2082
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
5 July 1989
Since the British memorandum is not part of the Joint Declaration, to grant British citizenship to Hong Kong BDTCs would not constitute a breach of the treaty. It is within the powers of the British Government to do so if the will is there. As to the argument that no BDTC granted British citizenship would be able to become the Chief Executive and so on, there is nothing to worry about. After all, Hong Kong can but have one Chief Executive and a handful of top government officials. Even the granting of the right of entry or the right of admission would defeat the purpose of our call for the restoration of Hong Kong people's right of abode in Britain. Hong Kong people want to stay in Hong Kong, not to leave Hong Kong. We can stay and will want to stay if, and only if, we are assured that there is nothing to be worried about and that, in the worst scenario, we have Her Majesty's Government to turn to for a home of last resort. The argument for an insurance policy is therefore not a confused argument. If Britain is so confident in the Joint Declaration, why should it be so worried about possible mass influxes of Hong Kong people? In the extreme case of an Armageddon scenario in Hong Kong, is Britain prepared to stand aside and keep Hong Kong people away? Categorization is divisive. It is demoralizing for those who do not get the insurance. Leaders in different sectors in the community may be instrumental to the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong, but so are the people. Hong Kong would not be what we are today without the people. It would be very ungentlemanly and dishonourable if Britain just waits and sees until we become refugees before helping us. In the post-war years, more people moved into Hong Kong than out of Hong Kong. After what has happened in China recently, the situation, Sir, as should be recognized, is totally different.
To end, may I call on Her Majesty's Government to act now to restore our rights and go down in history as moral, constitutional, responsible and honourable. If not, history might depict Britain as immoral, unconstitutional, irresponsible and dishonourable towards its subjects. The choice is HMG's; I trust it will be sensibly discreet.
With these words, Sir, I support the motion.
MRS. LAM (in Cantonese): Sir, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons arrived in Hong Kong in April 1989 to listen to the views of the people of Hong Kong on the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the Basic Law, the Nationality Act and the Vietnamese boat people issue. On 28 June, the FAC released a report drawing conclusions and making recommendations on these issues. Unfortunately, no concrete solutions have been suggested so far as the part on nationality is concerned, though that is the question the people of Hong Kong are most worried and concerned about. Being confronted by a confidence crisis, what the Hong Kong people need most is an insurance policy. However, the FAC's report has not made the least commitment in that respect, but only thinks of the benefits of Britain, disregarding public opinion here. The people of Hong Kong are very disappointed indeed.
Hong Kong has been under British rule since 1842. With the exception of the period of Japanese occupation lasting three years and eight months during the Pacific