Thanks to some adroit footwork on the part of British Home Secretary Theresa May, Chinese artist Ai Weiwei (艾未未) is set to receive the six-month UK visa he applied for, and the government has largely avoided the battering it would otherwise have sustained from that potent alliance of human rights campaigners and global glitterati. The scandal left the headlines almost as soon as it had landed there.
In a way, though, the speedy resolution of this incipient quarrel is a pity. For the initial refusal that the artist received, and made public via social media, is a symptom of the much bigger problems that afflict the British visa system.
It is impersonal, inflexible and at times slipshod. It keeps too many of the right people out and lets some of the wrong ones in. The result is the appearance of a fortress that is nonetheless porous. Why are there doctors trying to jump on Channel trains at Calais? Why is the government suddenly threatening landlords with five years in prison for accommodating illegal migrants? The system for entering the country is not trusted.
Illustration: Mountain People
Ai’s case is exceptional, but instructive. It is a reasonable bet that without the profile and elite backing he enjoys, he would still be dangling on the British bureaucratic string. He would be considering whether to risk an appeal, or affect gratitude for what the UK government had deigned to grant.
You can argue, too, that he was a special case in another way, and that the real reason for the initial three-week time limit on his visa was to prevent him from swanning around Britain at the same time Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is visiting on what is expected to be a controversial state visit.
If diplomatic expedience was a consideration, then it goes without saying that it was a very bad idea — the sort of idea that deserves to be boxed up with the half-meetings that are afforded to other diplomatically awkward individuals, such as the Dalai Lama, so as not to offend powerful countries.
At least that would have indicated some informed thinking on the side of the Home Office. The difficulty is that this cannot be taken for granted. The wording of the letter sent to Ai — by turns wooden and weaselly — should be familiar to many of those who have ever dealt with the UK visa authorities and been refused. As should the error of fact.
Here is a flavor.
“On this occasion,” the entry clearance officer at the Beijing embassy said, “your visa has been restricted.”
In other words, we do not want to be held responsible for issuing a blanket ban on someone of your distinction. The letter refers to the small print of regulations, which the recipient is invited to consult. If Ai makes a mistake in any future application, he is threatened with “a 10-year ban in line with paragraphs V3.7-V3.10 of Appendix of the Immigration Rules.” A Web reference to the appropriate section of said rules is helpfully offered.
Applicants feel that honesty is penalized, while those versed in the “correct” formulas get through.
The greatest flaw, though, was the statement: “It is a matter of public record that you have previously received a criminal conviction in China, and you have not declared this.”
In other words, I am doing you an extraordinary favor by granting you any visa at all. However, as the artist pointed out, he had been detained, but never convicted, and the distinction is as crucial as it would be in the UK. No one representing the UK government should get such a detail wrong.
Fortunately for him, Ai has a profile that enabled him to put this right and backers whose outrage can make news. Together, they threw the ball back, very publicly, into Britain’s court. Most visa applicants, though, do not. They understand that they are essentially supplicants, dependent on the competence, or the favor, of the visa staff or agency. If something goes wrong, they can do little but nurse their grudges — or contact lawyers and journalists in an effort to get their cases heard.
And much does go wrong. Replies are delayed, so flights, family events, lectures or concert dates are missed. Supporting documents go missing — far more often, so say applicants, than with most other developed countries. Applicants have to travel long distances to appear in person, or commit papers to an unreliable postal system. Applications are expensive and each resubmission requires a new fee. Tick-box questions leave no room for nuance or genuine misunderstanding. When, as is increasingly the case, the visa function is delegated to an agency or the visa office is staffed not by Britons, but by so-called “local hires,” applicants lack confidence in the integrity and confidentiality of the process.
All this is especially frustrating for professionals, who can feel that their innocence and honesty is penalized, while those better versed in the “correct” formulas get through. If a person wants to come as a shopper with money to spend or as a student with fees to pay, the UK usually finds reasons to let them in. For others, it too often seems closed.
Perhaps if the UK visa system carried more conviction, both with those who want to travel to Britain and with Britons themselves, illegal routes would be less viable and less attractive. The home secretary’s rapid about-turn on Ai was politically astute. Unfortunately, though, it leaves the scrutiny of the UK visa system and how it really functions for another day.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.