TNAG-1722-FCO40-2415-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Basic-Law-1988 — Page 148

}

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

13 July 1988

1865

A 'normal' constitutional law basically determines the structure and functions of the organs of government, and the relationships between them; it also regulates relations between Government and the individuals within the state, and identifies the law-making authority. Hong Kong's Basic Law additionally with a number of transitional arrangements, and must address the relationship between Central Government and the SAR by attempting to delineate the boundaries of national sovereignty and local autonomy. The Basic Law is therefore not just a legal framework but a political manifesto designed to reassure the people of Hong Kong. I suppose it has not quite done its job so far or perhaps it has overdone it.

The Basic Law draft naturally follows the Joint Declaration and the 'one country, two systems' concept. The latter was a brilliant negotiating tactic but should not be seen as a workable operating principle for any length of time, certainly not for a period as long as 50 years after 1997. Anyone who is in the least bit aware of today's social and economic dynamism in the whole Far East region, and conscious of developments even since the Joint Declaration was signed, must accept the utopian character of such a suggestion. The impossibility of maintaining two separate systems within one national entity and one with traditions revolving around a clear political centre over many centuries may not be a popular thème at this time both here and in the United Kingdom; but this is the reality. And the speed of interaction and changed relations between Hong Kong and the Mainland in the few years since 1984 should give a better idea of what lies ahead than all of the wishful thinking of those who still do not accept that Hong Kong will inexorably be drawn into the mainstream of Chinese political and economic progress. I believe it is irresponsible to pretend otherwise and by so doing perhaps raise false hopes, particularly when this is not really necessary.

Hong Kong's people should be made to understand-assuming here, perhaps wrongly, that they do not understand already--that the guarantees for Hong Kong's future do not lie in the artificial preservation of, or in only cosmetic alterations to the old colonial structures and processes that have been in place with few significant modifications over 100 years. China's needs to emulate Hong Kong's successful system if she wants to achieve her national goals closer to the target dates envisioned by her leadership provide much better assurance. Those who in the context of the Basic Law argue that we must trust China are as naive as those who argue the opposite are being too pessimistic. And those who seriously believe that the United Kingdom will be willing or be able to interfere in the internal affairs of China after 1997 are as misguided as those who do not see China's clear self-interest in protecting the foundations of Hong Kong's success. Nations act mostly out of self-interest and not out of generosity or altruism and they are therefore more predictable in their behaviour. But, Sir, success is not something that either the United Kingdom in the past, or China in future, will hand to Hong Kong on a silver plate. Our continued success must, as always, depend on the willingness of the people of Hong Kong to rise to the