-
-
3
-
The agreement has been attacked by some, not for what it says but for what allegedly the Basic Law - Hong Kong's written constitution after 1997 will actually mean for the rule of law in Hong Kong. This is not an argument about the agreement on the Court of Final Appeal; it's an argument about the Basic Law itself. That argument may or may not be good politics. I suspect not. But it is a damaging argument for Hong Kong. Why do I say that? For this simple reason. Any tension. between the Basic Law and the common law in Hong Kong has to be dealt with in the courts after 1997. I can't for the life of me see the good in running up the white flag now as some people seem to be doing - by claiming that the Basic Law will simply punch holes in the common law after 1997. What's the gain for Hong Kong in telling the world that the rule of law is finished here, that that is what the 1990 Basic Law means, when that very rule of law can and will survive provided we continue to have courts which can test it and a community that supports it? I have taken my own modest share of criticism over the past three years for standing up for what I believe to be right for Hong Kong. I haven't changed. But standing up for Hong Kong doesn't mean trying to make tomorrow look as black and as bleak as possible in order to make a dubious political point today.
So we'll complete our human rights programme and our programme of social reform, too. I set out a five year programme in 1992. I want to see better provision for the disabled. We are on target with our plans for them. I want to lay the foundation for an income protection scheme for the retired and to complete the comprehensive improvement of services for the elderly. We need better training and retraining and more emphasis on quality in our schools. We have to sweep away the worst of yesterday's housing, like the older temporary housing areas and the squatter settlements. We will finish the first stage of a decent sewage scheme for Hong Kong, and continue with the task of cleaning up the New Territories.
-
There's much to do to prepare for '97 itself: developing our language skills and training, continuing with the localisation of the civil service, co-operating with China to tackle cross-border corruption, stepping up our cross-border contacts and our co- operation in infrastructure projects, working flat out to finish as much as possible of the Joint Liaison Group's Agenda.
So in short, two years with much still to do. That's true for us. And true as well for China.