Astrophel Lim: What's More Unabashed than Labour Party Help Immigrants Get CSSA?

What's More Unabashed than Labour Party Help Immigrants Get CSSA?
Translated by Chen-t'ang 鎮棠, Edited by Karen L., Written by Astrophel Lim
Original: http://www.passiontimes.hk/article/03-19-2015/21844/ 

Having an anchor baby is a choice after all. [Translator's note: In Hong Kong, "anchor babies" are often referred to as "doubly non-permanent babies", indicating both their parents' lack of  permanent residence in Hong Kong, but in mainland China.] Those mainland pregnant women deliberately did so, some passing through the customs at the last minute and refusing to pay the hospital bill that comes, and there are others giving birth at the border or trying to get themselves imprisonment here.

Aiming at HKSARG welfare system, they leave no stone unturned. The worse part is that completely are they never planning on how to raise a baby, and somehow in they eyes, it becomes the government's responsibility offering CSSA to them.

Some say, the kids will have no hukou approved by the mainland China in this way. [Translator's note: "Hukou" is the household registration in China.] Well, please go back to China and fight for your rights of one. Same with those "establishing-democratic-PRC" aspiration, please leave it to your great nation.

Allowing such situation is the grey area of our current system. Some kids from mainland China have a legal guardian in Hong Kong, but still they apply for CSSA. I couldn't help but wonder then what does "guardian" stand for. Doesn't it supposed to be taking care of that kid?

Their parents insist them living in Hong Kong, and even help them find a guardian for daily life. Okay, fine. I can take this. Then isn't the current arrangement fair enough for them? [Translator's note: Current arrangement — When doubly non-permanent kids have a need to apply for CSSA, they need a guardian to do it for them, and they should live with the guardian said.]

Either Fernando Cheung quit or fail from the election, it doesn't count for anything. His problem lies on the way of thinking and the betrayal against Hongkongers. He supports the re-allocation shift from the locals to the others. Politically speaking, all of that is not a fault of one, and only a collective punishment will do.

Why? Simple enough. Even if Fernando Cheung quit his job, problems won't disappear in a flash. Many resources from the NGO are deeply linked and intertwined with LegCo seats or panels or committees. To embrace the variety of stances in issues, one and another politician within a party should be allowed to think and act differently. Only in this way can it root out the deeply planted pernicious practice and remove the links between injustice and politics.

This is why I am not calling for a boycott against, but the entire Labour Party — unless all of their major members make it clear about their stances on the new arrival issues, especially this CSSA case, or else the entire party deserve not a single vote. Honestly, who of them ever does something meaningful? Lee Cheuk-yan called for "construction of democratic China. Cyd Ho went to Shanghai for constitutional reform discussion and then wore the T-shirt "vindicate Tian'anmen Massacre". Tricks only.

No comments:

Post a Comment