Some queries on the co-location arrangement are somehow overthinking.
Firstly, the proposed “Three-step Process” (i.e., reaching an agreement between
the Mainland and HKSAR, then seeking the NPCSC’s approval and finally
finishing local legislation) is in accordance with the Basic Law and national law.
Secondly, there is actually no lack of successful examples of similar co-location
arrangement in the world. Besides the “Overseas Immigration” between US
and Canada, we have another best example in Shenzhen Bay Port which is a
main reference to the current proposal for the XRL.
Given the successful arrangements made between countries to meet their
own specific needs and situations, it is not persuasive to say the Mainland and
Hong Kong, both of which are in the same country, cannot work out our own
one. After all, I hope every sector of the society can put aside any prejudice or
political considerations, and joins together for the interest of our whole society
to let the XRL with co-location arrangement come into operation as scheduled.
That is a practical contribution to our economy and people’s livelihood.
至於有些人針對一地兩檢提出的質疑，其實都只
是杞人憂天。一來現時政府建議落實一地兩檢的
「三步走」方式（即先由內地與香港達成合作安
排，然後經人大常委會批准及完成本地立法）符
合《基本法》和國家規定，二來一地兩檢並非新
事物，現時實已不乏類似的成功例子，遠的有如
美加「境外入境檢查」等模式，近的亦可見十年
來行之有效的深圳灣口岸，而高鐵擬實施的安排
就正是仿照後者而成的。
既然連國與國之間都可以協商出合乎其個別需要
和環境的一地兩檢模式，為何同屬祖國的內地和
香港當局卻不能？這是說不過去的。說到底，我
希望社會各界能放下成見或政治考慮，多以香港
整體利益為依歸，讓高鐵如期落實一地兩檢投入
服務，同為經濟和民生做實事作貢獻。
6
