1007
Hong Kong
20 JANUARY 1988
We are all concerned to retain the stability and prosperity that Hong Kong has enjoyed for a long time. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove did not put it quite so bluntly, that stability and prosperity are based firmly and simply on autocracy, not on democracy. We owe it to the people of Hong Kong to ensure that, before we chuck out the baby with the bath water, we know clearly what we are putting in its place. Overt and covert pressure has always been brought to bear on Hong Kong by the Chinese Government, not just since 1949. The history books show that much of what was said in 1911 about the British in Hong Kong was far more vigorous and unhelpful than anything said by Beijing since 1949.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South invited the House briefly to consider the position from the point of view of the Chinese Government. Sensible people in Hong Kong know that they must learn to live with China. That is a fact of life, and there is no point in trying to avoid it. Either they must accept the good will of the Case Government, or they must believe that that Gonment are deliberately trying to string them, the House and the British Government along until 1997, when they will suddenly impose some new system. I consider that mischievous, and utterly nonsensical. If, however, we suppose it to be true, what difference would it make which institutions we put in place now? Surely, we should advise the people of Hong Kong that co-operation, not confrontation, is essential.
Like most hon. Members, I have received a great deal of paper, and I shall not weary the House with numerous quotations. I am bound to say, however, that it is not only Mr. Martin Lee and his friends who are stirring up mischief. I received a communication from the Hong Kong Social Workers General Union, stating:
"The people of Hong Kong would not tolerate the decision to postpone the introduction of direct elections by 3 years and it would be folly to assume that they would accept such a decision mildly”.
That sounds almost like an attempt to generate insurrection, and—at the very least—suspiciously like a threat. I do not think that such wild statements are doing good to the people of Hong Kong as they struggle, Understandably, towards a new future.
If I have any contact with the Chinese Government -which, of course, I have-I may be able to give the House the benefit of some wisdom and understanding. Unfortunately for me, however, that has already been done by the right hon. Member for Gorton, and, indeed, by the Foreign Secretary. They have both said what we know to be true: that the Chinese Government are not opposed to the principle of direct elections. All that we are talking about is timing: the timing of the introduction of direct elections, in relation to the progress of the joint liaison group and the development of the Basic Law.
It seems to me rather unwise to try to rush headlong into direct elections for an assembly none of whose constitutional arrangements have even been discussed, let alone put in place, before that Basic Law is complete. I believe that that would be the view of the Chinese Government. I may be wrong-it may be a changeable position. However, it would seem sensible to put the Basic Law in place first in 1990, and then have the first direct elections. Doing otherwise, and pushing through direct elections for their own sake, would be a recipe for instability. If that were done in the face of opposition from the Government of the People's Republic-I do not
521
Hong Kong
1008
know whether they are opposed—it would be flying in the face of sanity and disregarding respect for the sovereignty of the People's Republic, which could not be in the interests of the people of Hong Kong.
I am worried that some people in Hong Kong are allowing themselves to be misled by ambitious local politicians and trouble makers who want to generate unrest and who clearly do not trust the Chinese or British Governments. Perhape most dangerous of all, some people are allowing themselves to be misled by well- meaning do-gooders.
The reputation of the Chinese Government depends on their ability to maintain the stability of Hong Kong. I should have thought that that was self-evident to everyone. The message to the people of Hong Kong must be that they should not allow themselves to be misled by siren voices.
The stock exchange scandal has been mentioned. I shall mention it only to illustrate a point. The British and Chinese Governments are clearly committed to maintain- ing stability. If stability is upset, however, it will not be upset in London or Beijing—it is likely to be upset only by what goes on in Hong Kong.
I told the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley that I have not always been the most ardent admirer of the Hong Kong Government. In the person of Sir David Wilson, however, Hong Kong has the finest possible Governor to see it through the next few turbulent years. It would be hard to imagine a more wise or better friend. Hong Kong's gain is our loss and the Government's loss in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He is a good man. He will do his best to ensure that the people of Hong Kong are led steadily forward during the next few years.
We all want to do our best for the people of Hong Kong, but it should be steady as she goes. Working constructively with the British and Chinese Governments is far more likely to achieve that than listening to those who appear to have instant solutions to every problem. 6.22 pm
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): I am glad, at long last, to have an opportunity to intervene somewhat briefly in this very important debate.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) will not be too surprised to find that I endorse utterly every word that he said, as I endorsed the contributions of his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller). That is not too surprising in view of the fact that the four of us have always taken a considerable interest in the affairs both of China and of Hong Kong, and, if I may say so with my usual arrogance, we probably know more about it than the great mass of Members in the House of Commons.
The emphasis in the debate today seems to me to have been primarily on the need for direct elections to the Legislative Council sooner rather than later. It seems to me that the pressures for direct elections in 1988 come from two quarters: first, from the media and from other groups in Hong Kong, some expatriate, whose support for the Sino-British agreement was always somewhat suspect and who really did not and do not · want the agreement to work out properly.
Newsmen have been perhaps the most malign in this regard, but there are undoubtedly other factions in Hong