2076
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 July 1989
The report only proposes to grant certain categories of people the right of abode in the United Kingdom. Apart from bringing about the undesirable effect of dividing the community, the proposal is contradictory in itself. For instance, the report considers it specially important to maintain the morale of the Civil Service during the transitional period, and civil servants consequently should be granted the right of abode with greater flexibility. If the report confirms the need to boost the confidence of the people of Hong Kong and it is a problem that requires immediate solution, the proposal to grant the right of abode to certain groups of people (including a limited number of civil servants) will be pointless in solving the confidence crisis; instead it will lead to social disintegration. Even if civil servants remain high in morale, what can they do to help achieve effective administration when local confidence shatters and every one is looking for an "escape route"?
Besides, the report recommends that Britain should seek international assistance in providing refuge to the people of Hong Kong in the future. Such a proposal is unrealistic. It is nothing more than a vain attempt to shirk responsibility and put on a show of generosity at the expense of others. To treat the people of Hong Kong like refugees is an insult to us and to our sovereign state Britain too.
According to international practice, people of the territory concerned have the right to choose on matters of nationality and place of abode upon the transition of sovereignty. On basis of legal principles or moral obligation, Britain should offer the people of Hong Kong the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
Sir, confidence of the public is a problem that needs to be addressed immediately. To grant them the right of abode is the most effective cure. Going through recent speeches made by Sir Geoffrey HOWE, we find Britain still avoids the point at issue and refuses to prescribe the right medicine. Ours is an urgent case, but the one who handles the case is slow in taking action. All in all, the report has only given consideration to the internal political factors of Britain. It has never taken into account the actual situation of Hong Kong. At such critical moments, we want no fanfare from Britain. We want practical and effective actions.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR. EDWARD HO: Sir, I find that the Foreign Affairs Committee report contained many useful and valid observations and recommendations such as those on the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, the pace for the development of a representative government and the recommendation to introduce a Bill of Rights. All these recommendations are helpful to the effective administration of Hong Kong in the run up to 1997. My greatest objection to the report is in respect of their recommendation on the nationality issue.
The work of the Foreign Affairs Committee took place during the period from March to June 1989, in the midst of which the horrible events in Beijing took place. The bulk of the committee's work, especially in the taking of evidence, was conducted