A VISION OF THE FUTURE
number in any year since 1979. The strain on our resources, and on our patience and compassion, has been enormous. But we have coped. We have housed, fed and cared for all those who have come. We have turned no-one away. This is something of which we can all be proud.
Many people outside Hong Kong do not seem to realise what a burden the continuing flow from Vietnam creates for us. I myself am only too conscious that it has severely strained the tolerance of our community. I sympathise with those who argue that we have now done enough. It is not by choice that the government spends increasing amounts of public funds, and uses increasing amounts of scarce land, on housing and looking after a seemingly endless stream of arrivals from Vietnam.
Those who come here do not seek a home in Hong Kong. Their goal is elsewhere: in particular, the United States. But they have little prospect of ever getting there, or anywhere else. Over 80 per cent of the Vietnamese now arriving in Hong Kong do not meet United States resettlement criteria.
During the past year, the government has strongly and consistently argued that the only solution to this human tragedy is that those who are defined as refugees must be resettled overseas, and those who do not meet these criteria must go back to Vietnam. This is a view which is shared by a number of voluntary agencies which have worked most closely with the Vietnamese, including Oxfam, Save the Children Fund and the British Refugee Council. Hong Kong has taken the lead in introducing a screening policy as a first step towards putting this solution into effect. Our lead has been followed elsewhere in South-east Asia and now, most recently, by Japan.
The Geneva Conference in June endorsed our policy of screening and agreed on principles for the repatriation of non-refugees. But it did not take the essential next step of endorsing the repatriation of all those screened out as non-refugees. In effect it asked us to make further efforts to encourage these people to return home voluntarily. We have tried this and will continue to do so. The more people who return home voluntarily to Vietnam the better. But the number of people willing to volunteer is limited. Since November last year, only 264 Vietnamese have actually returned to their homeland. Further groups are due to go soon. But voluntary repatriation alone is clearly not the answer.
At the international conference in June, I warned that if proper arrangements were not made to return home those found not to be refugees, Hong Kong could not continue indefinitely to play its part by providing first asylum. But we must not deceive ourselves into thinking that abandoning this principle is an easy, or cost free, option. We would have to face the hard choice of what to do if future arrivals sank their boats when they were refused permission to land here. Would we, as a community, be willing to let people drown? Surely not. We would also have to face an international outcry which would put at risk our prospects for resettling the 13 000 refugees now in Hong Kong, and which would also affect international attitudes towards Hong Kong in other areas, such as trade, where we have important interests.
I remain convinced that the policy we have adopted is the right one, and that it will eventually bear fruit. At the steering committee meeting in Geneva, we made very strongly the point that screening and repatriation are inseparable. It is only by introducing a scheme for orderly return that we will solve the problem of disorderly arrivals. The thousands that are being screened out as non-refugees must go back to their homes in Vietnam. It is only by finding a way to return non-refugees home that we can do anything for those who are genuine refugees. We are determined to put in place satisfactory arrangements for both resettlement and repatriation. In the meantime, I call upon all members of our community
7