Page 55 of 182
102
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
responsible and accountable politicians, concerned and somewhat apprehensive about the final outcome of the Basic Law consultation process.
Reason number two is that it has become obvious, both from the draft of the Basic Law and from discussions since the draft was issued, that the Drafters have not the slightest idea of how important Municipal Government is in this territory nor how to fit this into the Basic Law.
Let me deal with the Basic Law per se first. I am tabling my submissions to the Drafting Committee which I made both verbally and in writing three months ago. These are self-explanatory and need no further elaboration, but I would ask members to read them carefully because they cover some points which, in spite of three months debate, have not apparently been covered by others, and I would also ask the representatives of media to read these carefully as some of what I am now going to say might not make sense unless the comments I am tabling have been read.
One of the greatest problems of the Basic Law is exactly how to deal with the Articles of the Chinese Constitution which are in direct contradiction of what we are trying to achieve in the SAR, and this covers almost the whole of the Constitution which emphasises the socialist system, birth control, the nationality problem, etc. etc. In the end I think this problem can only be solved by preamble to the Basic Law which states quite clearly which Articles of the PRC Constitution do not apply to the SAR. And it is important that this distinction becomes part and parcel of the Basic Law.
In the last six weeks or so we have constantly been told that it is most important for Hong Kong to achieve its own consensus about the Basic Law which will then make it very much easier for the Chinese Government to alter the draft of the Law. And, unfortunately, a great many people and not least the PRC authorities are making a great deal of what they call the lack of consensus among Hong Kong people about some of the more important principles to be covered by the Basic Law. Now let me here sound a word of warning to the PRC: Do not use this supposed lack of consensus as an excuse not to do anything, or not to alter some of the more offending parts of the Basic Law because, make no mistake, there is a silent consensus in Hong Kong and that consensus specifically refers to Articles 5, 16, 17, 18, 22, 38, and 39. These are the Articles which are the nub of the Law concerning our freedoms and protection of our rights, both under Deng Xiao Ping's concept of two systems one country, and the concepts of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Acts. On these Articles the consensus is that the final interpretation of the Basic Law must rest in Hong Kong (there are many ways of achieving this without stepping on the toes of the NPC or infringing the Sovereignty of the PRC, and I have suggested one way in my tabled papers), and that the two above mentioned Covenants must be incorporated in their entirety into the Basic Law. And just how important this latter requirement is can be seen from
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 55 of 182
103
the argument which I had with one of the Mainland Basic Law representatives, a lawyer, about Article 22, who actually didn't understand the difference between the word subversion and the concept of a traitor. This lawyer stated that all countries in the world had laws against subversion. He meant, of course, that all countries of the world have laws against traitors. As I point out in my tabled comments, in the PRC in the last 40 years the concept of subversion as it refers to the Central People's Government has altered considerably practically every five years, and what was alright in 1950 was wrong in 1955, and right again in 1960 and definitely landed people in jail for subversion between 1966 and 1973 and so went on. Many actions which are absolutely natural in Hong Kong, and should remain so, could land us all in jail in the PRC as subversives. In fact, what I just said could be considered in the PRC as subversion, and if that is so where is our freedom of speech? So I am asking especially the Mainland Drafters and the PRC Government and authorities to note very carefully that there is a consensus in Hong Kong and that Articles 5, 16, 17, 18, 22, 38 and 39 have to be altered. If they are not, all confidence in the future of Hong Kong will disappear very rapidly and immigration, which is now largely legal, may well turn into an illegal flood just as it has done in Vietnam.
And there is another point I must make to the PRC Government authorities and Basic Law Drafters. It may not be very complimentary, but the unfortunate fact is that there is a great fear and mistrust of the actions and motives of the PRC Government, the Chinese Communist Party, and especially the Cadres. The apparent lack of interest of the people of Hong Kong in commenting on the Basic Law is not a lack of interest, it is an expression of that fear. It is the fear that whoever disagrees with PRC policies and communist party ideals will be noted and will be dealt with after 1997. Unfortunately some of Hong Kong's representatives on the Basic Law Committee have that fear, and there are others who are absolutely determined to show that they are 100% loyal to the PRC. Not because they are loyal, but because they think, and probably rightly so, that this display of loyalty will pay dividends after 1997. And this currying of favours may confuse even genuine and fair PRC Law Drafters. The problem is that the real expression of Hong Kong people's opinion could only be obtained in an absolutely secret referendum, and that has been ruled out. Whenever I ask someone in Hong Kong to comment on the Basic Law all I hear is: 'Of course I don't agree, but what good will it do me to say so? First they won't pay any attention and secondly I will be in their bad books'. It is important for the PRC Law Drafters and their Government to keep this fact in mind when making decisions about what should or should not be revised in our Basic Law. Even more unfortunately is the reverse side of this problem which is all too often ignored in Hong Kong: THEY DON'T TRUST US!! PRC authorities believe that everyone in Hong Kong, except members of the Communist Party here, are devious crooks who are only out for themselves, and that the biggest mistake made in the Joint Declaration was to allow Hong Kong people to run Hong Kong. You can see what they think of us when you read an article written for an important American law journal by the foremost PRC lawyer which inter alia
Page 55
Page 56
Page 56 of 182