Kong, this is only a potential problem; nevertheless, people should not be dependent for a place to live on the goodwill of a country of which they are not nationals. The position is exactly analogous to that of British Asians from East Africa, some of whom were shuttled from one country to another, while others now wait 8 years in a queue in India for admission to Britain, the only country of which they are citizens.
Though the provisions of the Hong Kong Act theoretically observe Britain's obligations under the United Nations International Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, real statelessness is not prevented merely by granting titles, but by providing people with an effective nationality that includes rights and responsibilities and above all a place to belong. Neither BOC nor BN(O) status fulfils those criteria.
There are also about 13,000 non-British stateless people in Hong Kong, most of whom are Indo-Chinese refugees. Britain has made no commitment to them; nor do they have the right of abode in Hong Kong under the Agreement. The resettlement programme for Indo-Chinese refugees has almost stopped, and Britain is taking no initiative to restart it. The United Kingdom accepted only about 100 Vietnamese in 1983 and has so far refused to admit even the close families of those already settled.
Conclusion: What do Hong Kong people want?
In the past few years, Hong Kong people have demonstrated a remarkable ability to face uncertainty about the future. Not surprisingly, the society does not speak with one voice. But for most of the time, those who speak louder, have more resources, and sit at the pinnacle of power are over-represented in public debate. The establishment has been articulating its own version of the needs and demands of Hong Kong people both locally and abroad. While this version should always be taken into consideration, it is only one, partial view. There is a growing and evident need to create structures that will entitle the majority to express their preferences and see these articulated formally within the territory's policy-making institutions.
The need to introduce representative and accountable government in Hong Kong is above all urgent because it is extremely difficult to see without it, Hong Kong can in practice become a truly autonomous auninistrative region within China after 1997.
10
*
The challenge which the people of Hong Kong must face before and after 1997 has made them much more conscious of the importance of participation in the territory's political structures. Current affairs programmes have multiplied, as have civic education projects. The rapid formation of lobby groups and political coalitions is further evidence of the growing pressure for representation. Having long enjoyed the benefits of plurality in economic and social life, Hong Kong's people now expect political pluralism to continue into the future as well.
M
case
The present reformed structures are unbalanced and insufficiently representative. Indirect elections in the
of functional constituencies, indirect appointment to less than half of the Legislative Council seats do not constitute a democratic and representative form of government. Nor can such elections cater for the growing political expectations of local political groups or the community. There is no reason why popular direct elections to the territory's main policy-making institutions cannot be introduced. Indeed the viability of the Anglo-Chinese Agreement depends upon doing so. After 1997 Hong Kong will have to be administered by its own representatives. During 140 years of rule, the British in Hong Kong have prevented the local society from establishing a political structure granting its leaders a popular mandate. The final, limited but important, duty of the British government to Hong Kong is therefore to transfer political responsibility to Hong Kong's people at the earliest possible date.
British policy towards Hong Kong must seek in every area to create opportunities for Hong Kong's people to exercise autonomy over local affairs in the shortest possible time. Britain's representatives in the Joint Liaison Group and other forums should argue the case for giving early experience of autonomy to Hong Kong, and Britain's obligations under the Anglo-Chinese Agreement should be implemented at all times with this end in mind. Nor will the introduction of direct elections be sufficient. There are many other areas in which local reform is essential. Senior posts in all branches of the civil service must be localised as early as possible, and promotion must be accelerated where necessary to achieve this purpose. Chinese must also be introduced as a working, not merely an official, language in the judiciary and in the civil service; this will require considerable training and investment. Britain must also take steps to make sure that Hong Kong continues to be represented within international bodies and under treaties and agreements to which the territory is an indirect signatory.
The British government must ensure that Hong Kong people have full and effective travel rights during the transition period, and there is a clear moral and legal charge on Britain to provide British nationals in Hong Kong with effective, not merely nominal, citizenship rights, including the right of abode. It must be emphasised again that there is no
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.