1
13
Fifth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
13 JULY 1993
raised over the colony. Many of the non-Chinese eth- nic minority went to Hong Kong precisely because it was under British administration.
According to the Legislative Council, there are now 7,000 people of non-Chinese origin-2,000 famil- ies-holding BDTC passports. The ethnic minority population-largely Indian and Pakistani-have established in Hong Kong a community that is highly respected for its social and economic contribution to the colony's development. Many play essential roles in creating Hong Kong's wealth: many are major employers and senior figures in finance and Govern- ment. In 1985, it was estimated that the Indian popu- lation-0.5 per cent. of the colony's population-contributed 10 per cent. towards its wealth. That information appeared in The Independent of 27 January.
There is a strong case for offering the non-Chinese ethnic minority the right of abode. After the transfer of sovereignty in 1997, the non-Chinese ethnic minorities will effectively become stateless. They will have no guarantee of right of abode in Hong Kong even though they have lived there for many years, as they will not automatically hold Chinese citizenship. Furthermore, the Chinese authorities consider that BN(O) docu- ments to be no more than travel documents. So, in terms of having right of abode and a place that they call their own, their current papers will be next to useless in the eyes
of the Chinese and British Governments. The British Government give them similar treatment, since, effectively, they will not entitle affected minor- ities to the right of abode in the United Kingdom or in any British dependent territory.
The BN(O) documents will not be transferable to future generations, although the next two generations will be eligible for British overseas citizen status. After that time, those people-grandchildren and famil- ies will be stateless.
The Hong Kong Legislative Council and the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in 1989 argued that the British Government have a moral and legal responsi- bility to provide proper-British-citizenship to non- ethnic Chinese BDTC minorities. The Select Com- mittee was adamant that the Government should provide British citizenship for the non-Chinese ethnic minority, as it believed that the Chinese authorities, once in Hong Kong, would at best create second-class citizenship for those people. The Select Committee said:
"it is not only statelessness that these minorities risk. It has been pointed out to us that identity cards already being issued by the Hong Kong Government have three small stars to indicate Chinese origin. The writer comments 'I and my family are of European origin and are now coded separately from the bulk of the residents of Hong Kong. I am not entitled to... the full benefits of Hong Kong or Chinese nationality'. Furthermore, the draft Basic Law specifically prohibits non-Chinese from becoming Chief Executive, or from filling senior civil service and police posts. We believe that the British Government has an obligation to provide proper citizenship (ie British citizenship) to this group... which it has co-operated in consigning otherwise to a second class citizenship."
We have received verbal assurances from Ministers that if ethnic minorities are denied the right of abode in
Hong Kong (Brit. Nat.) Order 1993 Brit. Nat. (Hong Kong) Order 1993
14
or are forced to leave Hong Kong, the Government would look sympathetically into their cases to come to the United Kingdom. In 1986, the then Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. Waddington, stated in the House of Commons:
"in the unlikely event of any British nationals being forced to leave Hong Kong and having nowhere to go, we have made it clear that we would expect the Government of the day to consider sympathetically whether to admit such people on a case-by-case basis in the light of particular circumstances."-{Official Report, 16 January 1986; Vol. 89, c. 1303.]
It is worth dismembering that statement, which was probably made with great care, because a few aspects of it give us cause for concern. The then Minister referred to people "having nowhere to go". Theoreti- cally, many of them may be able to go to India, Pakis- tan or wherever their distant origins lie. Thus the United Kingdom may not be an initial choice or option because the United Kingdom Government will prob- ably direct the ethnic minorities of Hong Kong towards other states instead of taking that responsibility themselves.
The former Minister of State also said that the Government of the day would "consider sympatheti- cally whether to admit" those people. If individuals of British nationality are forced out of the country, in times of crisis they should surely expect the British Government to accept them without qualification or reservation. We should look back to the appalling treatment meted out by Idi Amin to the Ugandan Asians and the proper response of the Government at that time. The qualifications to "consider sympatheti- cally whether to admit" such people allows the Government to pick and choose or, at worst, refuse every case. Considering the Government's recent rec- ord on and attitude to such cases, it is doubtful whether they would, in fact, be likely to look at those cases sympathetically.
“A case by case basis” for decision making is simply not a guarantee to the central concern: the position of a group of Hong Kong's population who may be treated adversely as a distinct second class of citizens.
Overall, this verbal assurance is not enough and the Government know that they could do better. Having taken some time to outline my case-which includes the concerns of many individuals in Hong Kong, and in the United Kingdom, and many representations from the Legislative Council in Hong Kong-I hope that the Minister will have a chance to consider the points raised and to reply to them for the benefit of not merely those on the Committee but those in Hong Kong.
We suggest, therefore, that the Government amend their recommendation in the Order in Council and consider either reforming the selection scheme so that ethnic minorities are not left stateless or introducing a scheme that will treat ethnic minorities as a group of people deserving special and humane consideration. It would be a shame indeed if the Government did not offer the ethnic minorities of Hong Kong, who have a long-standing tie with the United Kingdom, more security than BN(O) or BOC status.