net for all the people of Hong Kong.
We have also argued that the UK is on weak ground criticising lack of democracy elsewhere while we retain colonial paternalism in Hong Kong.
Our call for direct elections last year was brushed aside by the Government but now there is a growing demand for earlier and greater democracy.
While we accept that it would be difficult to advance the 1991 elections for practical reasons, we believe these should provide for at least half of the Legislative Council to be directly elected with the aim of full elections in 1995.
HONG KONG
change in China. There is still evidence of a strong democracy movement in spite of the reign of terror and old men cannot live for
ever.
"The UK is on weak ground criticising lack of democracy elsewhere while we return colonial paternalism
in Hong Kong"
The overriding factor which will help guarantee respect for the unique 'one country two systems' formula is the self interest of whatever government is in power in Beijing in maintaining Hong Kong as their window on the western world.
The election of a Hong Kong Chinese Governor before 1997 would also help prepare
for a smooth handover.
It should be of some reassurance that During the next eight years much will Hong Kong was never threatened during all
the turmoil of the cultural revolution.
Meanwhile the British Government is looking at other alternatives to the right of abode for the 3.2 million which could involve giving it only to certain privileged categories such as senior civil servants.
The Opposition will vigorously oppose this, which is rightly considered by most in Hong Kong as being extremely divisive. Similarly we will oppose any proposal to introduce yearly quotas which would encourage people to leave rather than stay in the colony.
There is no easy answer but an early introduction of full democracy, the development of an international safety net, the self interest of China and the passage of time together should go some way to restore confidence to the colony.
The truth is as simple as this. A change
T
of policy on Hong Kong is the only way to secure the Colony's long-term prospects and to ensure that the Chinese government understands the importance that we attach to its stability and the freedom of its people. A confident UK Government would be prepared to back its faith with
concrete assurances.
Under the 1984 Joint Declaration, the UK has undertaken to maintain and preserve Hong Kong's "economic prosperity and social stability" during the transitional period before 1997. Only by accepting the case for Right of Abode will we be able to fulfill this vital obligation.
'We are faced with a level of antagonism towards Britain that may well be fatally undermining our administration of the territory'
Just look at the issue from the point of Britain's own self-interests.
We have an obvious economic interest in Hong Kong's survival as a free and capitalist centre, with its lifestyle intact and its rights protected. And we have a direct national interest in maintaining a strategic, financial, foothold in the Pacific basin, an area of enormous emerging economic power.
So it should matter to us that our policies are undermining the prospects of the Joint
A Sense of Betrayal
by the Rt Hon Paddy Ashdown Leader of the Social and Liberal Democrats
Declaration and that our national reputation is sinking fast not just in the Colony, but in the Pacific region as a whole. A serious British businessman, resident in Hong Kong, told me on my recent visit that he considered our "betrayal" (his word) of Hong Kong would be as damaging to our interests in the Far East as Suez was to our interests in the Middle East.
Maintaining the confidence of the Hong Kong people was never going to be easy. The Joint Declaration was an act of faith and trust. It has now been massively damaged by the pincer combination of the tragedy of Tiananmen Square and Britain's enfeebled response. Now we are faced with a level of antagonism towards Britain that may well be fatally undermining the credibility of our administration in the Territory.
The urgent need is for measures that will restore confidence and persuade Hong Kongers that they can afford to stay. Their future, after all, did not look secure before June 4th.
Many of us were arguing throughout the debates of 1984 and 1985 that further measures were needed from Britain in order to support the Joint Declaration. 45,000 people emigrated from Hong Kong in 1988. A sense of betrayal has stalked the colony for some time.
A safety net gives the tight-rope artist necessary confidence. In a similar way, the guarantees of Right of Abode will provide
the people of Hong Kong with the confidence to stay and prosper.
Indeed, the British Government seems to accept this. Ministers argue that limited concessions will be needed for the influential and the privileged, so that they are persuaded to remain. Yet, at the same time, Right of Abode is ruled out for the majority, since they would immediately come over in their millions. The logic is self-contradictory. Some need Right of Abode so that they are persuaded to stay; others, given Right of Abode, would leave immediately.
Moreover, Sir Geoffrey Howe has inevitably and sensibly conceeded that, in the event of the 'Armageddon' scenario, Britain would have an obligation towards the whole of the population of Hong Kong. He is prepared to contemplate in extremis what he otherwise considers impossible. Why therefore refuse to adopt the one policy that, as Sir David Wilson and others have said, would do most to underpin the long-term prospects of the Colony?
The Labour Party's position seems to me to gain a little in logic but, if anything, to lose in good sense. In its determination to avoid a divisive policy, Labour will give nothing to anybody. Logic can sometimes be extremely cruel and careless of people's rights. And few sights are more dispiriting than the two front benches of the House of Commons lining up
to
support each other's abdication of responsibility.
The House Magazine, JULY 17, 1989 11