ت
only by becoming a British citizen). The position will be the same
for those BDTCs who become BN (0)s: under the Hong Kong Act BN(0)
citizenship cannot carry with it a right of abode in the United Kingdom.
The Indian Association's proposal would undermine the principle of the
1981 Act by exceptionally allowing BDTCs in Hong Kong who might otherwise
be stateless after 1997 to become British citizens, and thus to claim
the right of abode in the United Kingdom. This would be directly contrary
to the basis of the Joint Declaration and would not only therefore
jeopardise the agreement but would also be widely seen in Hong Kong as
unfairly and unnecessarily giving different treatment to this group than
to other BDTCs.
British citizenship is not necessary to ensure these BDTCs have a
recognized citizenship status after 1997. Nor can it help them further
to secure their future in Hong Kong. As I understand it, the Council's
main concern is that their community should have a citizenship which
allows them to continue to live in Hong Kong. They claim that a
nationality without right of abode in the parent country is a form of
statelessness. In fact, they will not be stateless after 1997, since,
as I have explained, those who might otherwise be will become British
Overseas citizens. British citizenship, which gives a right of abode
in the United Kingdom, could not give a right of abode in Hong Kong because
after 1997 it will not be within the British Government's power to grant
that right. Indeed, under the agreement, Chinese nationals themselves
will only have the right of abode there after 1997 if they have specified
links with Hong Kong. Nor is there any substance in the Council's
suggestion that the arrangements agreed with the Chinese are racially
based.
The Government's provisions to guard against statelessness will
apply to any former Hong Kong BDTCS, whatever their ethnic origin, who
do not become BN(0)s and who would otherwise be stateless, and their
children and grandchildren. And they are fully in accord with our
obligations under the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
I believe therefore that the arrangements we have made are fair,
reasonable and as far as practicable meet the future needs of BDTCs in
Hong Kong while taking account of the changed position after 1997.
am as satisfied as I can be that the Indian and other ethnic minority
communities in Hong Kong need have no fear for their future there, and
that there are no grounds for treating them more favourably than other
4-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.