1393
Hong Kong: Democracy After 1997
[THE LORD BIshop of WorcESTER]
[LORDS]
be movement towards that between now and the time at which they join the mainland of China, there will be less desire to leave. Even so, they need an escape clause to prevent their becoming prisoners on their own island. That does not mean that they would use the clause. They would, however, have a sense that they were not trapped.
The other fear conveyed to me is one already mentioned by noble Lords; namely, that the pace of change has been deliberately slow out of a desire not to offend the Government of China. I should like to be reassured that that is not so. We should not be proud to think that we have slowed down the pace of change out of a desire not to displease mainland China. Indeed, Jan Morris, writing from Hong Kong, has said that the Chinese Government have made known their opposition to, for example, some of the suggestions which have been made in this House today.
There could be a restoration of confidence moving towards democracy and democratic institutions. Mr. Douglas Hurd and Sir Geoffrey Howe have said that that is desirable. It is possible that by 1997 a fully elected legislative assembly could be in place. As I said. that would prevent a flow of immigrants to Britain. There could be the appointment of a chief executive by a representative assembly.
An enforceable Bill of Rights is also needed. The present Bill of Rights lacks two very important elements. It lacks the right to self-determination and the right to elect political representatives. If there came to be a clash with a strong Chinese Government the Bill of Rights would not stand up.
I shall not repeat what has been said about the court of appeal. I am told that the Executive Council, after a long debate, rejected the composition of that court of appeal. If I were to say anything further about the appointment of a new Governor, it would be that there is a great desire among the politically aware in Hong Kong that consultation shall take place. Can we be assured of that?
I want to move on to the question of religious freedom. Recently, Graham Hutchings of the Daily Telegraph and Raymond Whitaker of the Independent drew attention to the fact that mainland China is cracking down on religion, largely because it sees that in Eastern Europe the Churches, to a large extent, were the midwives of the revolution-certainly in Poland, East Germany and possibly Czechoslovakia—in a secret and hidden way in co-operation with others. It is determined that that shall not happen in China.
in
It is possible that those who worship or gather in groups outside the five official religions-Buddhism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam and Taoism- could be charged with counter-revolution and colluding with foreign states, for which the punishment is from 10 years up to life imprisonment. Recently, 32 Catholic bishops, priests and lay workers were arrested. In short, there is a new hardness towards religion. I ask my noble friend Lord Caithness, first, to reassure me that it is something of
704 LD25/46 Job 7-4
Hong Kong: Democracy After 1997
1394
which the Government are aware and, secondly, that it is something upon which he will seek further information.
I offer the hope that there can be a rebuilding of confidence and trust in the British Government; that there can be the establishment of effective citizenship, which is more important to many people in Hong Kong than the restoration of right of abode, and that along with that will go movement and education towards democratic styles and institutions. It is not simply a matter of structures. It is also a matter of encouraging participation.
Finally, I raise an issue where the British Council of Churches' delegation found real fear and foreboding. It was mentioned by the Bishop of Hong Kong, Peter Kwong. It is that religious freedom could be eroded for fear that the Churches might be as effective in the East as they were in Eastern Europe in helping to roll back the Communist regime.
8.34 p.m.
Lord Derwent: My Lords. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, not for tabling the Question, nor because I necessarily agree with everything that he said, but because I believe that the greatest protection the people of Hong Kong have is that their affairs should be kept constantly in the public eye.
The Question of the noble Lord is whether the Government,
"are satisfied with the arrangements made for the maintenance of democratic freedom and the administration of justice in Hong Kong after 1997”.
I am sure that the Government's Answer to the question will be, "no". So far as I am aware, the Government have never claimed that the arrange- ments which emerged from the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law are wholly satisfactory. The more relevant question is whether the arrangements are as satisfactory as can be achieved at present. There are certainly anomalies to which reference has already been made. It is an anomaly that the largest party in LEGCO is in opposition. It is an anomaly that the Opposition is not an alternative government since it can never, under current arrangements, have a majority in the Legislative Council. There are, therefore, important respects in which democracy as we see it in Hong Kong today is deficient.
That is not to say that the degree of democracy already achieved is useless. An article in the Financial Times yesterday rightly pointed out that, since September's elections the legislature is now a body. where virtually all aspects of the Government's legislative programme are vigorously debated and, in some cases, changed. I am sure that process will continue and develop further after the next round of elections. Perhaps we should therefore not be too dismissive of what has already been achieved.
I beg your Lordships not to job backwards and reflect too much on what might or might not have been included in the Joint Declaration or the Basic Law. We must face reality as it is today. The Joint Declaration exists; the Basic Law exists. The Chinese have said that they regard both documents as sacrosanct. The documents are clearly not perfect. How could they be since they represent a