991
Hong Kong
20 JANUARY 1988
to the development by the United Kingdom over the next 13 years of directly elected institutions in Hong Kong', Sir Geoffrey dovetailed the Green Paper proposals with those made in the draft Agreement by saying:
"The agreement provides for the Legislature of Hong Kong in the future to be on an elective basis and for the Executive to be accountable to that legislature.”.”
It is central to the realisation of the concept of one country and two systems that democratic institutions are evolved and, as hon. Members have said, given time to bed down. Therefore, a beginning should be made now. If it is not, the hope and trust that certainly characterised the response to the joint declaration in 1985 will be gravely damaged, and that, in time, will have an economic effect. The absence so far of specific proposals for a directly elected element for the new legislature is seen by many, rightly or wrongly, as stemming, first, from the Foreign Office-with great respect, I must say that the Foreign Secretary's remarks were opaque; he said quite a lot but we could not see any specific affirmation pressure on the Hong Kong Government, and, secondly, pressure from the People's Republic on Government. That perception exists despite the assurances that we have heard most recently from the Opposition spokesmen, particularly, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) who quoted a lady who had obviously had a profound effect upon him and referred to her remarks to the Labour group from the Chinese embassy.
and its
our
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley): No. The lady was from the Chinese embassy, not the Labour group.
Sir Russell Johnston: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I have always thought that some Labour party policies stem from the Chinese embassy.
Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman is thinking of Bob Maclennan again.
Sir Russell Johnston: I seldom think of anything else. Hardly anyone believes that the delay in making posals for a democratic element is due to the published results of the two Survey Office soundings of public opinion, which have been quoted. I certainly hope that the Foreign Secretary will say more than he did at the beginning of the debate about the wide discrepancy between the private opinion polls on the subject, which showed between 40 and 60 per cent. of people in favour, and the Survey Office results, which showed a range of 11 to 15 per cent. in favour. That is a significant difference, particularly these days when we are supposed to get much more accurate results. The Survey Office exercise was so as to be clumsy -the point was well made earlier seriously flawed. As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton said, annexe 1 of the joint declaration is relevant. It states that, after 1997, Hong Kong legislature is to be constituted by election. Unless a start is made now, that will not happen.
Do the Government see 25 per cent. as a start or as an end? It is a good question. We all know that there is a proposal that the end should be 25 per cent. directly elected, 25 per cent. taken from financial institutions, and 50 per cent. taken from the so-called grand electoral college, which is chosen we know not exactly how, but we can guess. It is not just that it makes a nonsense of the possibility of the rejection of the chief executive
513
Hong Kong
992
something that was spoken about at the time—but it describes a provincial Hong Kong with its independence of action not only circumscribed but neutered.
Many hon. Members have remarked on the failure of successive British Governments to move Hong Kong in a democratic direction. Successive Governments have defended themselves by saying that they wised to avoid provocation. Of course, they were in an exposed position. In practice, the media-the newspapers-have become a democratic surrogate: the release valve for free expression. As we move into a more active dialogue with the People's Republic of China, there are some things from which we cannot shrink. We cannot avoid some direct challenges on future safeguards for the kind of open dispute that is now available in Hong Kong even without democratic institutions—but which, despite the notable changes that have taken place within China, are still very limited there.
The Foreign Secretary mentioned human rights. I shall make three short quotations from the document on the People's Republic of China that was published last year by our parliamentary human rights group. The first quotation, which appears on page three, makes a point that I have often noticed. It states:
“The contrast with the Soviet Union could hardly be more stark. There, irrespective of the economic and political reforms introduced by Mikhail Gorbachev, Western leaders have used their leverage to insist on human rights concessions. When Secretary Shultz was in Beijing in March 1987 he never met with Chinese dissidents nor said anything publicly about human rights violations. On visiting Moscow in April, he took reporters and television cameramen with him to meet Soviet refusniks... and used the occasion to declare that 'we never give up, we never stop trying' to advance human rights in the Soviet Union.”
Some examples of that appear on page 75. It refers to the summary execution of thousands of common criminals, 7,000 to 14,000 persons who were executed without due process of law between 1983 and 1986, the situation in Tibet, and so on. The publication goes on:
"International human rights efforts in fact have intensified on behalf of groups in South Korea and Taiwan seeking greater political liberty. But China's economic accomplish- ments have sidetracked observers from pressing for political and legal institutions that could better protect China's citizens its economic and strengthen the underpinnings of modernization.”
These are sensitive, difficult issues. In raising them, I in no way intend to diminish the significance and worth of what has been accomplished in the Hong Kong agreement. However, we in the United Kingdom, who have made Hong Kong certainly for reasons which can now clearly be seen to be disreputable—have maintained it and overseen its expansion, which stems from the vigour of its inhabitants who went there of their own choice. We now have a responsibility to do our utmost to fulfil an historic trust.
I described the Hong Kong press as a surrogate democracy. I understand from the right hon. Member for Gorton that what I say now is being broadcast live. It will certainly be reported, but will that be the case after 1997? if the majority of the Legislative Council is democratically elected, I believe that it will be, otherwise I doubt whether it will be.
I take the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). We are talking about our honour as a country and the effect on it if we fail to discharge a clear moral debt.
Regrettably, the debate has been a short one. There are other issues that I could have developed that demand