UK Offers Citizenship to 3 Million Hong Kong Residents: Is It Similar to the Disputed Indian Citizenship Law?

Must Read

India’s International ‘Retrospective Taxation’ Regime Vis-a-Vis PCA Rulings in Vodafone and Cairn in 2020

The imposition of retrospective taxation of foreign companies doing business in India has been at the helm of controversy...

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Follow us

 The UK, on 30th June 2020, announced that it would offer citizenship to 3 million Hong Kong residents. This move came as a result of the new security law passed by Chinese authorities. This law severely harms the autonomy and freedom of the people of Hong Kong. People held massive public protests in Hong Kong against the law. 

Why is the new security law disputed?

The law is problematic in light of Art. 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law. This provides that the HK Special Administrative Region shall promulgate its laws. These laws pertain to the security of the Region. It also prevents foreign political bodies from carrying out political activities in the Region. It prevents them from interfering with HK’s independent security. 

HK was always supposed to have a security law. However, it was never passed due to its unpopularity. This law is, thus, an intervention by China to ensure that the city has a legal framework. This would enable it to face serious challenges for its authority. 

 The new law criminalizes any act of:

 1. secession – break away from the country

 2. terrorism – use of violence against people

3. collusion with foreign or external forces

4. subversion – undermining the authority of central government.

Moreover:

● The guilty cannot run for public offices. Further, companies will face fines if found guilty under the law.

● Beijing will establish its office along with its law enforcement personnel. As for trial, some cases can be tried in mainland China, whereas, some of these trials will be behind closed doors.

● Wire-tapping and surveillance of people under suspicion are allowed.

● The law would also apply to people from outside of HK (non-permanent residents).

The decision is not the law in itself but authorizes the NPC Standing Committee to legislate. They can then add it to the Basic Law. They will then enact it in Hong Kong by way of an executive order.

People of HK are understandably afraid. This law would severely undermine their right to freedom of speech and expression. There have been reports of people deleting their Facebook posts. It is also speculated that China will impose its criminal law system on HK’s common law system. This would erode judicial independence in HK. Massive protests broke out in HK when the police made the first arrest under this new law.

What is the UK offering to HK residents?

 China signed The Sino-British Joint Declaration, 1984. The UK demanded that the HKSAR, under the Chinese rule, should enjoy a high degree of autonomy. This was except in matters of foreign and defence relations. It also put conditions on the socio-economic systems and lifestyle in Hong Kong. It said that it would remain unchanged for 50 years after 1997 when the crown colony of HK would officially end. 

This move is the most direct international response against Chinese law. It would offer citizenship to 300,000 British National Overseas Passport holders. Another 2.6 million people are eligible to apply. The law is not applicable for the young Hong Kongers who were born after 1997 when British rule in HK ended. Earlier these residents could only visit Britain for six months without a visa. Now they will have the right to live and work for five years, following which they can apply for citizenship. 

Is the British law similar or different from the Indian CAA?

The Indian govt. passed the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act in December 2019. The Act seeks to provide citizenship to illegal immigrants from 6 minority communities. These people will be from 3 neighbouring Islamic states. These countries are Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh. The law will apply to immigrants who fled due to religious persecution. Although, they will have to have reached India before 31st December 2014 to be eligible. The new British initiative for HK was immediately compared to the Indian CAA. There are several similarities and differences between the two laws.

Similarities

 Both the decisions garnered mixed reactions—both from the natives as well as the international audience. The question of sustaining a large group of migrants is common to both. Would there be enough jobs, places, and resources to provide for the people is a common question? However, the oppression faced by the affected parties is also common. It only differs in its severity. The Chinese authorities undermine HK’s autonomy.

Similarly, refugees in India faced large-scale communal persecution in their countries. Both India and Britain felt a sense of moral duty and responsibility for their former colonies. They believe they must stand up against the violation of fundamental human rights, especially when it concerns their former subjects. Both countries had agreements with counterparts to protect the rights of their subjects. These were the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Nehru-Liaquat Pact. They took these steps due to the failure of complying with the terms of these agreements. 

Differences

The two decisions differ on various grounds. First, the criteria for granting citizenship is different. The CAA offers citizenship based on religious persecution of minorities. Whereas, Britain seeks to provide citizenship to residents of its former colony. This is under the speculation of undermined autonomy of HK violating the agreement. The CAA benefits migrants who have already come to India and resided for more than five years. Whereas, the UK’s decision aims to benefit the HK residents and BNO passport holders. These people would henceforth come to the UK and live and work for five years. Indian law makes a distinction based on religion. Although, the UK’s decision is meant for residents born before it handed over HK to China.

It would be interesting to see how the two countries plan to go about their decisions. What infrastructural and other changes will they undertake to accommodate the beneficiaries? What consequences would they have to face while implementing their decisions? Moreover, what good would it serve for the people?


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

SC: Under-21 Convicts Can Be Given Less Than Minimum Sentence, Resorts To Probation of Offenders Act

The Supreme Court resorted to the Probation of Offenders Act to sidestep the mandate under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code that mentions a sentence of not less than 7 years to those convicted of armed robbery, to give a chance to two young convicts to reform their lives.

Environment Protection Act Passed at the Instance of Foreign Powers: NHAI in Karnataka HC

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) claimed in a submission that the Environment Protection Act 1986 was passed not only for the protection of the environment by the parliament but also at the instance of foreign powers. This statement was made while referring to a UN conference and got the NHAI into great trouble in the Karnataka High Court.

Delhi High Court To Implement a Hybrid System Through Virtual and Physical Hearing

On Friday the Delhi High Court said that they have initiated steps to implement a mode wherein hearing can be done by virtual as well as physical mode. The Delhi High Court is aiming to implement the Hybrid mode. It stated that when the particular bench is conducting a virtual hearing the lawyer may opt for this mode after giving prior intimation about the same.

Mercy Plea of Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case To Be Decided in Four Weeks, TN Governor To Supreme Court

Tamil Nadu Governor Banwarilal Purohit on Thursday told the Supreme Court that a decision on the mercy petition of one of the convicts serving a life sentence for the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, AG Perarivalan will be taken within four weeks. The petition has been pending with the Governor since December 30, 2015.

Bombay High Court Questions FIR Over Journalist Alleged of Communist Comment on WhatsApp

An FIR lodged against the editor of Marathi newspaper, Rajkumar Chhajed has been questioned by the Bombay High Court. The Maharashtra Police has accused Chhajed of creating a rift between the two communities based on a WhatsApp message.

Allahabad High Court Expresses Dissatisfaction on Counsels Seeking Unnecessary Adjournments

The petition had been filed by Smt. Radha prayed to issue directions to Judicial Magistrate-I in Faizabad. The petition sought a speedy decision in...

[Delhi Riots] When the IT Ministry Calls Us, We Will Go Says Harish Salve To Delhi High Court

The Vice President and Managing Director of Facebook, Ajit Mohan told the Supreme Court that when the representatives of the company are called by the Information Technology Ministry they will come and record their statements.

Allahabad High Court Seeks Response on Compensation of Cutting Trees From National Highways Authority of India (Nhai) 

The Order had come in the form of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a bunch of law students in Uttar Pradesh. The...

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -