to the consequences for the poorer countries, which would
not be higher wages but unemployment.
We in Hong Kong never have and never will deny
that adjustments in the textiles sector in our main markets
can present social, economic and political problems. We
have an excellent track record of co-operation in moderating
the rate of our textile exports where they have been shown,
in terms of the internationally agreed ground rules, to have
been causing or threatening market disruption. We count
it unreasonable, however, and will actively resist any
suggestion that the positions we have established in certain
major markets should be eroded on the dubious pretext that
it is necessary to contain rigidly the growth prospects for
Hong Kong and other major suppliers in order to make room
for newcomers. That would mean, in effect, that the
importing country concerned would be requiring us not merely
to help solve its problems but to actually take some of
them over.
A refinement on the suggestion that export
opportunities for major suppliers be reduced has been the
widely touted idea that quota ceilings should move from
year to year in inverse ratio to the degree of import
penetration.
Apart from the obvious flaw in this reasoning,
namely that import penetration by itself is no measure of
damage to domestic producers, especially if they are
substantial exporters, there is an even more serious error
inherent in such a concept. Let us take, for example,
the EEC, where the proponents of these ideas have recently
been most vocal. Only two of the top five suppliers of
/textiles