1627
Hong Kong:
[ LORDS]
[LORD IRVINE OF LAIRG.] for bility to fulfil a contractual obligation (Article 11he rights of aliens lawfully in Hong Kong (Article 13); the right not to be subjected to retroactive criminal law (Article 15); the right to recognition as a person before the law (Article 16); the rights of children (Article 24); and the rights of minorities (Article 27).
There are many provisions of the draft Basic Law which provide for human rights in specific areas, but less comprehensively and less satisfactorily than the international covenants. I do not like, for example, the provision of the draft Basic Law which provides that Hong Kong inhabitants,
"shall not be unlawfully"-
I underline the word "unlawfully";- "arrested, defamed or imprisoned".
I think that that may have been borrowed from the Malaysian constitution. "Unlawfully" means that the legislature is free to prescribe whatever grounds it may choose to take away individual liberty.
I have similar criticisms of other provisions of the Basic Law. Freedom of speech of the press and of publication is guaranteed "in accordance with law". Again, it is "unlawful" search or "unlawful" entry into the home that is prohibited. Correspondence and telephone communications can be intercepted "according to the procedure prescribed by law". A person may travel "if he holds a valid travel document". Constitutional lawyers know only too well that provisions of that kind provide no absolute guarantees. The legislature of the Hong Kong SAR will be free to encroach in any way it chooses on any of these rights.
With great respect for all those concerned with the draft Basic Law, I suggest that the most straightforward way of carrying into effect the commitments on human rights contained in the joint declaration is either to write the international covenants in their entirety into the Basic Law, to have the Hong Kong SAR enact them in future or, better still, with the agreement of the People's Republic, to have the Legislative Council enact the international covenants here and now.
The draft Basic Law is an important further step in the long march to 1997. Its authors are to be congratulated on their initial efforts. I hope that all those concerned will see some wisdom in altering some of its provisions in the respects to which I have endeavoured to call attention.
12.35 p.m.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, those of us who are concerned with Hong Kong on a daily basis are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, for giving us the opportunity to take stock at this important stage in the implementation of the joint declaration. I venture to speak in this debate because I am able to do so from a slightly different angle to some, though not all, of your Lordships. I have the honour to be part of what is now perhaps the largest business group in Hong Kong. It accounts for nearly 20 per cent. of the capitalisation of the stock market. its controlling shareholder and most of its remaining shareholders are Hong Kong Chinese. Furthermore, over 95 per cent. of the group's assets are in Hong Kong. Therefore, the subjects under discussion today
Joint Declaration
1628
are not of merely academic interest. Our whole future is at stake.
I should make it absolutely clear that the views which I shall put forward are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues. Perhaps I may also express my apologies to the House in that, should the debate continue beyond 2.30, I shall have to leave to attend an unavoidable engagement. To help ensure that that does not happen, my remarks will be as brief as possible.
I am constantly asked whether my Hong Kong friends are not worried about life after 1997. The answer is, that of course they are worried. They are capitalists and their employees are workers who are prospering under the capitalist system. They will soon have to be dependent on a communist state. It must not be forgotten that many of them are refugees from the mainland. At the same time, they are Chinese and they feel 100 per cent. Chinese. They are excited by the prospect that Hong Kong may become the financial and commercial engine room for the country with the largest population on earth.
In a recent speech in New York, the chairman of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank-a respected Scottish banker who is not given to wild flights of fancy said that he saw 1997 as an opportunity, and not as a threat, for Hong Kong. The People's Republic of China now comprises about one-fifth of the world's inhabitants. One American think-tank has calculated that on present projections the economy of China, including Hong Kong, could be the second largest in the world by the year 2010, surpassing both the Soviet Union and Japan. The people of Hong Kong see themselves facing great possible risks and also great possible opportunities. That is something which has occurred frequently in Hong Kong's history. However, this time the stakes. are higher than ever.
I confess that I find much of the debate in Britain outside your Lordships' Chamber about the future of Hong Kong distressingly theoretical. That has been particularly so since the publication of the first draft of the Basic Law. While we have been the colonial power we have had the wisdom not to seek to impose our Westminster style institutions too precisely on a country and a population whose circumstances and needs are quite different from our own. While it has been pointed out that there are differing views within Hong Kong on the speed with which democracy should be introduced I am bound to say that I do not myself feel that that is the most important issue at stake.
It is fair to say that the absence of full democracy in Hong Kong has never until now stopped the Hong Kong Chinese from prospering or leading their own lives in their own way. Nor has the majority of the population shown much interest in copying our political system in the past. They have been quite content to see us exercise the ultimate authority provided we did not interfere too much with their daily lives. I believe that what most individual Hong Kong Chinese really want after 1997 is to be allowed to carry on as before.
From the beginning of Hong Kong as a colony until today its people have in fact enjoyed no political rights which theoretically at least could not have been changed by the intervention of the Westminster