TNAG-1564-FCO40-2129-Future-of-Hong-Kong-nationality-and-passports-Hong-Kong-(Br-1986 — Page 122

Council of Hongkong Indian Associations

Contd. 3

May we now turn to the particular points relied upon by HMG's spokesmen in the debates in Parliament?

1.

It was stated, correctly, that no form of British nationality could confer upon a non-Chinese citizen the right of abode in Hong Kong after the transfer date (Hansard 1273-4). This right, it was suggested, is provided by section XIV annex I to the Joint Declaration. However this "guarantee" confers as such no legally enforceable rights upon private individuals, since it is contained in the International instrument. Such rights only accrue to Chinese citizens. In other cases, where HMG has relinquished jurisdiction over a particular territory, upon decolonisation, members of the ethnic minorities enjoyed at least the opportunity to become citizens of the newly independent country. Hong Kong Indians enjoy no such right. The only way in which HMG can guarantee a "right of abode" to Hong Kong Indians anywhere in the world, is to grant to them full citizenship, and the consequent right of abode in the United Kingdom. Does HMG accept that, short of this, they are unable to guarantee Hong Kong Indians right of abode anywhere after the transfer date, and that this renders their position uniquely vulnerable?

2. It was stated that Hong Kong Indians could apply for Chinese citizenship after the transfer date (Hansard 1275/1305). However no effort was made to meet the point, raised during the debate, that the grant of such citizenship will be a matter of discretion, not obligation, in relation to non-ethnic Chinese. There is no indication whatsoever that HMG have obtained any undertaking from the PRC that such discretion will be exercised in favour of any Hong Kong Indian applicant. At the press conference held in Beijing on 21st January 1986 Mr. Renton, Minister of State in HMG, stated that he would be in a position to give Hong Kong non-ethnic Chinese minorities a specific answer on whether they would be able to apply (presumably successfully) for Chinese citizenship after the transfer date (South China Morning Post 22nd January 1986). It was notable and disquieting that in his statement made in Hong Kong on 24th January he made no reference to the subject at all (see enclosed statement). The inescapable inference is that he obtained no satisfaction from the PRC on this point. Does HMG accept that, withstanding prolonged negotiations that have taken place in recent years in relation to transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong from HMG to the PRC, that HMG have extracted no guarantee from the PRC that Hong Kong Indians will definitely be able to obtain Chinese nationality after the transfer date? as appears, HMG have obtained no such guarantee, upon what basis does HMG seek to justify the status of de facto statelessness and, after two generations, de jure statelessness, which will be forced upon Hong Kong Indians after the transfer date?

If,

Contd./