TNAG-1310-FCO40-1667-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1984 — Page 242

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 14 March 1984

61

elieve these are fair questions that need to be answered. They are not My negative or pessimistic. For those of us who call Hong Kong our home, they are real and disturbing problems that need to be tackled. Unless and until some satisfactory answers are produced, we cannot put our hearts at ease, and there will be no confidence in Hong Kong. If we do not believe that we have a part to play in shaping our own destiny, despondency will continue. If we are presented with a fait accompli, there are two possible scenarios. Even if we believe the proposals have a fair chance of working, the fact that we were not involved in the thinking process would render the acceptance and im- plementation of them infinitely less effective. In the tragic event that we do not believe they would work, the end result would be disastrous. Either way, the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong will suffer.

Here, I must admit I may be unduly alarmist. Only last month when Mr. Richard LUCE visited Hong Kong he reassured us that any proposed solution arrived at by the negotiators will have to be ratified by the British Parliament, and any such ratification must take into account the acceptability of the proposals in Hong Kong. Although he remained non-commital as to the mechanism of the test of acceptability, the intention to consult was unequivocal. Such assurance on the procedural aspect however would not be effective unless we can be certain that Hong Kong will be given a reasonable length of time to study and comment on the proposals. Furthermore it is absolutely vital that both the mechanism and the time frame for the consultation process must allow the silent majority ample opportunity to reflect its reaction to the proposed solution.

Sir, I wholeheartedly support the motion before this Council. I know there is no sinister motive behind it. The only motive, if you could call it that, is a perfectly good and understandable one. If the motion is passed today we will be committed as a body to bring about public debate on any proposals before agreement is finalized between China and Britain. In order to facilitate meaningful debate the proposals must be made public. This is in my view one of the basic steps in the process whereby the acceptability of the proposals could be effectively guaged. For those critics who say we do not have the right to represent Hong Kong or to monopolize debate of such an important subject, I would like to remind them that we are not claiming either. We are only fulfilling our duty and exercising our right as members of one of the highest public bodies as well as asserting the basic right that I believe each and every one of our 5.3 million people has over our future. I question the motive of those who discredit our motion.

Sir, the fact that we are able to debate on this motion before Council today reflects well on the system of government that we have come to take for granted. In my view, this is the first step towards our constructive contribution to a solution to our future which must be not only acceptable but also workable.