!
As the Chinese aims became clearer, a deep sense of gloom set in some months after Mrs. Thatcher's visit. The los Dollar sank, important new investment projects were cancelled and many local people started to make enquiries about e gration. The Hong Kong Government has attempted to uphold confidence, suggesting that all will be well. Towards the end of July 1983 there was a slight recovery in the Stock Market, in the property sector and in the strength of the Dollar. But the govery is fragile and any hint of disagreement from Peking is likely to renew the slide.
At all times China has stated that the talks which are being held will be on a Government to Government basis. China argues that it itself represents the people of Hong Kong. It has insisted that the "three-legged-stool" concept (picturesquely used to describe the talks being held to represent London, Peking and Hong Kong) has no validity. When the Governor of Hong Kong asserted before the first round of talks in July 1983 that he was attending the talks as "the representative of the people of Hong Kong" there was a vigorous reaction from the pro-communist press in Hong Kong. The Chinese Government refused an entry visa to Peking for the Hong Kong Director of Information, Mr. Tsao, who was to attend as the Governor's personal press officer. There have even been times in the last year when the left wing press questioned whether the Governor would be welcome at all at the talks
Further talks are being held at the end of July 1983. It is likely these talks will continue for some time. There have been indications in the left wing press in Hong Kong that the Chinese leadership regards it as important that the question should be solved by the end of 1984.
Opinion polls taken in Hong Kong have shown a clear preference to remain under British administration with an acknow- ledgement of Chinese sovereignty. The Polls have also shown a clear appreciation of freedom of choice, freedom of speech and freedom to make money. The overwhelming majority of people wish to be consulted on the future. Almost 22% (710,000) indicated that if China took back Hong Kong, they "would try every means to leave". It is highly unlikely that Peking would- permit a referendum to test these views.
The Hong Kong people are in the main refugees from communism and wish to retain Hong Kong as a Capitalist Society. Hong Kong stands as the complete opposite of everything communism stands for, with almost no interference by the govern- ment in everyday life. The nature of communism is such that it inevitably has to control all means of choice. It is unlikely that Hong Kong could survive in the present form as a "Special Administrative Region" without the Peking government being tempted at some stage to interfere in its internal workings.
EFFECT UPON BRITAIN
In the past, devolving power in Britain's colonies has meant the transfer of power to a local elite who have in most cases attempted to maintain a democratic form of government. Sadly this has not always lasted for long. In the case of Hong Kong it is inherent in the Chinese position that the 51⁄2 million people of Hong Kong are handed over to communist rule. China may have presented a more liberal face of communism in recent years, but it is undoubtedly true that any form of dissent is ruth- lessly suppressed.
The Chinese promise that the future Hong Kong will still keep its capitalist system whilst being under local admini- stration. It would be able to take its own decisions. The Chinese Government does not appear to recognise the inherent inconsistency of a communist administration running a capitalist society. Or perhaps it does recognise this, and its claim is simply to pacify Hong Kong opinion. China has already begun to interfere in Hong Kong policies by pointedly exclud- ing the Governor's own personal press officer from attending the talks with him in Peking. The inevitable result of return to China, without some British presence, is that the people of Hong Kong will be placed under totalitarian rule, whether from Peking or locally from Hong Kong.
As 1997 approaches more people will wish to leave Hong Kong, and some will look to Britain. Under the recent British Nationality Act, which was bitterly attacked in Hong Kong, there are only two ways that they will be able to obtain entry to Britain to reside. The first is that the Home Secretary has the right to admit certain categories of persons who have been civil servants and others who have worked in sensitive positions for the colonial government. The local Police Inspectors' Association has already sought to raise this in Hong Kong and gain entry for its 1,000-odd members and their families. The second method is by qualifying as an "investor immigrant", by "investing" £150,000 in Britain. This appears a large sum, but it is estimated that up to 1,000 people in Hong Kong are worth over £10 million each. Under both categories it can be seen that there are far larger numbers of people who are potentially eligible for entry to the United Kingdom than appears at first.
CONCLUSIONS
Whilst there is an inherent clash in the desire to be Chinese and to remain free, there is a clear wish at the moment of the people of Hong Kong to retain some link with Britain. There is also fear and mistrust of the ability of China to keep Hong Kong prosperous. Hong Kong's present prosperity is due to its being British. It is impossible that, under a communist regime, Hong Kong would have achieved the success that it has. A severing of the British link would lead to a collapse of confidence and economic ruin. At all times in the negotiations with China it should be essential to stress the wishes of the people of Hong Kong. An urgent settlement to the negotiations is called for, or confidence will ebb and fall. It is necessary to retain for as long as possible a British presence.
Secondly, the rights of emigration to Britain should be clarified. They are too vague and uncertain and lead to unnecessary hopes being raised. There should be a clear indication of how many people are eligible for entry in the two categories intended and how many people it is proposed to admit. Presumably it is intended that only very small numbers of people should be ad- mitted. If that is so, then it should be made clear that these are only to be the exceptional cases. The legislation should be amended to embody this.
Author: David Sparrow
Published by:
The Monday Club, 122 Newgate Street, London, E.C.1.
Printed by:
The Maypole Press, London & Essex.
Page 60Page 61
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.