TNAG-1722-FCO40-2415-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Basic-Law-1988 — Page 164

[

1882

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 14 July 1988

Other speakers have referred and will refer to the important issue of nationality so I will not duplicate their remarks. My constituency, however, beyond all others in Hong Kong, recognises the anomalies and problems with nationality which can limit the effective use of the brainpower and skills that we have in Hong Kong. We are an international city in most senses of the word and our continuing success must rely on the most liberal interpretation possible of the right of Hong Kong people to stay here, to take part in all aspects of business and social development and to contribute to good government. We have many minorities here and often they represent third or fourth generation commitment to Hong Kong. They have to continue to believe that their talents are needed and that their human rights are safeguarded. We are a multinational society and our economic vitality has been founded on the common interests of our people. Nationality in the Basic Law should have regard to this undeniable situation.

Sir, these are the preliminary observations from my constituency but others will follow as the process of examination of the draft Basic Law continues. We shall be looking closely for example at the mainly political issues in Chapter IV as opposed to the economic ones which have been the first concern of a trade association.

I will complete my address by again drawing attention to the need to keep the legal argumentation in context in order to maintain a clear view of the Chinese philosophy and policy in seeking to assure Hong Kong and the rest of the world that the commitment of China to the one country two systems concept is firm and will be implemented.

Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.

MR. HUI (in Cantonese): Sir, as we all know, the draft Basic Law for solicitation of opinions was drafted at a time when there was a serious lack of com- munication between China and Hong Kong and when there was a serious confidence problem. Inevitably some articles turned out to be ambiguous and there were difficulties in reconciling conflicting interests between China and Hong Kong and within Hong Kong itself. Therefore, we should not merely examine the letter of the articles in deciding whether Hong Kong should accept the draft or not but rather consider the spirit of the whole and the principle of compromise and assess whether it has already taken into consideration the overall interests of our society.

Looking at the draft as a whole, I feel that the drafting committee may have been over-concerned about the question of confidence between China and Hong Kong and the exercise of sovereignty by China. Consequently, articles in relationship between the central authorities in the Hong Kong SAR, political structure and interpretation and amendment of the Basic Law, tend obviously to protect the concept of 'one country' and fail to realise the importance of maintaining the differences in 'two systems' and 'non-subordination'. It must not be forgotten that 'one country, two systems', 'Hong Kong people governing

I

1