TNAG-0687-FCO40-836-Disturbances-by-police-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 147

1

¡

1381.

Hong

[1 APRIL 1976] with the active encouragement, if you will, of Communist China among a popu- lation of from between 30 to 40 thousand and a rapid growth of democracy among a population of well over 4 million.

Lord 'BROCKWAY: My Lords, what I was saying was that in Macau there is now adult sulferage, there is direct elec- tions, and that has been accepted by Com- munist China. That is in great contrast to the administration in Hong Kong.

Lord SEGAL: My Lords, the size of ⚫ Macau is a little attic compared to the territory in Hong Hong. The population of Macau is only a tiny fraction of the population of Hong Hong. You can en- courage the growth of democracy more casily when you ade dealing with a popu lation of from between 30 to 40 thousand largely indigenous than when dealing with a vast population of over 44 million composed almost entirely of refugees. The problems are in no sense analogous.

We must realise that we remain in Hong Kong only by consent of the administration in Peking. It might be an exaggeration to say that if Peking sneezes, Hong Kong is liable to catchi pneumonia. But there is a slight element of truth in this assertion. Even so, the medical services in Hong Kong have made such rapid progress that they are easily able to cope with even an epidemic of pneumonia, if it should arise in that coloný. All those admirable reforms sug- gested by my noble friend Lord Brockway can be introduced only with the approval of Peking, which may not always be taken for granted.

Here I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, whether we can take it for granted that the Admin- istration of Peking would necessarily approve of an immediate wider applica- tion of democratic principles among the population of Hong Kong? For example, would a growth of Party factions, demo- cratic institutions, more active and more militant trade unions-which are badly needed in Hong Kong-or free elections be possible today, unless Peking had given its prior consent? How far would Peking approve of further progress in Hong Kong along the path of democracy without taking great care it has the last word, not only in the extent of that pro- gress but also in the rate of that progress'? Yet, having said this, I must confess

|

Kong

1382

there is one aspect of our administration in Hong Kong which fills me with the direst misgivings. In the past two years there has been almost a total reversal of our humanitarian policy of giving asylum --even of temporary asylum until they can find refuge elsewhere among their own people-to refugees who arrive in Hong Kong from the Chinese mainland. Hong Kong was generous in providing temporary asylum to thousands refugees from South Vietnam who fled to her territory after the fall of Saigon. They were granted refuge at the expense of the Hong Kong Government until they could be absorbed into other territories.

ef

In the 12 months December 1974 to the end of November 1975 no less than 1,282 hapless refugees who reached Hong Kong from Communist China-some in peril of their lives and nearly all after undergoing appalling hardships were turned back and sent to whence they came. It is indeed a tragic story. Au average of more than 100 refugees a month have had to suffer this humiliation, to put it at its mildest. It is true that in the past few months these figures have dropped to a mere trickle.

There is something about this traffic strangely reminiscent of the Ernest Bevin régime during the last days of our Palestine mandate-also, let it be said, under a Labour Government-when thousands of Jewish refugees were sent back to Germany in rotting hulks like the

Exodus", refugees who were seeking asylum in a land of spiritual freedom. I. am fully cognisant of the difficulties in Hong Kong, and of the dangers impend- ing. The trickle could very easily resolve itself into a cascade, and the cascade into a tidal wave, in which thousands of refugees might be involved. But has this reversal of policy taken place at the request of Peking? If so, I can fully understand it, however much I might regret it. I could possibly even condone it, rather than put at risk the freedom of the 4 million Chinese who are still our responsibility in Hong Kong. If this diagnosis of the present situation in Hong Kong is correct, I believe that is the complete answer to my noble friend Lord Brockway. It is a diagnosis I must per- forte accept with great reluctance, while having to express my approval of the calm, the wisdom, the steadfastness and the high sense of public duty which