563
Hong Kong
13 MAY 1986
eement―as. I believe, everybody does. It guarantees the peopl ong Kong all the freedom that they could possibly wish. It gives to them the right of abode. If we ask ourselves whether or not this agreement is being well implemented, the answer is that it is being implemented step by ster with the Government of China. Agreement has been reached in the Land Commission about land. Agreement has also been reached about Hong Kong's position in the Asian Development bank. A very important agreement was reached recently that Hong Kong will be an independent member of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. That agreement was reached between China, the United Kingdom and GATT. It is more important than some of the other matters that have been causing concern in recent weeks to the people of Hong Kong.
Mr. Robert Parry (Liverpool, Riverside): The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the fears of the Asian community in Hong Kong. He had long experience as Minister of State with responsibility for Hong Kong. What does he consider to be the true position of Peking? The British Government have given British citizenship to these people. Does he really believe that after 1 July 1997 China will give Chinese citizenship to these people?
Sir Peter Blaker: Peking has made it clear that it regards that question as a matter for the British Government, which is exactly what I expected it to say. The hon. Gentleman's latter question has already been answered-it is open to Hong Kong people to apply for citizenship of the People's Republic of China, and that sort of position applies in many countries throughout the world.
I was dealing with the question of what was causing anxiety to the Indian community in Hong Kong. Why does it want us to take action now, on the assumption that the agreement will not work? I believe that the Indians are worried not that they are likely to be expelled from Hong Kong after 1997 but that they may be discriminated against. We must recognise that relations between China and India, and between the Chinese and the Indians, have not always been free from friction. However, I believe that after 1997 there will be a rather special position in Hong Kong. There will be not a free enterprise territory run by Communists, but a free enterprise territory run by the people of Hong Kong. That is the whole point of the agreement. I think that the people of Hong Kong will recognise the mutual inter-dependence of all elements of Hong Kong society.
The Indians are inclined to say, and I am sure that they are right, that they control 20 per cent. of Hong Kong's foreign trade. Will the Chinese people of Hong Kong, after 1997, want to destroy or render less effective a community that is so important in the running of Hong Kong's economy? Surely it is clear to us now that China has understood the importance of confidence in a free enterprise economy and also, at least in part, the way in which a free enterprise economy works.
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): The right hon. Gentleman is trying to explain away the concern of some of the Indian community. Will he not, in the manner in which he usually attacks these matters, be absolutely frank and admit that, regardless of the present contribution of the Indian community to the welfare of Hong Kong, there is a past history that worries many Indians? They were the
347
Hong Kong
664
upholders of law and order under the British Government. In terms of the Pathan riot squad and acting frequently as prison warders and night watchmen, they were the maintainers of law and order. They will not necessarily be popular in the future social order of Hong Kong.
Sir Peter Blaker: I do not accept that premise. If Hong Kong is to run itself-which I believe will be the case, and which is the whole basis of the agreement on which everyone has been congratulating both Britain and China
-the hon. Gentleman's point is not valid.
I want to cite an example that shows that Chinese and Indians can co-operate. I am surprised that it has not yet been cited. It is the example of Singapore. I believe that the Foreign Minister of Singapore is an Indian-Mr. Dhanabalan; he certainly was when I was a Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister of Singapore, which is predominately Chinese, is or recently was an Indian. There are other Indian Ministers and also prominent Indians in every walk of life. There is co-operation and equal rights between Chinese and Indians in Singapore, though it is a Chinese-dominated society in terms of numbers. I do not see why the Indians should be so pessimistic about the possibility of Hong Kong operating on a similar basis.
I say again what I said in the previous debate—that I believe that the agreement will be observed because it is in the interests of China as well as the people of Hong Kong that it should be observed. However, I take comfort from the fact that if things do go wrong, the Government
-as I understand it-have kept the door ajar.
11.9 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell (South Down): It has already been noted that the House had an earlier and more lengthy opportunity of considering substantially this order on 16 January. However, on 16 January it so happened, for reasons which are not directly connected with the future of Hong Kong, that I was not a Member of the House. Therefore, I take the opportunity as briefly as possible afforded by tonight's debate of placing on record my anxieties about the future consequences of the changes which the order will make in the nationality law of the United Kingdom.
Those changes are two. The first is that we are extending British nationality at present to 3.25 million Hong Kong Chinese. It is British nationality because we repeatedly call it British nationality; and, because they are to be designated British nationals, their passports are to be issued in the name of Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State, and are to be renewed or issued as necessary by the consular posts of the United Kingdom. In every natural respect those who obtain that status will be regarded as British nationals.
The world knows what it thinks a British national is. It thinks a British national is a person who has the same rights in relation to the United Kingdom as a national of any other country normally has in relation to that other country, notably the right of entry and abode. That right does not inhere in that status. Therefore, the question arises, what is to be the future, in the event of their being a strong desire on the part of the holders of that status not to remain in Hong Kong, and if they were to look to the United Kingdom, of which we are making them nationals, as the natural place of abode or of residence?
It is not necessary in order to consider that prospect seriously to cast any doubt on the bona fides or to deny any
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.