- 11 -
I've got in my hand, as lawyers occasionally say, a copy of the Straits Times, Singapore. The Straits Times, the headline of which, for the 6th November, "Crime rate here", that is in Singapore, "higher than in Hong Kong". That's what the headline says. So are we really to believe, are we really to believe that the Bill of Rights has broken up Hong Kong society? Are we really to suppose that in one of the most law abiding communities anywhere in the world, that the Bill of Rights has done the sort of damage which people were suggesting preposterously yesterday? What the Bill of Rights is, is a sign of the sophistication of this community. Why people are concerned about it is because they are concerned about their future. They're concerned about their way of life and they're concerned, not about what will happen to that way of life before 1997 - does anybody here really think that they're concerned about that? No, so we're unanimous on that point. What they're concerned about is their way of life after 1997. Now are there people here who deny that those concerns about the future exist? Well, we're unanimous about that as well. So 40 15 last night, 60 love today.
The President: 59 - love!
-
-
Governor: 59 love. These are the truths. We are not making it up. This argument wasn't started by my honourable friends in the Administration. It wasn't started by the Hong Kong Government. It wasn't started by the British Government. This controversy blew up because of things that were said by the PWC, despite the fact that many members of the PWC had voted for the Bill of Rights Ordinance, and things which subsequently have been said by Chinese officials. And don't let anybody think that an argument about human rights in Hong Kong doesn't have any effect on economic confidence. One of the reasons why we've got to stop these arguments, one of the reasons why we've got to give people the reassurance they want, is because we've got to show that we're concerned about confidence both here and internationally in Hong Kong's future. So if there is no problem about securing Hong Kong's freedoms in the future, let's have more Chinese officials and let's have more members of the PWC making that absolutely clear.
And if I can say one other thing in a long answer. What would, what would really be breaking the Basic Law? I'll tell you what would be breaking the Basic Law. Not trying to implement the Bill of Rights. What would be in breach of the Basic Law would be to put laws back on the statute book of Hong Kong which are clearly in contravention of the international covenants. That would be clearly in breach of Article 39 of the Basic Law. So in this whole sad and sorry business, we have the extraordinary spectacle of members of the PWC and Chinese officials themselves making proposals which would be in breach of the Basic Law.