Yes. I understand very well the concern of you and Ms. Kwan about the vulnerability of people. But in real life, we must also see that sometimes the client is the accomplice. It's the person who, because they see that the rules are against them, try to go around the rules. When they're caught, then they will point to the consultant and say, it's the consultant who told me to lie or to invent something. It's very difficult.
We see cases like that, he-said-she-said. Sometimes the consultant is the victim of a client who didn't disclose the real story and then when he's caught by the authority will use the consultant as a scapegoat. Then it goes to credibility in terms of who to believe.
I want to tell you that the authority and the consultant must develop skills to be able to identify when he has a truthful client. It's mainly I think the responsibility of the state to decide when someone has been so exploited. The minister has this authority and he uses it from to time to time to allow the person to be accepted even if he doesn't really fit all the rules because of his situation. It's called the H and C, the humanitarian and compassionate factor, and it can be used.
A good consultant and a good lawyer can make a good case that this person has been the victim of either a bad consultant or sometimes also a bad lawyer and that for compassionate reasons he should still be granted his status.