例修訂事件簿 THE HONG KONG STUDENT REVIEW OF
POLITICAL SCIENCE VOLUME 42 ISSUE 1 (2019)
Refugees, Immigrants and Asylum Seekers Q&A on Asylum with UNHCR Does immigration strengthen or undermine tolerance?
Politics ad Public Administration Association SSS HKUSU Session 2018-2019 Chairman Frederick Leung Internal Vice Chairman Candice Chen External Vice Chairman Dilys Tam General Secretary Anson Tsui Financial Secretary and acting Academic Secretary Kelly Ma Publicity Secretary and acting Publication Secretary Meredith Yip Current Affairs Secretary Irvin Ng Marketing Officer and acting Welfare Secretary Evan Yue Public Relations Officer Nicholson Tsang
Disclaimer The views expressed in the various articles represent those of the authors and interviewees but not the Association. The articles included in SRPS must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the authors.
THE HONG KONG STUDENT REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
Content
4
Glance 港聞回顧 逃犯條例修訂事件簿
13
22
Spotlight Q&A on Asylum with UNHCR Does immigration strengthen or undermine tolerance?
Submissions
The Militarization of Refugees: Political and Legal Perspectives Trump Dismantling Asylum as We Know It
30 3
Association Affairs Previous events Upcoming events
POLITICS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATION SSS HKUSU
港聞回顧 2019已過去了一半，我們在此整理出本年一至五月的 香港觸目要聞，紀錄及回顧重要的政策改動與政治事 件。
一月 一月七日 長者綜援合資格年齡調整 為鼓勵長者就業，政府於1月7日宣布，領取 長者綜援的合資格年齡將由60歲改為65歲。 原本可於舊制受惠、65歲以下的新申請者， 需轉為申請成人綜援（每月2,455 元），比 長者綜援（每月 3,485 元）少逾千元。此舉 引起社會廣泛關注，質疑60至64歲之基層勞 工是否仍有能力從事體力勞動的工作，勞工 市場又是否願意聘請年紀較大的人士。最後 政府決定妥協，於1月18日宣布會向60至64 歲健全成人綜援受助人每月另外發放1,060 元的就業支援補助金，亦即成人綜援及長者 綜援之差額。但由於成人綜援11及長者綜援 的不同津貼領取範圍有所不同，即使政府決 定補回差額，這群60至64歲的受助人，依然 會比舊制缺少了牙科、眼鏡和特別生活津貼 等福利內容。因此民間依然有不少聲音反對 新計劃，不滿政府在諮詢不足的情況下上調 退休年齡。
4
THE HONG KONG STUDENT REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
香港居民西九龍站內地口岸區被捕 廣州《南方都市報》於本年一月發表報導， 指2017年10月及12月期間，深圳南山法院 及深圳龍崗法院曾分別派出執行法官及法警 乘高鐵到西九龍站內地口岸區，將未有履行 法院裁決及被限制出境的一名香港永久性居 民及一名內地男子帶返深圳，事件未有向香 港通報。政務司司長張建宗回應指，由於案 件不涉「刑事強制」措施，而是類似香港的 執達吏履行法院裁決，故毋須通報香港。立 法會議員陳淑莊指，根據政府提交給立法會 有關通報機制新安排的文件，只要內地人員 在港作出拘留行為均應通報，懷疑此案違反 程序。她強調香港政府有責任向內地了解詳 情，並向公眾交代。
一月九日 國歌法條例草案公佈 2019年1月9日，政制及內地事務局公佈《 國歌條例草案》，列明若意圖侮辱國歌、 公開及故意篡改國歌，或以歪曲或貶損方 式奏唱國歌將會列為犯罪，並列明國歌、 歌詞和曲譜不得用於商標、商業廣告上、 或用作私人喪事活動和公眾場所的背景音 樂。國歌亦須納入中小學教育，以體現《 中華人民共和國國歌法》精神。草案亦列 明奏唱國歌場合，包括行政會議和立法會 宣誓儀式等，不過當局以警方未必能在半 年內完成調查為由，將國歌法檢控期限延 長至兩年，引起泛民主派質疑，認為是方 便「秋後算帳」。
5
POLITICS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATION SSS HKUSU
二月 二月十八日 粵港澳大灣區綱要公佈 2019年2月18日，中國共產黨中央委員會和 中華人民共和國國務院公佈《粵港澳大灣區 發展規劃綱要》，提出鞏固和提升香港在金 融、航運、貿易和航空樞紐上的國際地位； 建設國際科技創新中心；為優勢範疇開拓發 展空間；加強大灣區內城市互聯互通；推動 青年創新創業；充分善用香港的國際聯繫 和國際網絡，向海外推廣粵港澳大灣區，以 吸引資金和人才落戶。在「一國兩制」原則 下，香港特區政府將協助促進人流、物流、 資金流、信息流。2020年將完成粵港澳大灣 區的基礎設施，2022年基本完成三地市場規 則對接，2035年，全面建成國際一流灣區。
三月
三月一日 理大「連儂牆」事件校方處分 理大學生會2018年9月為紀念雨傘運動四週 年，將民主牆約一半空間改成「連儂牆」讓 同學自由發表意見，但校方以新的民主牆不 符合校方守則為由，強行收回民主牆的管理 權。最終多名學生於10月4日前往副校長辦 公室要求交代，期間學生代表一度與教職員 發生推撞，雙方皆有人倒地。校方於11月向 涉事學生發信，指學生紀律委員會正調查10 月4日的衝突事件，並指他們違反校規，其 中包括誹謗和攻擊或毆打大學職員。校方其 後於2019年2月宣布罰護理系碩士生何俊謙 即時退學並終生不被理大錄取，學生會前會 長林穎恆被罰停學一年，另外兩名同學分別 被罰120和60小時的社會服務令。19個大專 學界組織其後發聲明，指判決不合理，不公 平，影響學生自治權利。教協亦發聲明指理 大處分過重，認為大學應以教育為原則，重 新考慮四名學生的處分，及向公眾交代處分 理據。
6
THE HONG KONG STUDENT REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
三月二十二日 旺角暴動案重審 梁天琦等四人被控參與二零一六年旺角 暴動，其中一項陪審團未達裁決的暴動 罪由去年十一月起於高等法院重審，審 訊歷時長七十五日。陪審員於三月二十 二日裁定梁天琦、李諾文、林傲軒於砵 蘭街參與暴動罪名罪名不成立。被控七 項控罪的容偉業，則有三項控罪罪成， 包括一項襲警罪以及兩項參與暴動罪。 就其另一項非法集結罪，陪審團則無法 達成有效裁決。
四月
四月八日 丁權司法覆核案 長洲居民郭卓堅於2015年就丁屋政策是否 合憲提出司法覆核，而高等法院就丁權覆核 一案頒下判詞，裁定新界原居民於私人土地 建丁屋是合憲舉動，受《基本法》第四十條 保障，惟丁權在「私人協約」及「換地」因 涉及政府土地，故不屬於原居民傳統權益， 亦即違法。此外，因是次裁決牽連範圍甚 廣，包括新界原居民和一般市民等，故法庭 決定暫緩執行判詞6個月。 新界鄉議局主席劉業強於鄉議局例會上發 言，指對於申請官地建丁屋不屬於合法傳統 權益感遺憾和失望，並強調會「不惜一切代 價捍衛原居民的合法傳統權益」。劉稱在官 地上建丁屋是由於政府大規模發展新市鎮， 是以低價徵收新界人持有的土地，故撥出政 府土地予原居民、供他們申請興建丁屋作補 償。劉又謂現階段未決定會否就法庭判決做 進一步行動。
7
POLITICS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATION SSS HKUSU
四月二十四日 佔中九子判刑 佔中9人被控公眾妨擾等罪一案，早 前被判罪成，於四月二十四日在西九 龍裁判法院判刑。其中「佔中三子」 陳健民、朱耀明和戴耀廷分別因串謀 公眾妨擾判囚16個月，朱耀明緩刑兩 年。戴及陳未有呈上求情信，惟望法 庭不要判朱耀明入獄。三子的代表律 師謂刑期較預期中高，是以會就其罪 名上訴，並會就戴耀廷和陳健民的刑 期上訴。 法官陳仲衡在庭上指出，被告沒有展 示悔意－表達悔意應向受佔領運動影 響的道路使用者道歉，而非摒棄其政 治理念。
五月 五月二十二日 黃台仰、 李東昇獲德國難民庇護 《紐約時報》等多個外媒於五月二十二日報 道，2016年旺角騷亂案中棄保潛逃的本土民 主前線前召集人黃台仰，以及成員李東昇， 獲德國批出難民庇護申請。據報，該政治庇 護已於去年五月獲批。香港人權監察總幹事 羅沃啟指出，過往港人獲批為政治難民的案 例極為罕見，認為是次事件為「國際社會向 香港人權狀況投下不信任票」。黃台仰其後 表示，他現時已不再主張香港獨立，認為最 重要的是香港的人權狀況。他重申，公開現 況，是希望外界關注修訂逃犯條例對港人帶 來的影響。
8
THE HONG KONG STUDENT REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
《逃犯條例》修訂 事件簿
《逃犯條例》修例為本年最能引起社會廣泛關注的本地大事之一。修例草案在 學界、法律界、商界等各界別皆引起極大迴響。 2月13日，政府宣布提出修訂《逃犯 條例》和《刑事事宜相互法律協助條 例》，以「一次性個案方式」處理沒 有與特區簽訂互助協議的地方的移交 逃犯申請，並在次日展開為期只有20 日的公眾諮詢。即使是未有協定的司 法管轄區(包括中國內地)，只要經香 港特首和法庭同意，也能以個案方式 將疑犯引渡。
移交逃犯修訂條例草案刊憲 3月26日，政府宣佈從草案中刪除了9 項商業罪行，訂明可以進行「特別移 交安排」的罪行須屬可判處3年監禁或 任何較重的懲罰。修例所涵蓋的罪行 限於37項現時適用於一般性質移交安 排的罪行，政府亦在較早前公布，建 議剔出特別移交安排的罪行，包括破 產、與公司有關、與證券及期貨交易 有關、保護知識產權或版權專利、與 環境污染或保障公眾衞生有關、非法 使用電腦等。
商界、教育界和法律界等多個界別均 對此表示憂慮，因一旦修例，港人可 被移交至中國受審，而內地的司法制 度和本港的有極大差異，再加上兩地 對於法治一詞的理解迥異，令人擔心 港人於內地能否得到公平審訊。
民主派立法會議員及民間人權陣線於 三月三十一日主辦「反對修訂引渡條 例」遊行，要求撤回收例。警方估
9
POLITICS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATION SSS HKUSU
計，高峰期有5200人參加遊行；大會 則估計有約12000人參與遊行。
13萬人反修訂遊行
4月1日，劉鑾雄（大劉）向高等法院 就修訂提出司法覆核。其於2014年 被澳門法院裁定行賄及洗黑錢罪名成 立。劉出一旦修訂通過，其將面對不 公平判刑，屆時將流亡海外。 林榮基流亡事件
4月27日，民陣再發起遊行，要求撤 回修訂《逃犯條例》，遊行隊伍龍尾 在遊行開始4小時後，到達終點立法 會示威區。 民陣表示，參與遊行人數有13萬人。 警方指，最高峰時有約22800人。民 陣表示，若政府不撤回修訂，將會發 起包圍立法會行動。佔中案被告朱耀 明表示，見到很多人參與遊行覺得很 感動，希望政府聽民意辦事。
4月3日，政府正式將修訂《逃犯條 例》草案呈交立法會，完成首讀。消 息一出，社會各界均予以強烈譴責， 包括法律界、教育界及商界等。
法案委員會雙胞胎事件
因應修例，銅鑼灣書店事件中的林榮 基於4月25日離開香港，流亡台灣。 泛民立法會議員毛孟靜在臉書上發 文，並附上送機相片，稱林因擔憂條 例修訂而離開香港、前往台灣。毛還 表示，林榮基一個月前計劃離開香 港，相信短期內不會返港。她亦透 露，林會在台灣開另一家書店。
立法會的法案委員會向來均由年資最 深的委員負責主持主席的選舉，而年 資最深的涂謹申議員於頭兩次法案委 員會的會議均未選出主席，引起建制 派的不滿，向內會尋求指引。內會指 示建制派的石禮謙改為擔任會議主 持，秘書處隨即通知法案委員會委員 書面回覆是否採納，被民主派批評越 權，認為應該開會決定。5月6日， 涂謹申如期於主持第三次會議，於未 有秘書處的支援及建制議員杯葛議席 下，選出自己及公民黨郭榮鏗分別擔
10
THE HONG KONG STUDENT REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
任主席及副主席。
石禮謙在兩個半小時後，轉到會議室 二重開會議，原先正在會議室一開會 的民主派議員亦轉至會議室二。 石禮 謙再啟動選舉主席程序，但遭多名民 主派議員包圍，期間許智峯從後企圖 搶麥克風，石禮謙要轉到另一個位置 坐下。約八分鐘後，石禮謙在選主席 程序仍未完成下宣布散會。
另一邊廂，建制派議員缺席由涂謹申 主持的第三次會議，石禮謙將自己主 持的第三次會議改至5月11日上午9時 正，並指示法案委員會秘書馬淑霞向 全體議員發出第三次會議的預告。而 涂謹申議員辦公室亦以立法會沿用的 官方格式，向全體議員發出第四次會 議的預告，指將會於11日上午8時半 開會。
建制及民主派議員於14日再一次同日 召開法案委員會，並再爆衝突。石禮 謙於早上8時30分繼續召開會議，民 主派則決定提早15分鐘召開。石被民 主黨議員，以及大批記者圍堵，無法 進入會議室。期後在建制及秘書處保 安護送下，一度在後樓梯暫避，確保 行人通道暢通才行去會議室。但由於 現場極度混亂，石宣布開始會議不到 20秒，即宣布休會，並轉身離開現 場；導致其主持的第四次法案委員會 依然無法選出正副主席。而涂謹申不 久後亦結束民主派召開的會議。
在雙方均不承認對方的會議為合法會 議的情況下，泛民主派議員於11號8時 半於會議室一開會，半小時後建制議 員護送石禮謙進入會議室準備開會， 期間場面混亂。當石禮謙試圖到主席 座就坐時，遭到多名民主派議員上前 阻止，雙方不斷對罵及推撞。當石嘗 試發言時，朱凱廸及范國威企圖搶他 的麥克風，謝偉俊拉開朱凱迪，范國 威亦在建制議員推撞下墮地送院。石 禮謙嘗試啟動選主席程序，但有民主 派議員加入大叫。到約九時十五分， 石禮謙宣布由於情況太混亂，暫停會 議，選主席程序亦中止，建制派議員 護送他離開。 02（星島）
在法案委員會多次開會均未成功討論 草案下，內會最終表決將《逃犯條 例》直接交上立法會大會二讀，並撤 銷相關法案委員會。泛民主派議員強 烈反對，認為此舉沒有理據，更會開 設壞先例，但因反對票數不足未能阻 止。 大劉撤回司法覆核 五月二十九日，劉鑾雄（大劉）撤回 司法覆核申請。其委託的律師行發表 聲明，表明自己衷心希望香港社會保 持和諧穩定，希望可減少社會上的爭 爭拗，並表示已作出了他個人的努 力。
11
POLITICS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATION SSS HKUSU
政府新增修例內容 五月三十日， 三十九名建制派議員作 出聯署，建議政府把可移交罪行的刑 期提升至七年，並且必須由中央機關 申請。 傍晚，政府隨即公佈新增修 例內容，表示將會提三方面共六項修 訂，包括將罪行引渡門檻提升至7年或 以上、在移交協定中加入無罪假定、 上訴權、探視權、不強迫認罪等符合 人權的條件、及只會處理有關地區最 高檢察機關提出的引渡要求，如最高 人民檢察院。然而據保安局局長李家 超透露，今次政府提出的實際修訂只 是將罪行刑期門檻提高至7年，其他僅 屬行政措施。 逃犯條例修訂尚未落定，相關事件爭 議眾多，未能一一盡錄。我們將繼續 跟進事件，期望是次修例可獲更多人 關注。
12
THE HONG KONG STUDENT REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
Spotlight:
Refugees, Immigrants and Asylum Seekers
Spotlight
We are honoured to have Mr Sivanka Dhanapala, UNHCR Representative for China, to answer some of our questions regarding the issue as to refugees and asylum seekers.
Q&A on Asylum with UNHCR
What is the mandate of UNHCR? UNHCR is mandated by the United Nations to lead and coordinate international action to protect refugees and resolve their problems. Our primary purpose is to safeguard the rights and well-being of refugees. We strive to ensure that everyone can exercise the right to seek asylum and find safe refuge in another country, and to return home voluntarily. By assisting refugees to return to their own country or to settle permanently in another country, UNHCR also seeks lasting solutions to their plight.
13
POLITICS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATION SSS HKUSU
What is the difference and relationship between refugees and asylum-seekers? How does UNHCR distinguish them?
How does UNHCR assist refugees and asylum-seekers? UNHCR responds to refugee situations with life-saving support. People forced to flee usually leave everything behind to make the dangerous journey to safety. Whenever and wherever people are in crisis from conflict, we lead efforts to rush in life-saving assistance, including shelter, food, water and medical care. We safeguard fundamental human rights. People forced to flee are often stripped of these rights. We focus on safeguarding their rights by ensuring safety, documentation and access to education and skills training.
According to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, a refugee is a person who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” As a result, he or she is deemed to be in need of international protection. Refugee status is usually determined by the receiving State or by UNHCR if the host country does not have a national system to conduct refugee status determination.
We also strive to build better futures. People forced to flee need a safe place to call home where they can build a better future. We help families and individuals return home when it is safe to do so, or enable them to settle and make a positive contribution in a new community.
Asylum-seekers are people who have left their country and are seeking protection from persecution and serious human rights violations in another country, but who haven’t yet been legally recognized as refugees and are waiting to receive a decision on their asylum claim.
What is the current situation of asylum-seekers now? Is there any observable trends on the issue and what is the reason behind? UNHCR is currently collating statistics for the full year of 2018. Based on provisional figures up to mid-2018, just over 1 million individual asylum applications were registered in 156 countries or territories during the first half of 2018, a small increase compared to the corresponding period in 2017. As at mid-2018, the top 5 source countries of asylum-seekers were: Venezuela,
14
THE HONG KONG STUDENT REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and El Salvador. The top 5 destination countries were: The United States, Peru, Germany, France and Turkey.
reinforcing.
Please note that these asylum-seeker trends are based on the registration of individual claims and do not comprehensively reflect global displacement trends as some destination/host countries do not count individual asylum claims. Developing countries like Turkey, Pakistan and Uganda continuing to receive and host the majority of refugees fleeing from neighbouring countries like Syria, Afghanistan and South Sudan.
What role do you think shall the government in different states, NGOs or International Organizations take in this issue?
Despite a common misconception that refugees are flocking to developed countries in the West, the reality is that 85% of the world’s refugees are hosted in developing countries that are struggling with their own challenges. The international community must provide support to ease the pressure on these host countries and host communities. It is observed that some countries are changing their approach towards asylum-seekers. What impact would these policies bring?
Forced displacement is a global challenge that can only be resolved with collective action. The recently-adopted Global Compact on Refugees provides a blueprint for governments, international organizations, and other stakeholders to share the responsibility of ensuring that refugee host communities get the support they need and that refugees can lead productive lives.
UNHCR expects all countries to ensure that any person in need of refugee protection is able to reach safe ground and have their claim for asylum reviewed. We stand ready to support these governments and civil society partners to implement policies that ensure those rights. National security and dignified reception of refugees and asylum-seekers are not mutually exclusive, but rather mutually
Specifically, the Global Compact brings in development partners to strengthen the resilience of refugees and their host communities through education and livelihoods programmes. Itmobilises partners to create conditions in the refugees’ home countries so that they canreturn safely one day. For those who cannot return home, the Compact seeks to expand solutions in third countries that
15
POLITICS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATION SSS HKUSU
What is your hope for refugees and asylum-seekers? What is your prospect of the future towards this issue?
can accept them. What can be done to protect refugees and asylum-seekers?
If we look into the past, there are countless examples of how international solidarity has turned refugee crises into opportunities. We’ve seen how given the chance, refugees have contributed to the economy and culture of their host countries. We’ve also witnessed how millions have received education and learnt skills, then returned to their homeland to rebuild their lives and country.
In addition to the above, there are many simple ways that members of the public can help to protect and assist refugees. They can stay informed on refugee issues and share the information with friends and family. They can mobilise peers around UNHCR campaigns like 2 Billion km to Safety, which encourages people to walk, run or cycle in solidarity with refugees who make life-threatening journeys to seek a safe haven. They can organise their own awareness-raising events and donate to refugee projects.
I am hopeful that with continued support from governments, humanitarian and development agencies, civil society and members of the public, refugees and asylum-seekers will be able to fulfil their potential and find solutions to their predicament.
Those with specific skills can use them to support refugees in their midst – by teaching them the local language, organising sports activities or setting up online networks to provide support. Students can encourage their universities to provide refugee scholarships. Employers can hire refugees if local laws allow them to work legally. Do what you can to make them feel welcome.
16
THE HONG KONG STUDENT REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
Commentary
Does immigration strengthen or undermine tolerance?
Dilys Tam
Broadly speaking, immigration refers to the movement of population to reside in a foreign country. As a neutral notion, immigration enhances the pluralism of liberal societies, posing it as both a challenge and an opportunity towards tolerance. While it is true that immigration may undermine tolerance with the introduction of foreign ideologies, immigration ultimately diversifies liberal societies and strengthens tolerance when coupled with appropriate policies. As the central idea of liberalism, the Harm Principle states that no form of ideology, thought or action can be imposed on another individual should no harm be entailed. Yet, the paradox of democratic liberalism lies in the ‘tyranny of the majority’- through the establishment of democratic processes, values of the majority are often imposed on the relative minority through legal and social consequences. Despite its short-term threats towards liberalism, it is all the more essential for liberal societies to embrace immigration as an opportunity to strengthen tolerance to preserve liberalism itself. Greater pluralism achieved through immigration prevents liberal societies from disintegrating under
17
POLITICS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATION SSS HKUSU
socio-economic stress, and, more importantly, only by choosing to protect the minorities’ right to think and act freely in a pluralistic context can liberal societies truly practice the ideals they profess, achieving an equilibrium in which the virtues of democracy and liberalism can be dually upheld.
Moreover, while liberal democracies tend to redistribute wealth to achieve a more egalitarian model, the white majority tends to reverse these policies as a ‘self-preservation’ measure when competition is keen between immigrants and locals. In Finland, a state celebrated for its holistic welfare system, the gradual abandonment of egalitarian policies and a sharp rise of far-right influence is correlated with foreign-born population booms, suggesting that immigration speeds up the erosion of social tolerance for the marginalized.
Being susceptible to socio-economic changes, the effects of immigration are often detrimental to tolerance under competition. Stemmed from a natural caution against outsiders, during economic depressions, local citizens are more likely to adopt a ‘US Versus Them’ mentality and regard immigrants as threats towards their economic security, as they are more willing to take up the same jobs for lower wages. Poorly educated children of immigrants often rely on government welfare as adults, perpetuating the generalisation that immigrants are economic burdens. In 2015, a study of correlating immigration and political trends found that the proximity of low-skilled immigrants “causes Austrian voters to turn to the far right”, suggesting cultural animosity and economic competition often result in a positive feedback loop.
Yet, coupled with long-term measures, immigration enhances tolerance as it complements the economic inadequacies of a nation, contributing towards better governmental support for marginalized groups. For rich democracies with low birth rates, immigration provides them with labour needed to sustain its economic structure in face of an ageing population. Some immigrants bring valuable knowledge, while others lacking in skill are often willing less desirable jobs, allowing the mobilisation of local labour for further economic development. While immigration may produce a short-term drag on federal resources, by choosing to integrate the children of immigrants economically, immigrant families often become net contributors to governments over decades. In turn, this economic benefit provides host countries with a larger and richer workforce that supports government services to the needy, strengthening tolerance for marginalized groups in society. Under socio-economic stress, marginalized groups would then be less likely to rise against liberal governments
18
THE HONG KONG STUDENT REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
and commit violent acts that threaten individual freedom and security.
in the 1940s on integrating Chinese and Latino immigrants into American society has contributed towards the rise of a post-modern liberal identity and a diversified market. Policies such as ‘mixed classroom’ designed for the children of immigrants and locals also provide the progressive education necessary for the confrontation of unfair generalisations. With the effect compounded in future generations, immigration coupled with active integration efforts serves to cultivate the open-mindedness integral for accepting differences, reducing crime that are products of hatred and mistrust.
Similarly, crime committed by immigrants acts as a catalyst that undermines tolerance in society for particular groups. For example, the arrival of Syrian refugees in Europe indirectly brought about individual cases of crime, such as the 2015/2016 New Year’s Eve sexual assaults in Cologne. While these cases are by no means representative of Syrian refugees, the gross exaggeration of individual cases by right-wing populists into a seemingly widespread phenomenon propagates xenophobia, and movements such as 120 dB exploit legitimate campaigns against gender-based violence to normalize hatred against immigrants. On top of that, with inadequate governmental support, immigrants tend to form secluded ghettos, creating a mistrustful situation between locals and themselves which only worsens prejudices. Immigration, therefore, threatens tolerance as it engenders the possibility of forming unfair generalisations of certain groups in the event of a crime, exacerbating existing contentions between locals and communities of specific culture, ethnicity and religion.
In a national sense, the social strain generated by immigration undeniably undermines tolerance for ideological and socio-economic differences. Merkel’s and Seehofer’s contention concerning Germany’s open door policy has widened the rift between Germans of opposing views, and conflicts have arisen externally over privileges and responsibilities in the EU. While Germany professes a moral high ground advocating for open borders, the moral imperialism imposed on European states that have refused to act similarly
Yet, xenophobia and populist sentiments are not products of human nature; rather, they thrive in an atmosphere of ignorance and fear, a context created by poor integration. To debunk false perceptions, locals and immigrants must interact with each other personally, an opportunity inherent in immigration itself. By implementing support policies for immigration, US government efforts
19
POLITICS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATION SSS HKUSU
on grounds of national interest is very much illiberal itself. Instead of complementing differences and embracing diversity, socio-economic and ideological distinctions divide the Schengen Area, showing that immigration generates a social pressure that undermines tolerance for international differences.
the views of each nation, strengthening tolerance for socio-economic and ideological distinctions. All claims towards supranationalism aside, intolerance is an inevitable consequence of introducing foreign values through immigration, especially for nations with more ethnic notions of citizenship like Poland, Japan, and Korea. With deep-rooted historical contentions, such nations may reject foreign cultural practices of immigrants. Populations of nations with more assertive interpretations of secularism like France may also be intolerant of foreign religious practices, going as far as to impose laws against them, as these practices are seen as incompatible with local ideologies. Due to direct conflicts with locals’ beliefs, the element of strife fuels right-wing nationalism, threatening liberal values with political polarisation. In short, it can be said that immigration introduces challenges towards local values, which may undermine tolerance for cultural differences due to a heightened sense of intrusion.
Nonetheless, although domestic concerns divide the EU over matters of rights and responsibilities, it is only through challenges brought about by immigration can Europe strive to strengthen tolerance. As the EU is established on the basis of solidarity and common interest, immigration has rendered the acceptance of socio-economic differences within the union a prerequisite of European cooperation. The influx of immigrants poses a necessity to implement contingency measures, such as the European Agenda on Migration proposed by the European Commission in 2015. Through the optimization of individual national characteristics for the common benefit, immigration thus poses as a choice for European states to reaffirm the solidarity of the Schengen Area by respecting
Yet, in face of illiberal views, a truly liberal society should be able to withstand threats to its core values. Historically, the governmental imposition of religions on ruled groups has long since resulted in social turmoil, and the rigid insistence of secularism is no less hypocritical of liberal ideals. Only by allowing immigrants to challenge current values through democratic and legal means within their constitutional frameworks can liberal societies practice
20
THE HONG KONG STUDENT REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
the very values they profess. While it is important for democracies to heed the wishes of their people, it is only in the inclusion of diverse voices can liberal governments truly embody the essence of liberalism. Instead of curbing religious diversity to uphold a dogmatic secularism, a liberal society should embrace pluralism over homogeneity, choosing to be challenged by introduced ideas and to debate openly the most controversial of notions. Ultimately, solidarity is established not on the basis of similarity, but on the choice for harmony in spite of differences. Although immigration may introduce ideologies that are at odds with those of liberal societies, the opportunity also offers liberal societies the choice to reaffirm liberalism and tolerant values.
certain detriments to the present society in the hope of a more liberal world. By rising to meet the challenge and enacting suitable policies, immigration protects the social security of liberal democracies, especially in the face of anti-globalisation fanfare, once again elevating the ideals of tolerance and solidarity.
As true as it had been centuries ago, immigration brings on challenges that certainly threaten liberalism , yet it is also true that it opens a window of opportunity for nations to reaffirm their liberal values. But tolerance is not a notion embedded in immigration alone; it requires the conscious effort of governments to accommodate immigrants, to risk
21
POLITICS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATION SSS HKUSU
Submissions:
The Militarization of Refugees: Political and Legal Perspectives Trevor Wan BSocSc (Govt & Laws) & LLB II Understanding the Militarization of Refugees
triggers fears of terrorist infiltration along with the refugees seeking asylum, and public perceptions that refugee camps are safe havens for the recruitment of future terrorists.3 Governments of host countries accordingly “securitize” – that is, to classify something as a national or global security issue – the movement of large numbers of displaced people, while the international community together with the UNHCR has also securitized humanitarian operations, which could be abused by militia and terrorists.4
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), also known as the United Nations Refugee Agency, defines the militarization of refugees as:
[T]he continuing occurrence of military or armed attacks and other threats to the security of refugees, including the infiltration and presence of armed elements in refugee camps and settlements, and the forced recruitment of refugees from the camps. The use by the host State of its regular military personnel for the protection of refugee camps and settlements does not constitute militarization1.
A Brief History of the Militarization of Refugees Despite its strong relevance in the twenty-first century, the militarization of refugees and internally displaced people is hardly a nascent phenomenon: it began as early as in the mid-twentieth century at the genesis of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951, a United Nations Multilateral Treaty concluded soon after the Second World War.5 Militarization became increasingly rampant since the 1960s, arising in tandem with independence movements of the former European colonies in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia.6 During the 1970s and 1980s, refugee camps housing South African refugees in the coun-
The militarization of refugees challenges the traditional and common stereotype of refugees as being disfranchised and passive civilians incapable of exercising any political power.2 In practice, militarization takes two broad formats: (1) the participation of armed refugee groups in transnational warfare focused on their original country but from bases located in their host country; and (2) the supply by refugees of military support to combatants who take part in armed conflict in their country of origin; rather unsurprisingly, militarization typically
22
THE HONG KONG STUDENT REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
tries of Mozambique and Tanzania were frequently dominated by the military wings of the African National Congress and the Pan-African Congress, which in turn were routinely attacked by the security forces of South Africa; similarly, Namibian refugee camps in Angola, run by the South West Africa People’s Organization, were subjected to repeated onslaughts by the Air Force of South Africa; and in Zambia, the then-Rhodesian government attacked refugee camps again and again.7 The groups controlling these refugee camps, in response, had to fight back. This resulted in a serious issue: it was practically impossible to distinguish “refugee warriors” from “civilian refugees”, even though from the perspective of international law, refugees cannot remain refugees if they were to engage in armed conflict.8
viewed by some commentators as a standard classic textbook example of refugee militarization.11 In 2012, the Somali extremist armed group al-Shabaab, connected with al-Quaeda, militarized the Dadaab camp, which subsequently induced violent crackdowns by the Kenyan government in an attempt to single out militarized extremists dressed up as refugees in the camp.12 The government-led crackdown included alleged arbitrary beatings and arrests, looting, destruction of property, and most significantly, the training of Somali refugees into anti-al-Shabaab militias. In short, the Dadaab refugees had to simultaneously suffer from militarization by both terrorists and governmental authorities.13 More recently, by 2016, some 655,833 Syrian refugees out of the 4.8 million who had fled the country from the civil war were registered in Jordan. It has been reported that the largest UNHCR refugee settlement situated on the Jordanian-Syrian border, the Zaatari camp, had become a safe shelter for combatants to withdraw from fighting in Syria and utilize the camp’s military hospital, operated by France.14
By the 1990s, militarization has spread to refugee settlements in states and regions such as Afghanistan, Bosnia, Burundi, the Congo, East Timor, the Gambia, Liberia, Pakistan, Palestine, Rwanda, Sudan and Thailand, to name but a few.9 Militarization has left the livelihoods of refugees and internally displaced persons in despair. Sadly, such disillusioned refugees are more likely than not to part in armed struggle. in dire situations, and the desperate need of residents in camps increases the likelihood that those people will become involved in military actions. However, higher levels of international humanitarian engagement decrease the likelihood of militarization.10
Solutions The militarization of refugee camps is prohibited by international law, notwithstanding the recognition of civilians’ rights to claim and receive asylum, and not to be refouled.15 International humanitarian law provides regulate ons for the protection of civilians, including the establishment of neutralized zones to shelter them from the effects of war. It also establishes the principle of distinc-
Kenya’s Dadaab camp, arguably the world’s largest refugee camp, has been
23
POLITICS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATION SSS HKUSU
tion requiring a clear differentiation between civilian and military targets, and between civilians and combatants. The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement outline the rights and protection to which IDPs are entitled. These entitlements, however, can be difficult to enforce when displaced people remain within their own national borders and under the protection of their own governments. This is particularly relevant in Darfur, where the vast majority of IDPs in camps in government-controlled areas are not supporters of the DPA, and therefore consider themselves in conflict with the very authority responsible for their protection. Militarization is not, then, merely a descriptive term but also a legal one. This is an important distinction as a camp that is militarized may be seen to have sacrificed some of its legal protection, just as a civilian who takes up arms may effectively change his or her status under international law.16
militarization to focusing on the refugees themselves, rather than the sources of militarization such as extremist groups and governments, with an emphasis on relocation.19 For instance, in Guinea, UNHCR had tried to relocate refugee camps away from the borders in order to defend refugees from the Liberian and Sierra Leonean rebels.20 It is clearly inadequate to rely predominantly on international organizations to tackle the militarization of refugees. Sovereign states must bear a heavier responsibility to sort the issues out. Nevertheless, states – each having its own their own special interests to address – often do not have the requisite political will to take more concrete measures against militarization.21 What is worse, the police and security forces of refugee host countries are typically plagued by systematic corruption, poor staffing, and shortage of resources and training.22 Even with political will, it is exceedingly difficult for these forces to identify and confiscate weapons in refugee camps.23 Working together with the Rwandan government, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda had tried to coercively disarm several southern camps, only to end up in failure as armed combatants and militarized refugees managed to escape and buried their weapons; in retaliation, the authorities of Rwanda raided the camp, and most appallingly, massacred many refugees.24 Turkey’s preventive measures of the militarization of Syrian refugees in recent years can be taken as a comparatively better example. By 2016, there were as many as 2.7 million Syrian refugees registered in Turkey, with nearly
Regrettably, the Security Council of the United Nations, including its five veto members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) have not provided any major coherent response to the problem.17 Humanitarian organizations, including the UNHCR and some non-governmental organizations were thus trapped in the dilemma of promoting the comfort of refugees on the one hand, without substantially supporting the military and political purposes of militants who control them on the other hand.18 The UNHCR’s primary statutory mandate is to provide international protection for refugees, and therefore it largely limited its confrontation to
24
THE HONG KONG STUDENT REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
half of them children below the age of 18.25 The Turkish authorities have made efforts to maintain the civilian nature of refugee camps as far as possible through accommodation, education, healthcare, religious, and social services; over 150 adult education programmes have produced no less than 50,000 graduates; besides, gendarmerie forces and security guards have been inserted all over the camps to nip militarization in the bud.26
limiting political space inside refugee camps for militia and extremist groups to recruit and operate. V. Prevent resource mobilization for militarization, by way of intercepting donor sources for militarizing refugees; terminate facilitation of militarization by donor states and groups through the diplomatic channel; and ensuring that humanitarian aid would never be used to support militant groups.
American political scientist Mike Lebson, who now works in the United States Department of State, has proposed a useful framework of solutions to the militarization problem:27
Reference: 1. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Operational Guidelines: On Maintaining the Civilian and Humanitarian Character of Asylum (UNHCR September, 2006) 18. 2. Adélie Chevée, “Challenging the Principle of Distinction Between Civilians and Combatants: A Critical Case Study of Militarized Syrian Refugees”, 11(1) St Antony’s International Review 75 (2015) 88. 3. Zeynep Şahin Mencütek, Refugee Governance, State and Politics in the Middle East (New York: Routledge, 2018) 61 4. Young Hoon Song, “International Humanitarian Response and Militarization of Refugee and IDP Camps in Kenya and Sudan”, 19(1) Journal of International and Area Studies 115 (2012). 115 5. Robert Muggah, “Once We Were Warriors: Critical Reflections on Refugee and IDP Militarisation and Human Security” in Alice Edwards and Carla Ferstman (eds.), Refugee Governance, State and Politics in the Middle East (Cambridge University Press, 2010) 166, 169. 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid 170. 8. Ibid. 9. Stephen John Stedman and Fred Tanner, “Refugees as Resources in War” in Stephen John Stedman and Fred Tanner (eds.), Refugee Manipulation: War, Politics, and the Abuse of Human Suffering (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2003) 1, 3. 10. Ibid. 11. Nathalie Versavel, “Reducing the Risk of Militarization in Turkey’s Refugee Camps”, 15(3) Turkish Policy Quarterly 131 (2016) 132. 12. Maja Janmyr, Protecting Civilians in Refugee Camps: Unable and Unwilling States, UNHCR and International Responsibility (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2013) 16. 13. Ibid. 14. Versavel (n 11 above) 133. 15. Article 14, Universal Declaration on Human Rights 1948 16. lea Kahn, Conflict, Arms, and Militarization: The Dynamics of Darfur’s IDP Camps (Geneva: Small Arms Survey, 2008) 17. 17. Stedman and Tanner (n 9 above) 3. 18. Ibid. 19. Muggah (n 5 above) 187. 20. Ibid. 191-192. 21. Ibid. 193. 22. Ibid 23. Ibid. 193 24. Ibid. 25. Versavel (n 11 above) 134. 26. Versavel (n 11 above) 136. 27. Mike Lebson, “Why Refugees Rebel: Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Refugee Militarization”, 51(5) Immigration Migration 133 (2013) 143.
I. Reduce the political motivation of militarization, by way of promoting peace in the refugees’ country of origin; supply young refugees with culturally sensitive counselling against violent behavior; and incorporate training in conflict management into educational programmes for refugee communities. II. Reduce the economic motivation of militarization, by way of enhancing employment opportunities and living conditions of refugees in line with international law; and providing skills training for refugees. III. Deter militarization entrepreneurs, by way of the training and employment of police forces into police to maintain order and report the presence of weapons in refugee camps. IV. Prevent political opportunities for militarization, by way of actively
25
POLITICS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATION SSS HKUSU
Trump Dismantling Asylum as We Know It The Trump administration being hostile to immigration is now a fact of life. It’s easy to have grown accustomed to the Department of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security announcing their newest policy change to restrict the flow of migrants, whether by increasing scrutiny on the immigration application or tightening enforcement or—the list can go on awhile. And that is the point: even to a frequent observer of American politics (yours truly included), the rollout after rollout of regulations, rulings, and executive orders are hard to keep track of, not to mention that the accelerated news cycle of today can quell any meaningful outrage with the simple passage of time. Big changes can go by unnoticed.
work.
John Wong BEcon & Fin I
How Does Asylum Work? Asylum exists because the US is under a humanitarian and legal obligation to adhere to non-refoulement: it is not allowed to force someone fleeing persecution to return to a place where they would be in danger. The principle of asylum is codified into American law by the 1980 Refugee Act, and is also part of the United Nation’s 1967 Refugee Protocol, which the US signed. Typically, someone can claim asylum either by presenting themselves at an official port of entry along the US border or after they are caught illegally crossing into the US by the US Border Patrol. In both cases, they will be asked if they fear persecution in their home country, and if they say yes, they would be scheduled for an interview with an asylum officer.
So, in accordance with this issue’s topic of interest, I try to consolidate every policy this administration has enacted on the specific subject of asylum alone. When examined in aggregate, it becomes clear that this president has unleashed significant damage on the asylum system that long pre-existed his office. This is what death by a thousand cuts looks like, and it’s just asylum we’re talking about.
Asylum seekers then undergo a “credible fear” interview, which determines whether their experience at home meet the standards of persecution, and whether their fear of persecution appear credible. Most asylum seekers pass this interview.
This article is greatly informed by Dara Lind’s immigration reporting at Vox and the Migration Policy Institute’s report on the Trump administration by Sarah Pierce. Inquisitive readers will find far more detail and technicality in their
They are then granted immigration court proceedings, where they would have their plea adjudicated by an immigration judge during a hearing. These hearings
26
THE HONG KONG STUDENT REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
however are queued for several months into the future due to a massive case backlog. During the waiting period, conventionally, they are released into the US, either by the government or by the court post bail.
of bipartisan opposition to the policy. However, the Trump administration is once again considering a draft regulation that would indefinitely detain families—this time, together. As to how that would interact with Flores, it remains to be seen. And it’s not even clear how the government can accommodate even more detainees, considering the current overcapacity (some detainees are kept in a pen under a bridge). It also doesn’t help that Attorney General William Barr has ruled that judges cannot release asylum seekers on bail.
The Trump administration’s dozen policies have sought or seek to alter this process at multiple fronts, with the very aim to reduce asylum. First, the administration has sought to reduce migrants at source by either deterring their arrival with harsher and more frequent detention. Second, the administration has prevented through various policies the release of migrants into the US while they await their court hearing, despite overcapacity in detention facilities. Third, standards for meeting the aforementioned fear of persecution standards have been raised so that applicants are much more likely to have their cases rejected.
Overcapacity and Preventing Release of Migrants Awaiting Hearing Trump is correct in claiming that there is a border crisis at the US-Mexico border. In the Early 2000s, rarely more than 100,000 children a year were crossing. As of fiscal year 2019, the number of apprehended children and “family units” of one or more parents with one or more children have added up to 250,000 as of April—and we are still in 2019. This particular surge of families are Central Americans mostly either motivated by gang violence (in El Salvador and Honduras) or crushing poverty (Guatemala).
Deterring Migrants from Arriving into the US During the summer of 2018, the US government notoriously put into practice the policy of “family separation.” This was the result of the Trump administration expanding the use of detention for all asylum seekers (something they’re still doing) on one hand, and the US government being prevented from indefinitely detaining children by a settlement from a 1978 case Flores v. Reno. Thus, children were separated and put in government custody, while their parents in detention.
In 2018, the Trump administration began the unofficial practice of metering— daily limits on the number of asylum seekers admitted along the southern border. This has caused queues that last for weeks at some ports of entry, and encouraged migrants to cross the border illegally instead. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has aggressively moved to reduce the
The harsh separation of families has been ended since June 2018 under the pressure
27
POLITICS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATION SSS HKUSU
Officers have told the press that positive decisions approving stay would often be overturned either by superiors, or if not, by headquarters; while negative decisions are left unchecked. There was an instance where an asylum seeker who had been kidnapped by cartels while traveling through Mexico was sent back by a headquarters overrule.
backlog of asylum cases awaiting hearing. Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions has reversed the right of asylum seekers to full hearings (meaning immigration judges can reject some applications without hearing). In addition, he has ruled that judges cannot close cases (a procedure often used to suspend the deportation of sympathetic immigrants), and made the postponement of immigration cases more difficult. New performance standards encourage judges to complete 700 cases per year, and not have their cases overturned by the appeals board, which is under the Attorney General’s authority.
The Trump administration has also imposed a stricter than “credible fear” standard on initial asylum interviews, requiring applicants to prove their persecution “by a preponderance of the evidence.” It has recently authorized the use of border patrols (rather than asylum officers) to conduct said interviews, on the assumption that border patrols would be stricter. And Sessions has also previously limited the ability of victims of domestic or gang violence to qualify for asylum in court.
Most recently, the administration has begun implementing the “Remain in Mexico” protocols. It has instructed officers to redirect asylum seekers who lack proper documentation to return to Mexico for the duration of their immigration proceeding, unless they are “more likely than not” to face persecution in Mexico. This is simply absurd, as Central American migrants have usually spent only several days in Mexico traveling through, and do not have enough knowledge to make a persuasive case to stay.
Concluding Thoughts Despite my best efforts, I must concede that there are still swaths of the Trump administration’s policy initiatives on immigration that this article does not mention. Political appointees have more sway in hiring judges, a program providing free attorneys for unaccompanied minors was ceased, and did I mention that the Government entirely banned asylum for all undocumented migrants for 10 days in November 2018 before a federal district court judge issued a restraining order.
Raising the Standards for Approving Asylum The Remain in Mexico protocols has generated backlash even among asylum officers of the government itself. New guidelines from the Trump administration subject asylum seekers to far higher-than-usual legal standards in order to not be sent back to await hearing.
It is telling that Trump characterizes asylum as a loophole. For someone who lacks a humanitarian obligation to accommodate those fleeing violence
28
THE HONG KONG STUDENT REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
and destitution, the asylum process becomes nothing more than a way for undocumented migrants to delay deportation. But for a nation that has constructed its growth and triumph on the productivity, knowledge, and culture that immigrants have provided, to turn their back on the same people that have contributed and will contribute still to its greatness: this is to bite the hand that feeds.
29
POLITICS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATION SSS HKUSU
Functions Review Welfare Week & Mega Sale The welfare week and mega sale are collectively held in February as the kick-off event of the session.
The Politics and Public Administration Exposition 2019 我城民粹多面睇研討會 是次研討會於中山廣場舉行。我們有幸邀請 到鄭松泰議員、李卓人先生和梁國雄先生與 我們分享對本港民粹看法。
Emergence of Populism in the ContinentImplications for Asia and Beyond We were honoured to have Mr. Reto Renggli, Professor Kenneth Chan and Miss Desiree Ho to share with us their insights towards the widespread of populism in European continents, and its implications on Asian societies. Populism: Genesis and the Future Exhibition An exhibition had been set in Centennial Campus, showcasing the past, the present and the speculated future of populism and populist democracy.
30
THE HONG KONG STUDENT REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
「中英街一號」電影放映會 是次電影放映會於四月十二日順利舉 行。我們有幸邀請到導演趙崇基先生向 同學分享電影創作「中英街一號」的心 路歷程。
逃犯移交條例立法研討會 是次研討會於四月十五日順利舉行。我 們有幸邀請到資深大律師梁家傑先生和 立法會議員朱凱迪先生向同學分享他們 對於政府修訂《逃犯條例》的看法，提 高同學對修訂《逃犯條例》的關注。
勁過切燒豬與寫揮春 是次活動於四月二十四日舉行。同學 從中體驗到香港大學切燒豬和寫揮春 的「勁過」應試傳統，為同學舒緩考 試帶來的壓力。
31
POLITICS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATION SSS HKUSU
Upcoming Functions Orientation Series Registration Day We aim to introduce PPAA to freshmen on the day that they officially become students of HKU, and to recruit more members. Orientation Night We take this as an opportunity to promote upcoming events to new members while we also hope the event can be a platform for members to strengthen their relationships with each other. Orientation Camp The orientation camp will be held jointly with Sociology Society, SSS, HKUSU. We anticipate that the three-day camp will help establish friendship between participants. Career Talk The event will invite guest speakers from different fields (e.g. NGOs and Civil Service) to provide insights that hopefully help students to plan their career path. Greater Bay Area Talk Envisioned as an integrated economic and business hub, the economic benefits that the Greater Bay Area (GBA) can bring to the region have widely been recognized. However, as the GBA brings together societies with different cultures, political and economic systems, the societal and political consequences of GBA demand equal scrutiny. Aiming to “deep-dive” into the socio-political impacts of GBA, this panel will explore the relationship between the GBA project and Hong Kong’s current problems, as well as the role of youth under the GBA. The 43rdIntervarsity Political Science Debate The debate, with a history of 42 years, will invite debating teams from HKU and CUHK to debate on political issues. Not only does the event aim to facilitate intervarsity partnership, but also to raise the public’s awareness on political matters.
32
THE HONG KONG STUDENT REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
Acknowledgement Mr Sivanka Dhanapala, UNHCR Representative for China Photo Credits Holyrood Magazine Hurriyet Daily News Newtalk The Economist Tornos News UNHCR Yahoo news
蘋果日報 星島日報 端新聞 美聯社 東網 眾新聞 香港01 Aaronburden Cover Photo
UNHCR
Sunny Lau
Submissions The SRPS welcomes articles on political science or public administration, as well as commentaries on current affairs and political incidents written by students. Articles on any topic with any stance are welcome. Please feel free to send us an e-mail to ppaa@hku.hk should you have any enquiries.
33