TNAG-1310-FCO40-1667-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1984 — Page 232

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 14 March 1984

51

Critics repeatedly hammer the point that we are not elected thus we are not fied to represent the people of Hong Kong. Allow me to point out to them that first of all, we have never claimed that we are the sole representatives of the people of Hong Kong. This motion, for those who choose to read it carefully and try to understand it objectively, does not clamour for power. There is no suggestion that the power of veto be put into our hands and there is no suggestion that only this Chamber should enjoy the sole right to debate the future's issue. Secondly, if we choose to be selfish and irresponsible we can always elect to keep silent on the subject and make our own quiet exit if we personally feel that the final arrangements are not acceptable. Thirdly, the motion has not been introducted to generate confrontation and unease, as claimed by some of our critics.

We fully realize that confrontation is not constructive and that the generation of unease simply will work against the common objective. Hence, the fear of us playing the opinion card or of reviving the three legged stool concept is totally unfounded and I appeal to our critics to be more open minded and to restrain from jumping to conclusions.

Turning now to the issue of our future, it can be said that most observations and comments seem to have focussed on post 1997 arrangements. I am of the opinion that it is equally important to devote our thoughts to the

pre 1997 period. This is the truly critical period. If not well handled, uncertainty will escalate. Hence, this is a period when all three parties namely China, Britain and Hong Kong must work hard together, with harmony, understanding and mutual respect so as to build a solid foundation for the future.

On the one hand, it is an undeniable reality that the issue of Sovereignty can only be a subject matter between two governments, to be discussed and resolved at diplomatic level. It will not be constructive to cling to unrealistic hopes on this issue. On the other hand, it is also and undeniable fact that for the past thirty odd years, social systems of China and Hong Kong have evolved in different directions. We have developed a very different administrative structure to that of China. Our philosophies and policies, which have produced stability and prosperity, are different from those of China. Furthermore, our people have developed a different set of values to those of the people of China. All in all, the gap between us is wide, and given that such a gap exists, it is reasonable to expect and accept that a degree of misunderstanding is bound to exist between us.

This degree of misunderstanding, coupled with the realization that Hong Kong can only survive with China's blessing, has been instrumental in generating feelings of unease and fear, amongst the people of Hong Kong. Such feelings of unease and fear have in turn helped to generate some mutual mistrust, culminating in what some have described as a conficdence crisis. This confidence crisis, if it were to linger, will no doubt rock the very foundation of our stability and prosperity. I am sure no one who is genuinely concerned about