TNAG-1310-FCO40-1667-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1984 — Page 228

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 March 1984

47

M SWAINE: Sir, When I spoke in this Council on 27 October 1982 I referred talks over the future of Hong Kong as the burning topic of the day. Now 17 months later they remain a burning topic. But the people of Hong Kong are no wiser about the direction or likely outcome of the talks. I submit the time has come, and is in fact overdue, for the people of Hong Kong to be given some idea at least of where the talks are heading.

I most warmly welcome the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to finding a solution that is acceptable not only to the Governments of China and Great Britain but also to the people of Hong Kong. This publicly stated commitment should touch the heart of every person in this territory. But how is public opinion to be tested? Public opinion must be informed in order to be effective. To be told at the end of the day, this is the final package, take it or leave it, is to emasculate the right of choice. So the people must be told at least the direction in which the talks are heading. Within that context, specific areas of concern can then be the subject of consultation, and the views of the people ascertained so that the best possible deal is struck for Hong Kong. I see debates in this Council as an integral part of that consultative process but they are not of course the only means by which public opinion would be expressed and assessed.

Sir, the basic aims of stability and prosperity for Hong Kong are the under pinning of the present talks, but these are not exhaustive of the qualities which make up life in Hong Kong. Freedom within the law is an essential characteristic of this place. These freedoms would take time to enumerate but they include the obvious freedoms of speech, of assembly, of the press (all freely exemplified by this afternoon's proceedings), of religion, of the choice of work and leisure, and of travel.

But I think the greatest freedom of all that people in Hong Kong seek, in the context of the discussions over our future, is the freedom from fear. We do not want to be absorbed into a system where the State is paramount and the rights of individuals are subordinated to the State. We want to be free from the fear of pressure from the State direct or indirect, and we see in continued British Administration the best guarantee of our traditional freedoms. But if change is inevitable, then every possible safeguard must be taken to ensure not only that our stability and prosperity is maintained but also the well-being of our people in their traditional pursuits.

One most important safeguard is to ensure the independence of our Judiciary and the maintenance of the rule of law as we know it today. In my speech in this Council on 27 October last year, I focused on this question and said then, as I say now, that it is essential for the continued prosperity and stability of Hong Kong and its well-being, that there should be incorporated into any future arrangements for Hong Kong provisions which would:-

(a) safeguard the rights of individuals and rights of property