15
TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1990
CHARLES WALLACE I LOS ANGELES TIMES): WILL BRITAIN AND THE HONG KONG AUTHORITIES NOW PRESS AHEAD WITH MANDATORY REPATRIATION. OR ARE YOU PREPARED TO ACCEPT A DELAY IN FURTHER MANDATORY REPATRIATION AND GIVE THE VOLUNTARY PROGRAMME A CHANCE. IN ORDER ΤΟ GET THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY AND THE UNITED STATES TO COME ON SIDE WITH
YOUR PROGRAMME?
MR HURD: 1'M ALL IN FAVOUR OF THE VOLUNTARY PROGRAMME. AND AS YOU KNOW. IT'S GOING AHEAD: I THINK THERE WAS ANOTHER PLANELOAD YESTERDAY. SO
I'M ALL IN FAVOUR OF THAT AND DISCUSSED IT WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNHCR TODAY WHEN I HAD A BRIEF WORD WITH HIM. SO I'M ALL IN FAVOUR OF THAT. BUT THE TROUBLE IS THAT. PEOPLE WHO ARE SCREENED OUT. WHO. AFTER THE SCREENING HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED ARE NOT REFUGEES, ARE BY AND LARGE NOT VOLUNTEERING. AND THEREFORE, IT WAS BECAUSE THE VOLUNTEERING PROGRAMME WAS NOT COPING TO ANY EXTENT WITH THOSE WHO IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED WERE NOT REFUGEES. THAT I FELT BOUND TO AGREE THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SHOULD REPATRIATE A PLANELOAD BEFORE CHRISTMAS. NOW, NO DATE HAS BEEN FIXED FOR FUTURE PLANELOADS. BUT I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ON THE IMMEDIATE HORIZON WHICH WOULD ENABLE US TO ALTER THAT POLICY. NOT BECAUSE WE LOVE THE OF REPATRIATION, IT'S AN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT ONE. BUT BECAUSE I SEE AT THE MOMENT, ANOTHER WAY OF MAKING IT CLEAR THAT MOVING VIETNAM TO HONG KONG, MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THAT IS NOT A ROAD TO SETTLEMENT IN THE WEST AND TO A HAPPIER LIFE.
POLICY DON'T
FROM
RE-
K.Y. LAU (RTHK) : SOME OMELCO MEMBERS HAVE POINTED OUT 'THE SUGGESTION OF A TWO-CHAMBER SYSTEM FOR FUTURE LEGISLATURE MAKE CONVERGENCY IMPOSSIBLE. WILL BRITAIN REQUEST CHINA NOT TO THIS MODEL OF LEGISLATURE AFTER 19972
THAT
WILL
ADOPT
SUCH
IN
THE
MR HURD: WELL. I THINK IT IS TRUE THAT THERE HAS BEEN CLOSE CONCENTRATION ON THE OPENING NUMBERS FOR 1991 CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM. THAT OTHER PARTS OF IT. OTHER ASPECTS OF IT. HAVE NOT PERHAPS RECEIVED ALL THE ATTENTION THEY MIGHT HAVE IN PUBLIC. BUT THE DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD. THE DISCUSSIONS I'VE HAD WITH OMELCO. THE POINTS RAISED WITH ME HERE. AND THE POINTS WHICH HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC. GO WIDER. AND THEY COVER THE KIND OF POINT YOU MENTION.
KEVIN LAU THE ECONOMIC JOURNAL}: IF THE BEST WAY IN POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT 19 TO AGREE ON SOMETHING THAT WILL CONTINUE. WILL YOU DO THE SAME IN ENACTING THE BILL OF RIGHTS, NAMELY, TO AMEND THE LETTERS PATENT BY MIRROR-IMAGING ARTICLE 39 OF THE BASIC LAW. SO THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS COULD BE SAFELY ENTRENCHED BY THE LETTERS PATENT BEFORE 1997. AND BY THE ARTICLE 39 OF THE BASIC LAW AFTER 19977
AND ON CONSULAR PROTECTION. THOSE PEOPLE WHO'VE GOT BRITISH NATIONALITY ARE STILL CHINESE NATIONALS UNDER CHINESE NATIONALITY LAW. AND THE CASE OF DUAL-NATIONALITY BRITAIN HAS NO GENUINE AND EFFECTIVE LINK WITH THOSE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALL THEIR FRIENDS AND PROPERTIES HERE.
SO HOW COULD BRITAIN CLAIM DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION
OVER THEM AFTER 1997?
/MR HURD:
Page 30Page 31