Former law professor Tey Tsun Hang now a free man

[Asterix]

PR will be revoked and sent back to Malaysia...banned from entering sinkieland for life.
Hope he writes a book and carry on to hoot the pet kangaroos and the system from outside of Singapore.

Sinkie PR is not worth the paper it is printed on
Cos if FamiLEE is unhappy with you for whatever
Can revoke your hard earned status on a whim

 

[Asterix]

Unlike the Fragrant Harbour's right of abode
Which once granted to those meeting criteria
Cannot be revoked by Hongkie government
True talents will know which one is better
Only idiots will crave for Sinkie PR status

Right to make the city their home sets Hongkongers apart
Inclusiveness of permanent residency laws brings equality and freedom to city's residents

Hong Kong people are often addressed as the "Hong Kong compatriots" by state leaders and officials. The term is not only used rhetorically in speeches, but also appears in official and legal documents.

But who are the Hong Kong people? How are they different from other Chinese nationals? These questions are essential to Hong Kong's high autonomy under one country, two systems.

The vast majority of Hong Kong people are ethnic Chinese. They are connected to China in some way - historically, culturally and socially. But does the law of identity only provide for the compatriots?

Hong Kong was first taken by the British as a free port servicing trade with China, instead of being a settlement colony. In the first century under British rule, the population was generally migratory and transient. People came for jobs or business opportunities, and were identified mostly by their race.

While the free port subscribed to the persuasion of economic laissez-faire, order was maintained by the English rule of law. Migration across the border was easy for the Chinese and control was lax. In 1950, a quota system for mainland immigrants was imposed.

In 1971, a legal category of "Hongkong belongers" - locally born British subjects or naturalised persons who were given unrestricted rights to land and stay - was introduced by the Immigration Ordinance. This came at a time of economic take-off, social transformation and the emergence of a sense of local belonging.

The category of Hongkong belonger was the precursor of the Hong Kong Permanent Resident (HKPR). In 1984, the Joint Declaration first stipulated local inhabitants enjoyed the right of abode. In 1987, the Immigration Ordinance was amended to replace Hong Kong belonger with HKPR, and these residents were granted the right of abode. It extended the right to non-local-born Chinese having ordinarily resided for seven years, and Commonwealth citizens who had previously enjoyed the right to land.

Two points are noteworthy. First, HKPR is a rights-based category. By virtue of Immigration Ordinance (section 2A), holders of the right of abode in Hong Kong can enter and stay in Hong Kong and are immune from the imposition of any conditions, deportation or removal orders. The right of abode is also a core right, as it is fundamental to the political, civil and social rights enjoyed by permanent residents. The rights-based approach to residency contrasts sharply with the rest of China, which is controlled under the public securities-administered household registration (hukou) system.

Second, HKPR status and the right of abode can be acquired by non-Chinese nationals who have satisfied the seven-year ordinary residence requirement and who have taken Hong Kong as their place of permanent residence, as provided by Basic Law Article 24(2). This, again, contrasts with Chinese permanent residency obtainable by foreigners under the PRC Law on Exit and Entry Administration. Foreigners who have made a remarkable contribution to China's social and economic development or who meet other conditions may obtain permanent residence. But it is subject to bureaucratic discretion and may be taken away on different grounds.

In Hong Kong, the law prescribes an inclusive residency, for both compatriots and non-compatriots, as equals. It is this rights-based, open and diversified citizenry that defines our city's uniqueness, vitality and global outlook.

Simon Ng is assistant professor and senior law programme director at HKU's School of Professional and Continuing Education

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1331630/right-make-city-their-home-sets-hongkongers-apart

 

[STUCK_HERE]

I would like to pork him now

 

[lianbeng]

lianbeng says: now he is free to play as many women and female students as he likes liao!

 

[Rumpole]

Rumpole says:

.......

A Professor is different from the many other intelligent people that our little island has in abundance. From the Confucian point of view, a teacher is not merely an instructor, but someone far more influential. A teacher and student – or Master and Disciple – connection is viewed in the same way as a parent and child relationship. Is that not the reason why people like Tommy Koh, Walter Woon and Chan Heng Chee were sent abroad to a comfortable exile of sorts in the first place? If left alone, would not a teacher (even a Malaysian one and this author had been schooled in the law at NUS by good and fearless teachers of various nationalities) in as elite a faculty as law at NUS have the power to influence a whole new generation of young and rebellious lawyers? For avoidance of doubt, the author is a Singaporean who has served his NS.

From all of the above examples, one can see that the Professor is a very intelligent man as well as someone who is prone to write critical articles about our Singaporean distortions of the Westminster model of governance. These criticisms were not from someone who spent ALL his life in academia like say Tommy Koh or Walter Woon (before he became AG and went over to “the dark side of the force”) but from someone who (from his CV) had served previously as a District Judge and was a Justice Law Clerk not just for any judge, but for the former Chief Justice of Singapore (who too was a Malaysian before he converted and a bosom friend of “He who must be Obeyed” to boot). So, he might be viewed rightfully by the public as someone who had inside knowledge of the workings of our unique mode of so-called “Nation-Building” and therefore more credible. Therefore, the need to discredit him?

This of course does not mean that the Professor could not have committed some personal indiscretions. However, the beauty of the judicial system that we inherited from the British is that a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And even if he did commit some indiscretions, if it does not ipso facto (by that fact alone) make Yaw Shin Leong a bad MP, will his conviction ipso facto invalidate the criticisms he had levied on Singapore’s unique distortions of the Westminster model?

 

[gingerlyn]

Rumpole says:

Rumpole old man! pls contribute your ideas!!!!