HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
5 July 1989
2093
MR. ARCULLI: Sir, I should like to make a few observations on some aspects of the Foreign Affairs Committee report in relation to the visit of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Rt. Hon. Sir Geoffrey HOWE, QC, MP. In his press conference on 4 July 1989 before his departure, the Secretary of State gave Hong Kong seven points that he particularly had in mind. I shall not repeat those seven points here because they must be firmly embedded in the minds of all of us. Indeed when asked by a journalist what I thought of those points I instinctively said: "There were no surprises." Sir, why it came as no surprise was because each of those seven points is found in virtually identical terms in the FAC report. But in the mind of the Secretary of State the points he made were new as the FAC report contains only recommendations of that committee and not the position of the British Government. Enough of this for we must not detract from the business of today.
One general comment on the FAC report is this: There is a discernible vein that surfaces from time to time in the FAC report which is that almost every other country in the free world has to come in aid of Britain to help her fulfil her "unique obligation" to Hong Kong. This ranges from a stronger role for the United Nations to restore credibility in the Joint Declaration to establishing guarantees with Britain's European Economic Community partners and other countries to share several million Hong Kong people should the need arise. The Secretary of State has altered his position in this respect as he previously said he did not think it was right to mobilize international support now. Maybe there is a chance for us to make some headway in other respects. After all, with the assurance of the Secretary of State that it would be dishonest to promise what no British Government can deliver, what else can the British Government do? But what a curious way for the Secretary of State to choose to do the honourable thing for Hong Kong by refusing to issue an insurance policy which, according to him, no British Government could honour. For myself I find it illogical for the Secretary of State to rely on inability of any future British Government to honour any such policy. Perhaps, he is telling us that even if the present British Government were to restore full British citizenship to Hong Kong British subjects, a future British Government may take it away as it was done before. I cannot believe that it could happen a second time.
But, Sir, life goes on. We must tackle the problems that lie ahead. However, for the record I must say I cannot pretend that I am happy with the nationality package recommended by the FAC. Turning now to the Joint Declaration and the assumption that it remains "the best foundation for Hong Kong's future" it is important to ask how the British Government hopes to persuade China to play its part. We at least know one effect the events of 3 to 4 June in Tiananmen have had: it shook up the British Government but has it woken up the Chinese Government? I do not wholly subscribe to the view expressed in paragraph 4.3 of the FAC report that China will not be able to close the door again to the outside world. Britain may have shut the door on Hong Kong before. Let her not forget that China could do the same in 1997. However, for the moment I still have a little faith in the ability of the British Government so that I am prepared to wait a little to see what guarantees it will be able to persuade China to give to Hong Kong. Sir, in this connection I would unreservedly