186
1387
Hong Kong: Democracy After 1997
[29 JANUARY 1992]
eal
he
to
he
ng
It
or
al
It
I's
ig
In
of
le
re
it
KO 9 >.9 20
-24 should be directly elected by universal suffrage and that, in the year 2003, 30 should be elected by ❘ universal suffrage. Beijing accepts in the Basic Law that after 2003 there should be a continuing progress towards universal suffrage for all the Legislative Council seats.
Our Foreign Secretary has said that he will raise the matter in Beijing, but without much hope of success; and he has not yet raised it. The British Government are afraid that by pressing the issue of a more democratically elected Legislative Council its mem- bers in Hong Kong will dangerously antagonise Beijing. But their constituents want them to press the issue. That is what they were sent to LEGCO to do. The Foreign Office says, "No, we know much better what's good for you". The great majority of the people of Hong Kong says, "That is for us to decide. You are not our nannies. It's we, not you, who will have to deal with Beijing after 1997”.
I believe that we should let the people of Hong Kong act as they think fit, and that the governor should make no attempt to block any amendment that they make to the existing electoral procedures. I do not accept that if LEGCO decides to speed up the democratic process already accepted by Beijing that Beijing in July 1997 would immediately reduce the number of directly-elected members to 24. It would be very poor public relations if they did so, and they are not such fools.
I now come to the growing resentment against the British Government and Britain. The people of Hong Kong feel that we are so preoccupied with electioneering that we are ignoring their affairs at a critical moment in Hong Kong. They are appalled at our extraordinary behaviour in announcing the imminent removal of the present governor without naming a replacement. Sir David Wilson is now seen as lacking the essential authority to deal with Beijing. His faithful and loyal services do not merit that shabby treatment.
One strongly held view in Hong Kong is that the last British governor should be Her Majesty's ceremonial representative while waiting to haul down the Union Jack when Beijing takes over the last jewel of the British Empire. Otherwise he should be confined to matters of defence and foreign affairs.
The real work of administration, according to that thinking, should be done by a deputy governor, a local Hong Kong Chinese resident. It is an idea with much to commend it. But whatever the power of the new governor it is essential that he be appointed now to end damaging uncertainty. In my view he should be a person with presence, courage and high political skills. He should not be either a past or present civil servant, however distinguished.
Even if there were a deputy governor, it is of great importance that the new governor's proven wisdom and sensible advice should be available to the Hong Kong administration. The choice should not be a party matter. I understand that there have been no consultations between the Government and the Opposition as to who should be chosen. If that is so, it is unforgivable on a non-partisan matter. There is no reason why the new governor should not be a
701 LD25/43 Job 6-13
1388
Hong Kong: Democracy After 1997
member of the Labour Party. In some ways it would be desirable. I can think of one noble Lord in your Lordships' House who, through his experience and vigour, would be admirable. I can think, too, of a second Labour Member in another place who would do the job excellently. However, I shall not name either publicly for fear of spoiling their chances.
In Hong Kong itself I know of at least two with the required ability-one Chinese and one British. Their names, too, I shall not mention publicly. I believe that either would have strong support from the local community, whether or not connected with business. Unfortunately, at present I cannot think of anyone now or previously in the Government who would be suitable. Of course, there might be such a person but he should be acceptable to the Opposition should he
emerge.
Delaying the choice because of our election is shameful and foolish. It is understandably seen in Hong Kong as a parting insult both to Hong Kong and Beijing. Beijing is showing its good faith and confidence in Hong Kong's future by huge investments from its banks in Hong Kong. It is also showing it by its warm welcome to Hong Kong entrepreneurs in Guangdong. Already the people of Hong Kong employ over 3 million people in that adjacent province. With far higher wages, those people are learning the delights of capitalism and enjoying what, to them, are novel displays of uninhibited discussion on Hong Kong television and radio.
Beijing has described its takeover of Hong Kong as two systems in one nation. I do not believe that the rulers of Beijing have the slightest intention of wrecking the Hong Kong system. China's finances would collapse without it. I have no doubt which of the two systems will dominate China's commerce and industry after 1997. Between now and 1997 it is up to us to create the atmosphere in which that can happen smoothly and fruitfully.
The Government are failing in their duty to business in Hong Kong, whether locally or foreign-owned. They are letting down the people of Hong Kong who are anxious to preserve the best of what they have learnt of the British way of life. They are giving Beijing the impression that we in this country are too busy watching the opinion polls to notice the urgency of attending to opinion in Hong Kong. I commiserate with the noble Earl for having to answer my Question so quickly after the second debate. However, I hope that he will urge upon his senior colleagues at the highest level that they should take a brief interlude from electioneering and attend to the appointment of a new Governor of Hong Kong. It really will not take them more than a couple of hours.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, for giving us the opportunity to debate these urgent questions. It is difficult to follow him because he has covered the points so admirably and clearly. The questions that he has raised deal with democracy and the administration of