985
'] Mr. Edward Heath]
Hong Kong
20 JANUARY 1988
importance. That lends emphasis to the fact that may right hon, and learned Friend should be prepared to take action, but in what direction?
Obviously, when a new constitution is being devised it would be wise to ensure that any action taken now should not be in conflict with it. I fully accept that. However, do we need to do anything that is in conflict with that constitution? I believe that the answer to that question is
no.
The first option for consideration is extending the functional system of government in Hong Kong with internal elections and that is fully acceptable to the People's Republic of China. Those who are considering constitutional developments within the People's Republic of China at the moment are undoubtedly thinking along those lines. However, they face enormous difficulties. When they talk about opening up China or its liberalisation they are talking about the economic development of the country and they are determined on that. However, when it comes to the liberalisation of political activities the attitude is different. It is genuinely believed that, with more than 1 billion people, the country is not sufficiently developed or experienced to carry on an effective system of government. One can understand that. A crucial point will be reached as we have seen in other countries because with economic development and liberalisation there inevitably follows a demand for political liberalisation. That always represents the crux for any country that is trying to develop its economy and political institutions.
We could increase what 1 term the functional representation in Hong Kong at this moment and that would be carrying the territory in the direction that would be followed by the People's Republic of China. Secondly, I understand that there are options contained in the basic constitution, as presently shaped, that concern 25 per cent., 30 per cent, and 50 per cent. of the legislative council seats for election. If those options are already within the proposed Basic Law and are accepted by the People's Republic of China, I do not believe that we would be in conflict with the constitution if we moved on that path between now and when the Basic Law is accepted. If we were certain that the Basic Law would be effected in a year's time all would be well, but, as we know, such matters tend to drag on and on. It may well be 1991 or 1992 before the matter is settled. In that case, the time left before the handover would be even shorter-one could count the years on the fingers of one hand.
If such options were taken up I do not believe that we would be pursuing a path that would be in conflict with the forthcoming constitution to be agreed between the People's Republic of China and Her Majesty's Government. If I am wrong no doubt my right hon. and learned Friend will correct me in due course. If we are not in conflict I believe that it is possible to advance. Therefore, there are two options available to us by which we can help to develop representative government in Hong Kong. We would then be able to hand the territory over in 1997 with a system that could continue, without further controversy, for the remaining 50 years to which the People's Republic of China will be committed.
When my right hon. and learned Friend is considering the White Paper, which is the importance of today's debate, he should recognise that, from the point of view
510
Hong Kong
986
of governmental experience, it is urgently necessary to develop a system of representative government in Hong Kong. Such a development would not be in conflict with the new constitution. Therefore, it should be possible for us to advance along such a path without the People's Republic of China claiming that we are, in any way, infringing the undertakings that we have given. If we follow that path it will not be possible for the people of Hong Kong or any of our other friends to say that we are not carrying out the responsibilities that we have undertaken. If we do not infringe our undertakings or fail our responsibilities it will be the best position for our Government.
The practical way in which the people of Hong Kong will respond to elections is a matter to be considered. I was not quite certain whether my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) was saying that 135,000 people represented a small or large number or whether it meant that people wanted elections or not. I do not mind which way my hon. Friend interprets it, because, when it comes to the point, it is up to the people to decide whether they wish to vote in elections. My own judgment is that the people of Hong Kong-the greater part of the 5 million inhabitants--are mainly concerned with getting on with their own business, which they do extremely well. That does not mean to say that they should not have representative government, especially when we have given such an undertaking.
My hon. Friend and I may agree-probably for the first time, but I hope not for the last-that the people of Hong Kong can carry on doing their own business and continue to be successful. However, progressively, there will be opportunities for those who want to vote in elections and form their own Government. We shall then hand over in 1997 not only a very successful Hong Kong, commercially and industrially, but one which is satisfied with its form of representative government which can then continue for 50 years until further changes come under the People's Republic of China.
4.39 pm
Mr. John Morris (Aberavon): The whole House will have listened closely to the words of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), drawing on his long experience. Indeed, they were wise words on the need for direct elections and the fact that that would. not be incompatible, as he understands it, with the Basic Law so far proposed.
On my last visit to Hong Kong as shadow Attorney, General, in the course of discussions with the legal community I gave an assurance that whenever an issue arose regarding freedom, the law or the constitution would be prepared to act as a conduit pipe if they had exhausted all the existing machinery. Over the years have been occasions when one has had to go to Minister because of anxieties expressed in Hong Kong.
Let me give one example, the public outcry regarding section 27 of the Public Order Ordinance enacted läst March, which makes it a crime to publish false news. If that were a crime in the United Kingdom, the Home Secretary would have to build prisons for editors, sub- editors and the like. That law has caused great anxiety, especially as regards the freedom of the press and free speech.
I understand that there is now a film censorship Bill, for political reasons, mainly the likelihood of serioush
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.