88
[
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
10 November 1993
香港立法局
一九九三年十一月十日
88
present such interpretation is vested, under Article 158, in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. It is worth noting, however, that freedom of movement is also guaranteed in Article 5 of the Joint Declaration and the interpretation of that rests with the United Nations.
Now different countries define or circumscribe freedom in different ways. None allows their citizens unlimited freedom. Take freedom of speech for example. Defamation or sedition is never allowed, even in countries which pride themselves on their freedom of speech, while in some countries criticism of the government or officials is not allowed either. In Hong Kong, we are fairly free. We may not defame, but we are allowed to criticize the Government and officials and we do, don't we!
As for freedom of movement, all countries allow the authority to put "No Entry" signs on streets, and private individuals to deny access to their property. Some countries prevent free passage across provincial or other internal boundaries. In Hong Kong, we allow free movement internally in the public domain except into the Mai Po Marshes. Externally, we allow fairly free movement in and out of Hong Kong, though we have been known to indulge in racial discrimination. We are more liberal than Australia, but not so free as the Seychelles.
Freedom then is something that is subject to interpretation and limitation in all countries, but to different extents. Hence what we really want in Hong Kong is not reiteration of Article 31 of the Basic Law but a firm undertaking from China that, after 1997, the SAR Government will have complete autonomy and absolute authority to define freedom within its own jurisdiction. As a last resort, such an interpretation could probably be obtained from the United Nations. Either way, it would cover the first part of the motion and much else besides.
As far as British passports are concerned, the problem has arisen because of the alleged fear, and I quote, "of three and a half million people flooding into Britain". Now, any Form V student with a calculator can tell you that the transfer of three and a half million people using the spare capacity of the flights to Britain, even bolstered by all the charter flights and ships available, would take well over 50 years. These silly and rather puerile pronouncements came from blinkered politicians with no concept of reality. Now I am aware that the motion is only concerned with relatively small numbers, but I stress that the undertaking is being sought from the same sort of blinkered politicians with no greater concept of reality. They have been immune to pleading in the past and are likely to remain so.