HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL-28 February 1990
香港立法局 一九九0年二月二十八日
41
The British Government still claims that it is acting in accordance with the wishes of the people of Hong Kong. After visiting the territory in January, Mr. Douglas HURD stated that the first prize would be a 1997 convergence that was in accordance with the wishes of the people of Hong Kong. If this could not be achieved, then Britain would forge ahead alone and honour the aspirations of the people here by implementing democracy in the next seven years.
*
And not quite a month later, after announcing the British surrender to China in last week's secret deal, the terms of which are still yet to be made public, Mr. HURD defended Britain's actions on the grounds that he was acting in the interest of Hong Kong. "Our main interest is the interests of Hong Kong," he declared; "we have no other major interest in the matter." Of course, Mr. LI Hou has also consistently claimed that the Basic Law Drafting Committee was acting in the interests of Hong Kong.
Despite all the rhetoric about following Hong Kong's interests, Britain shows absolutely no inclination to ascertain Hong Kong's opinion this time around. The Government are making no effort to cover their shameful capitulation to China even with the fig leaf of popular support that they went to such contortions to procure in 1987. British claims that they are acting in our interest have a brittle and hollow ring to them.
The OMELCO consensus model, which was approved unanimously by this Council and supported widely here in Hong Kong, could not have made more plain to Britain what Hong Kong's views were and still are. The British Government, however, in rejecting this Council's consensus, has told the whole world, first, that it would not be bound by the wishes of the people of Hong Kong and, second, that it attaches little weight to the advice of OMELCO.
Despite the fact that the debate over political structures has dominated media coverage of the Basic Law, I feel it is extremely important that this Council should debate the Basic Law as a whole and we should do this as soon as possible.
Some people have attempted to separate the Basic Law into convenient sections, and they tell us that 90% of the document is good; as if we need not worry about the other 10%. The Basic Law, however, is not a primary school student's test paper; it is our constitution.
To separate the political system from "the rest" of the Basic Law is a dangerous act of self-deception; for litanies of economic and civil freedoms are
1