TNAG-1310-FCO40-1667-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1984 — Page 219

38

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 March 1984

we have never claimed that we represent the people of Hong Kong. We however, always tried to reflect public opinions and will continue to do so. is our most important duty. Last week, the leaders of nine unions came to UMELCO to make representations with regard to the future of Hong Kong and the Sino-British negotiations. We have seen them often in UMELCO in the past in relation to other matters. They have asked us to speak on their behalf and to present their views in this Debate. There is no better way to present their views than to quote them fully and I quote:

'Dear Sir, The Sino-British talks on the future problem of Hong Kong is the biggest issue related to the fate and the well-being of the public and their next generation. The public has the right to know the contents of the Sino-British meetings, the right to further information and the right to discuss. These are our basic human rights and are absolutely justified.

In fact, the confidentiality of the Sino-British talks over the future problems has not brought stability to our society but has led to the drastic fall of the Hong Kong dollar and the outflow of our human resources. It has also caused doubts and anxiety among the public. Therefore, at this time, it is absolutely essential to make the contents of the talks public and to give the public the opportunity to discuss further before any agreement is reached. This will serve to stabilize our society and to actualize democracy.

Both the Chinese and the British Governments have in the past several months repeatedly appealed to the public to have confidence towards both governments. We also appeal to both governments to have confidence in the public. The most effective means to promote mutual trust is to let the public know the contents of the talks and to let them have sufficient discussions. Only through the above process can mutual trust be strengthened.

Towards the Lobo motion, we believe that any one has the right to put forward their demands for knowledge and to debate on any agreement reached. This is not just human rights but also freedom of speech. We would like to insist that the contents of any agreement be open for public scrutiny and there must be sufficient consultation. It must not be a closed door meeting.

We pay attention to this issue because we are concerned about freedom of speech and whether our society is heading towards democracy. This is in line with stability and prosperity.

Thus, we strongly demand that the contents of the talks be made public. Before any agreement is reached, the proposed agreement must be made public to enable the different strata of the public to openly discuss the agreement.' Unquote.

Their concern is perfectly understandable. They informed us that they had gone through an extensive debate amongst themselves before coming to UMELCO to make their representation.