95
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
18 November 1992
香港立法局
一九九二年十一月十八日
95
The scale of the problem is not clear. The Indians form the largest group but there are Pakistanis, White Russians, Eurasians, Amerasians and others of mixed ethnic background who cannot help themselves and who must depend on the interest and support of this Council.
Many Councillors are familiar with the wider issue of the British Nationality Scheme. This would never have been agreed by the British Government had it not been for the deep concern of this Council and Council Members and their unremitting efforts here and in London to seek British understanding and support. I am asking Councillors to give the same sympathy and concern to this much smaller but more vulnerable group of people in seeking an identified nationality, which will give them the assurance and confidence to stay here as an important element in our society. I am glad that Councillors have all agreed that a special committee of the House Committee will be set up to consider this issue and also the issue of British passports to the 30 or so wives and widows of ex- prisoners of war (ex-POW).
I feel sure that something can be done for both these groups of disadvantaged people.
I must say that I do not like the amendment to my motion proposed by Mr ARCULLI for several reasons. First, as I have said, we do not know the parameters of the problem nor have we examined the issue in sufficient detail to be able to call on the British Government without reservation to commit itself to issuing an unknown number of passports to ethnic minorities after 1997 when it is quite likely that the British Government will have no further part to play in Hong Kong affairs and will also be most unlikely to become involved in a nationality issue of this kind if they have a legitimate reason for wanting to get out of it. No government in the world will give the unqualified assurance that I believe Mr ARCULLI seeks. An early rejection will make it more difficult to negotiate a sensible arrangement.
Secondly, an assurance in any case is not sufficient. As with the ex- POW wives and widows, an assurance by the British Government is no substitute for a British passport in the hand well before 1997. A post-1997 assurance will not keep the people concerned in Hong Kong before 1997. They will leave if they can.