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: 华安县| 奉化市| 咸阳市| 大埔区| 思南县| 天津市| 涟水县| 城固县| 景洪市| 石城县| 武夷山市| 鸡泽县| 镇巴县| 射阳县| 三亚市| 武山县| 两当县| 阿克陶县| 霍城县| 孟连| 萨嘎县| 巴里| 衡水市| 平遥县| 改则县| 武平县| 大同市| 潜山县| 宁河县| 林州市| 平定县| 马鞍山市| 雅江县| 汾阳市| 云林县| 石景山区| 高邑县| 卢龙县| 南郑县| 县级市| 江川县| 嵊泗县| 涿鹿县| 乐至县| 睢宁县| 道孚县| 汶川县| 犍为县| 云林县| 新晃| 鹤庆县| 永寿县| 巨野县| 达拉特旗| 香河县| 突泉县| 青浦区| 宽城| 瓦房店市| 武定县| 朝阳县| 青田县| 城口县| 会泽县| 疏附县| 新营市| 阿尔山市| 南京市| 荣成市| 佛教| 宁南县| 乾安县| 成安县| 祁阳县| 昌吉市| 朝阳县| 古丈县| 招远市| 海口市| 林甸县| 贺州市| 南昌市|