男女羞羞视频在线观看,国产精品黄色免费,麻豆91在线视频,美女被羞羞免费软件下载,国产的一级片,亚洲熟色妇,天天操夜夜摸,一区二区三区在线电影
Global EditionASIA 中文雙語Fran?ais
HongKong Comment(1)

Co-location a common practice in the world

HK Edition | Updated: 2017-08-17 08:35
Share
Share - WeChat

The government is proposing a co-location arrangement to streamline immigration and customs procedures for travellers using the forthcoming Express Rail Link between the city and the Chinese mainland. The joint checkpoint will certainly save time and be convenient for the ever-increasing number of travellers between the two sides. It might also encourage business links, tourism and cooperation in other bilateral activities.

Nevertheless, the proposal does have detractors. A handful of "pan-democratic" activists in the special administrative region expressed doubts and objections over the proposed arrangement. Some opposed the presence of immigration and customs officers from the mainland in the West Kowloon terminus, while others regarded the leasing of space inside the terminus to the mainland as a "cession of land"; others might have their opposition modes turned on permanently regardless of the merits or otherwise of any government proposals.

These opposition stances, one strongly believes, are borne out of ingrained hostility within the individuals toward the mainland rather than anything else. "Pan-democratic" activists must have forgotten that under the "one country, two systems" principle, Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China. Cession? What cession? Their objections have also demonstrated their failure to acknowledge China's sovereignty over the SAR.

The whole purpose of the co-location and pre-clearance arrangement is to let officers from both sides, in this case Hong Kong and the mainland, undertake their respective checks in one location. Anything else would mean inconvenience to the millions of travellers and defeat the purpose of arriving in Hong Kong or other destinations on the mainland much more quickly.

Activists have also ignored the fact that co-location of immigration and customs arrangements, even between different sovereign states, is nothing new. Schemes have been agreed and put in practice for many years and in quite a few countries. Since the United States and Canada had their informal co-location arrangement in 1952, pre-clearance checks are now taking place in countries including Abu Dhabi, Aruba, the Bahamas, Bermuda, Belgium, France, Ireland, Malaysia, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. Canada and the US currently have eight airports and four ports on either side of their borders with pre-clearance arrangements.

As someone who lives in London, one would travel between London and France on either the Eurotunnel or Eurostar from time to time. One therefore takes pre-clearance arrangement on these journeys for granted. Travelling from London's St. Pancras Station to Paris Gare du Nord station would mean no further checks required upon arrival and one can go straight to a Metro train and continue to one's destination without any further delay. On one occasion when flying from Toronto to New York in the 1990s, one found the immigration checks near-seamless, most delightful and saving a lot of time at LaGuardia Airport upon arrival on this occasion. This journey was made more than 25 years ago so one would only hope that "pan-democratic" activists will soon wake up from their self-deceiving nightmares about the introduction of this scheme.

The arguments put forward by opponents, to put it simply, have neither a legal or common-sense basis. Co-location means sitting two sets of immigration and customs officials in one site - no more, no less. Such arrangements will save time and bring convenience to the millions of visitors as witnessed by others who have benefitted from similar schemes. The proposed arrangement would only result in better communication, closer liaison and coordination, improved public safety and efficient immigration controls for all.

Should "pan-democratic" activists still not be convinced of the merits of the co-location proposal, one would suggest that perhaps they should ask the Americans, the British, the French and a whole host of others about the real and substantial benefits of a pre-clearance scheme. This should put their minds to rest since it is more than likely that they might have a deep-rooted belief in "the West is best". US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) air preclearance operations have more than 600 law enforcement officers and agriculture specialists stationed at no less than 15 locations in six countries. They might provide some helpful reassurances to these doubting activists.

(HK Edition 08/17/2017 page8)

Today's Top News

Editor's picks

Most Viewed

Top
BACK TO THE TOP
English
Copyright 1994 - . All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to China Daily Information Co (CDIC). Without written authorization from CDIC, such content shall not be republished or used in any form. Note: Browsers with 1024*768 or higher resolution are suggested for this site.
License for publishing multimedia online 0108263

Registration Number: 130349
FOLLOW US
主站蜘蛛池模板: 温州市| 辽阳市| 视频| 鹤庆县| 若尔盖县| 凌源市| 金昌市| 敦化市| 甘肃省| 张家口市| 芜湖县| 自治县| 靖边县| 襄樊市| 江孜县| 吉木萨尔县| 兰西县| 濮阳县| 苍山县| 弋阳县| 元江| 樟树市| 精河县| 上蔡县| 辽阳市| 桂平市| 海城市| 商水县| 六盘水市| 航空| 通州市| 汝南县| 电白县| 麟游县| 依兰县| 乐亭县| 莱阳市| 会东县| 北海市| 禹州市| 菏泽市| 天台县| 鄂伦春自治旗| 大安市| 五台县| 仁化县| 象山县| 南投市| 饶平县| 巴东县| 阳曲县| 南召县| 广西| 苏州市| 峨眉山市| 天峨县| 永丰县| 江津市| 永川市| 郁南县| 宜阳县| 雷州市| 灌南县| 徐汇区| 甘孜| 嘉义市| 广宁县| 曲沃县| 丰都县| 敖汉旗| 靖西县| 元朗区| 西华县| 乡宁县| 建瓯市| 旬阳县| 高雄县| 龙泉市| 潢川县| 微山县| 蓬安县| 喜德县|