HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
5 July 1989
香港立法局
一九八九年七月五日
68
DR. LEONG: Sir, in these days of confidence crisis, deeds are the only thing that will save the day, while words alone would be counter-productive.
To say, and I quote from the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) report, "at the root of Britain's special obligation to Hong Kong is the unique position of Hong Kong as a British dependent territory whose people are not able to exercise the fundamental right of self-determination", and yet to deliver us without insurance to an unpredictable and unreliable communist regime; to say again "a valuable and confidence-building indication of Britain's commitment" is to vacate the HMS Tamar with a view of building on it the British Consulate after 1997 is, to my mind, Sir, making a mockery out of the honour that Hong Kong people and the world have always attached to Britain. It has made a clown out of Hong Kong people's trust and belief. It has insulted the logic and the intelligence of the Hong Kong people.
The Foreign Secretary stated that in 24 hours China has destroyed all the good will she has created in the past 10 years. I would say this to him: that with a stroke of the pen to deny Hong Kong's British subjects the restoration of their right at this point of time, the British Government would have wiped off the respect that Hong Kong people have for her in the last century.
These, Sir, are the feelings and emotions of the Hong Kong people towards the FAC report and the British Government today.
Let me turn to some of the actual contents of the FAC report on nationality and on this I will focus mainly on the suggestion of categorization. Allow me, Sir, to quote from my address to the Secretary of State a few days ago.
The FAC has talked of categorization and the British Government repeatedly of flexibility. I would have imagined that both are reflections of similar offerings by the British Government.
Perhaps it should be clear that it has never been the wish nor the stand of OMELCO, and I am sure the people of Hong Kong too, to consider, let alone take, categorization as our fall-back position on the issue of right of abode. We feel that such a move is unfair, divisive, irresponsible and even dangerous.
Of course we are not disputing that it is for Her Majesty's Government to give but not for us to choose. I can say, however, that OMELCO speaks with one voice in pushing for our goal which is an insurance policy to help all of us to stay and work for a prosperous and stable Hong Kong rather than abandoning our home for emigration.