TNAG-1310-FCO40-1667-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1984 — Page 231

50

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 14 March 1984

e

the fact that we are not privy to details of the negotiations, it has been and ill always be our duty to do whatever we can to try to help the achievement common objective. Whatever the outcome of the talks, we cannot shirk this responsibility and must give our best and work with all parties concerned and try to lay a solid foundation to prepare for possible changes.

To debate publicly the relevant issues in this Chamber must be a logical first step. Lest academics and the like once again, deliberately or otherwise, choose to misunderstand and jump to the wrong conclusions, I would hasten to emphasize that 'to debate' does not carry the same meaning as 'to veto' or 'to have a hand in deciding'. We are neither an arrogant lot nor are we power drunk. We have always known our limits as well as our duties. It would be quite wrong and destructive for anyone to form the impression that we are fighting for a final say in the negotiations over the principles that under international diplomatic protocol, should be discussed and resolved at diplomatic level. The issue of Sovereignty is one such principle.

We did not introduce this motion earlier because we did not wish to jeopardise the atmosphere of the talks over this fundamental principle. Now, the situation seems clearer, even though we are not privy to the contents or the progress of the talks, it is our assessment from recent speculative articles that perhaps the principle of Sovereignty has been thoroughly discussed by both parties and that settlement of this issue may be in sight. Assuming this assessment to be correct then we cannot see what harm and what objections there can be to allowing members of the Hong Kong community to express their views on whatever future arrangements are proposed for them.

Leaving aside the issue of Sovereignty therefore it cannot be denied that in order to achieve the common objective of maintaining Hong Kong's stability and prosperity, the support of the people of Hong Kong is the key element. And in the context of the current state of progress in Hong Kong, no matter who is at the helm of the administration and whatever the policies proposed, Hong Kong's future will be more assured if the views of the people are fully taken into consideration, prior to the implementation of changes.

The 'Father knows best' way of government can no longer work as effectively as before in Hong Kong. This is reality and we must all be realistic. Both China and Britain must recognize and accept this fact. For either side to use high handed and intimidating tactics to bring us to our knees will not be conducive to the achievement of the common objective. Thus, in my humble opinion the motives behind the motion are not sinister but in fact are both pragmatic and noble. Pragmatic because this motion will help to encourage a wider exchange of views and it is only through the free exchange of views that a better understanding can be developed. And a better understanding amongst all parties concerned must eventually be helpful towards achieveing the common objective. Noble because we care as much, if not more, about the overall well being of the community despite the fact that we do not receive our mandate from the people.