Policy Statement & Submission

Our ref : 51/WKC/265 By fax & by post

5 October 2001 3107 9007
Mr Mike Rowse
Director General
Invest Hong Kong
15/F One Pacific Place
Queensway
Hong Kong

Some comments on Hong Kong's immigration regime

You know that the Chamber is an avowed advocate of a more business friendly immigration regime. The Chamber's policy think tank the HKCSI has discussed the subject recently and come up with some comments. Many of these have been raised before in the IPSG discussion but I thought it useful to transmit them to you, as follows.
General

1. As a world city we need to allow more flexibility in movement of people. Inward migration of knowledge workers and high value added professionals, whether from the Mainland or from around the world, will help create jobs for the economy, including for unskilled labourers. For multinational headquarters, people movement is a norm and Hong Kong needs to make its immigration regime more flexible if it is to strengthen its headquarter function.

2. From our experience the problem does not lie so much with the Secretary for Security or the Director for Immigration, but more with the middle layer of the Immigration Department who are used to a “control” rather than a business-friendly mentality. In addition, there is the bureaucratic tendency of making up rules and sticking to them in enforcement, thus adding to the hurdles for business in applying for importation of foreign or Mainland workers.
Current Procedures

3. Currently, there is an importation of 150 one-way permit holders into Hong Kong every day, often of unskilled labour. There should be more screening of these immigrants to make sure that they are properly qualified, e.g. children of Hong Kong parents, family re-unification, work skills, etc.

4. By contrast, numerous barriers exist in the importation of workers. The current system does not allow for any staff development or career growth for the imported worker. This is not doing good for the economy's human resources. Also, companies would like to have the freedom to bring people in from between two weeks (specific course training) to ten years as they would be able to use them anywhere within their　organisation during and after that time having been able to assess their qualities and progress at close quarters.

5. The categorisation of imported workers into different sectors will, even with a liberal interpretation of sectors, be too rigid in the face of the rapidly changing needs of the business sector.

6. Immigration officials work on the basis of hard and fast rules and allows no flexibility. For instance, a Reuters journalist in Beijing who has not got a university qualification is prevented from coming to Hong Kong to set up the China securities desk, so Reuters has to employ this person and run its China securities desk in Singapore instead. If Immigration Department wishes to base its discretion on some reliable third-party justification, it could have worked out a system with another government department, say InvestHK, to provide a fast-track procedure for reputable companies with bona fide applications.

Some Proposals
7. The current procedure and requirements for importation of labour should be simplified. If Immigration Department is concerned about possible abuses, they can consider introducing a bond system by which companies wishing to import foreign or Mainland professionals can be required to place a bond as an insurance against any possible abuse of the system. Despite the hassle incurred, most large and reputed companies should be willing to subscribe to such a system as the alternative (of not being able to import these people) would be more costly. The SMEs may have difficulty but in proportionate terms SMEs are not the most significant employers and in any case the SMEs may be more affected by not being able to import labour than by the requirement of a bond.

8. The compliance procedure is over-onerous. A trust and audit system would have sufficed, with only random checks conducted. Most companies will abide by the rules, and they should benefit from expediency and greater efficiency. Those who abuse the system will, when caught, be blacklisted or have their bond forfeited. The integrity of the system can be maintained with great improvement in efficiency for businesses.

9. The decision over applications should be made quickly, say within one week of application. An appeal board can be set up with the majority of members coming from the business sector, which should decide on appeals within another week. This will enable the result to be known in two weeks, thus giving certainty to business and the applicant worker overseas.
I hope you will find some of these views useful. As you know the Chamber is organising a seminar on 16 October on work visa procedures, with your department's help. I treasure the cooperation between us to facilitate a more business friendly environment.

Sincerely,
Dr Eden Woon
Director