Junius Ho, a Legislative Council member, has stirred controversy by asserting he represents “Hong Kongers in the UK holding BNO visas” at a UN Human Rights Council meeting.  He mentioned that many Hong Kong residents moved to the UK under the BNO visa scheme after the 2019 anti-extradition law protests but have encountered considerable challenges in reestablishing their careers and integrating into society. Ho criticized the UK government for exploiting Hong Kong’s historical connections to attract these residents, addressing issues like labor shortages and financial troubles resulting from Brexit—accusing the UK of using Hong Kongers for economic gain without genuine concern for their welfare. He also challenged the BNO scheme’s inability to secure British citizenship for Hong Kongers, leading to instability and uncertainty. Moreover, he pointed to Australia and Canada’s immigration systems as more ethical and effective alternatives, urging the UK to amend its policies to better protect BNO visa holders and uphold their rights and dignity.

Junius Ho’s comments have generated significant attention and surprise across different sectors in Hong Kong.  However, a detailed analysis shows that his statement, instead of offering new insights, employs the UN Human Rights Council to restate a persistent belief that the UK is using Hong Kong residents to mitigate its economic issues.  This narrative has existed for quite a while and is not novel.

His appeal to the UK government to “guarantee the rights and dignity of BNO Hong Kongers” stands out as a new element in his statement. Although he has been recognized for his pro-Beijing views, Junius Ho’s unusual emphasis on the struggles faced by Hong Kongers in the UK, framing his arguments around human rights and dignity, has sparked speculation regarding his intentions.

It’s important to highlight that Junius Ho addressed the UN Human Rights Council.  Those who are acquainted with his style recognize that he often utilizes international venues to convey a global presence. Thus, his speech could be seen as aligning with his well-known persona, which diminishes the necessity for extensive conjecture regarding his true motives.

Ironically, it’s often the pro-Beijing politicians who most effectively point out the flaws in the UK’s BNO policy. This underscores the genuine shortcomings in how the UK government has managed the BNO scheme, as it has failed to properly consider the needs and welfare of BNO visa holders. Importantly, as a signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the UK is obligated to protect the fundamental civil and political rights of everyone in its jurisdiction, including BNO visa holders. These rights encompass freedom from discrimination, the right to a fair trial, personal liberty, and freedom of expression. Comments from Junius Ho, regardless of his intentions, unintentionally emphasize the UK government’s duty under the ICCPR to tackle BNO equality issues and honor its international human rights obligations.

The primary issue with the British National Overseas (BNO) policy resides in its historical context. Although the BNO passport originated from the Sino-British Joint Declaration, this declaration did not guarantee residency rights in the United Kingdom for BNO holders, much less citizenship.  The BNO scheme was conceived to facilitate the handover of sovereignty. However, the United Kingdom government did not offer the people of Hong Kong a referendum prior to the handover, resulting in the transfer of Hong Kong from a relatively democratic society to an authoritarian regime without the consent of its populace. The absence of a contingency plan from the UK government has left residents of Hong Kong susceptible to increasingly stringent governance by China, culminating in the implementation of the National Security Law in 2020. Although the BNO visa scheme provides an escape route for some individuals, BNO holders are not guaranteed automatic British citizenship and must navigate a protracted naturalization process. It may be prudent for the UK government to consider extending an alternative form of citizenship to BNO holders, such as British Overseas Territories Citizen (BOTC) status- similar to that of Bermuda or the Cayman Islands—without adversely affecting British citizenship. This approach could alleviate concerns regarding the five-year waiting period for citizenship applications, thereby providing enhanced security and stability in their residency and employment situations.

The British National Overseas (BNO) visa scheme has, without a doubt, provided numerous Hong Kong residents with a vital avenue for escape from oppression. However, the protections afforded by this scheme remain inadequate, as they do not grant the same rights and conveniences associated with other immigration programs, including expedited pathways to British citizenship. It is imperative for Hong Kong residents to have access to more streamlined routes to settlement, rather than the conditional residency currently offered under the BNO scheme. The remarks made by Junius Ho, while questionable in their intent, inadvertently highlight the deficiencies of the BNO policy and underscore the continuous necessity for Hong Kongers to advocate for equitable treatment and enhanced rights within the United Kingdom. Additionally, this situation emphasizes the obligation of the UK government to uphold its international human rights commitments.