TNAG-1289-FCO40-1641-Terminology-for-the-description-of-Hong-Kong-by-internationa-1984 — Page 79

Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West): I welcome the draft agreement in principle. It marks the beginning of the end of a long era of British colonial rule which dates back to the opium wars of the last century when Britain grabbed Hong Kong from China by an act of imperialist aggression and trickery. As far as we can gather, the draft agreement is generally welcomed by the people of Hong Kong. I say "as far as we can gather" because the method of assessment of opinions in Hong Kong is imperfect. By saying that, I am not making a personal attack on those involved in the assessment office. They had a difficult job and it was made more difficult by the fact that there is no representative government or assembly in Hong Kong. Indeed, there are no elected representatives in Hong Kong with any meaningful power and this is a point to which I shall return later.

Despite the general welcome of the agreement, some Hong Kong people have some reservations and fears. Those fears and reservations include the role of the people's liberation army, the possibility of conscription, nationality rights, passport rights, human rights and personal freedoms, freedom of religious practice, the desire to participate in the work of the joint liaison committee and the desire to participate in the formulation of the basic law. There is also a general fear about undue interference by Peking. The best way in which to alleviate those fears and reservations and the best guarantee of preserving all that is worth preserving in the Hong Kong way of life is to maximise the autonomy of the people of Hong Kong. Complete independence is not an option-

HANSARD EXTRACT

5TH DECEMBER

COLS. 431-433

とう

it never was. Sovereignty will ultimately be transferred to the People's Republic of China but even without complete independence there could be a high degree of self- determination. That would involve a high degree of internal democracy replacing the existing system of colonial patronage.

Last month, the Hong Kong Government published a White Paper to which several right hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) have referred. I do not often agree with him, but I entirely agree with what he says about the White Paper. It is too little and too late. It proposes that, next year, an elected element will be introduced to the legislative council. It is worth reminding the House that, despite the introduction of that elected element, not one member of the legislative council will be elected directly on a universal franchise. Less than 50 per cent. of the legislative council in 1985 will be elected by any method. The functional constituencies which are proposed are unnecessarily divisive-they might reinforce existing or potential divisions in society. Moreover, the White Paper contains no proposals for elections, direct or indirect, to the executive council in 1985.

I understand what right hon. and hon. Members have said about it not being desirable suddenly to introduce tomorrow or next week a mini-Westminster model of democracy in another part of the world with a different culture, a different way of life and different traditions and call it the ideal model of democracy. There must be a phasing-in programme. Some of the pressure groups that I met during my recent visit to Hong Kong made that point strongly. However, it would surely not be unreasonable to suggest the target that by, say, 1990, the entire legislative council should be directly elected on a universal franchise, that the executive council, or whatever body replaces it, should be elected indirectly from the members of the legislative council and that the head of that council the governor, chief executive or whatever he is called- should also be elected from the membership of the legislative council. The White Paper's proposals are far too pussy footed, and one of the reasons for the go slow attitude is that I was sorry to hear this view expressed in the House as many people regard it, rightly or wrongly, as the mother of democracy - some people think that democracy is not bad as long as there is not too much of it and it is possible to predict who will win the elections. Some people seem to be afraid that those who win the elections may be a bit too radical or Left-wing and that perhaps the odd nasty Socialist may get elected to the legislative council. If people genuinely believe in democracy through direct elections they should not be two-faced. Adopting double standards and saying that democracy is all right so long as we win is hypocrisy rather than democracy.

I would not say that the Chinese version of Socialism is perfect, but it manages to feed the billion people of China. Anyone who imagines that the naked unbridled capitalist economy of Hong Kong could be transplanted to the People's Republic of China and continue to feed all those people is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. Although the draft agreement provides that for half a century after 1997 there will be guaranteed co-existence for a capitalist system alongside the Socialist system, no realistic politician, on whatever side of the ideological divide,