2110
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
5 July 1989
we have incurred direct expenditure to the tune of $2.4 billion on the Vietnamese boat people while indirect expenditure has been beyond quantifying.
The FAC report admits that mandatory repatriation of those boat people screened out as non-refugees will be the only viable way to deal with the problem. The report points out, however, that the humanitarian approach should be adopted so that the repatriated will be adequately provided for to ensure a decent living. The report further recommends that assistance should be given to them to help them settle down in Vietnam. But, Sir, where will all the necessary money come from? Has the United Kingdom agreed to bear all the costs for the maintenance and repatriation of boat people screened out as non-refugees? The report is silent on this point. It has failed to put forward substantive and practicable proposals in this respect. It talks about other countries' responsibilities. What a hypocritical attitude this is! Sir, if the Vietnamese boat people problem is not solved soon enough, it will be a time bomb embedded in Hong Kong's body politic, waiting to go off in the next eight years with disastrous effects.
I should like to move on to the nationality issue. A moment ago I mentioned about the hypocrisy of the FAC report. I must now commend Foreign Secretary Sir Geoffrey HOWE for his honesty and frankness. During his visit to the territory, Sir Geoffrey's conduct of affairs faithfully reflected what he had in mind, that is, to give an absolute "no" to Hong Kong people's reasonable demand for the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
Britain has administered Hong Kong for over a century. Now is the time when Hong Kong people need protection most. But a Secretary of State of the United Kingdom Government straightly turned down our demand. Hong Kong people will remain unconvinced. As a matter of fact, Hong Kong people do not harbour the wild hope of settling in the United Kingdom. Their attempt to secure for themselves the right of abode in the United Kingdom is but a form of expression of their jittery confidence.
If there had been no Tiananmen incident, Hong Kong people would neither have fancied the right of abode nor ever broached it.
I believe the Chinese Government will need to do a tremendous amount of work in the next eight years to restore and maintain Hong Kong people's confidence. What we can do now is to give full play to the advantageous conditions Hong Kong people are finding themselves in, namely, our economic prosperity and affluence; to secure the further democratization of our political system in the future Basic Law; to express our worries through the Joint Liaison Group; and to prove that maintenance of Hong Kong's prosperity, stability and existing capitalist systems and lifestyles is not only consistent with Hong Kong people's wish but also consistent with the interests of China (irrespective of the composition of the Chinese leadership). Our interests and theirs are the same!