Hong Kong
IS JULY 1988
Having said that, we must recognise that we still have a long way to go up the hill, as shown by the undoubted apprehension and concern in Hong Kong and manifested in the emigration figures. My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the traditional pattern of emigration from Hong Kong, but there is no doubt at all that the current figures are high and give cause for concern. They may affect the very functioning of Hong Kong, and they must be taken as a thermometer of the problem. That special problem is made more difficult by the extraordinary success of Hong Kong.
I have referred to the different cultures involved. There is the ancient and distinctive Chinese culture and civilisation and the British tradition that has been grafted on to the colony. Another factor is the flowering of the unique experiment and experience that Hong Kong represents. We all know of that achievement, which has been created only through the people of Hong Kong and their talents. Hong Kong has no great natural advantage, except perhaps a helpful geographical position. It has been created by the vitality and enterprise of its people, aided by the now rather anachronistic political structure from which it has benefited, certainly since the second world war. That makes it even more difficult to achieve the fusion that we seek.
All those concerned. including the Chinese Government, the British Government, the Legislative Council of Hong Kong and the voluble people of Hong Kong-we all know the loquacity and power with which their representatives put their case — therefore have a responsibility to tread extremely carefully in the months and years ahead. We must all understand that we shall find no Utopian solution which will stand the scrutiny of every constitutional lawyer in the world, but I believe that progress can be made on points, such as articles 16 and 17 of the Basic Law, to which the right hon. Member for Manchester. Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred. I believe that progress can be made. but only on the basis of good will and imagination.
Two responsibilities lie on the Beijing Government and those in Hong Kong. The Beijing Government must understand that it is confidence that keeps Hong Kong going. It is easy for the rulers in Beijing to understand the figures, to study the trade statistics and to do their analyses and so on, but it is difficult for them to have a fundamental grasp of the sensitivity and chemistry which have contributed to this miracle which is Hong Kong. I hope that they will continue to seek that understanding--and I hope that that does not sound too patronising coming from a British parliamentarian. It is equally difficult for us to understand the world through Beijing eyes. Beijing's a>~ view towards Lassa is difficult to understand. I hope that the greatest attention will be paid towards that factor. which is just as much in their economic, commercial and political interests as it is in ours.
I greatly welcome this consultative process. which is an extraordinary step forward by a Communist Government. Glasnost in Chinese is kaifang. I should be interested to know whether the Chinese are given as much credit for their version of glasnost as the Soviets have been for theirs. That degree of openness on the part of the Chinese Government is greatly welcome, and I hope that, like the Labour party executive is now doing, the Chinese Government will turn out to be a listening Government.
It is up to those who have expressed their concerns. many of which are extremely well founded, not only to
Hong Kong
706
criticise and to give voice to their apprehensions, but to make constructive suggestions. We have the huge task of bridging two civilisations, two legal systems and two approaches to constitutional rule. We know what we want to achieve. All the aims were spelt out in the joint declaration: a high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong, personal liberty for its residents, and the commercial and economic freedoms which it has been promised. It will not be easy to achieve and it will require the greatest flexibility, sympathy and understanding. I am sure that our Government have an important role to continue to play in that process, and I am delighted that the unanimity that we have seen so far in this House will greatly strengthen them in playing that role.
I have an apology to make to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House. A constituency engagement obliges me not to stay for the whole debate.
10.53 am
Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber): This debate is the last occasion on which the House can exercise significant influence on the future of some 5.5 million people in Hong Kong, the majority of whom- father, mother, son and daughter-entrusted themselves to the protection and government of the United Kingdom.
Trust has been the focal word in this debate. Can the People's Republic be trusted to fulfil in spirit as well as in letter the remarkable derogation of power it conceded in return for sovereignty in the joint declaration? Can the United Kingdom be trusted to exercise to the full its still considerable good offices and influence to ensure that the compromise of 1984 is in every particular sustained? We are now beyond the stage of compromise and negotiation. That was before 1984 when the United Kingdom Government faced the fact that the Chinese Government were unwilling to accept continuing British administration in any form and bent their will to seeking a solution which would give the inhabitants of Hong Kong a secure future, which retained the freedoms, lifestyles and opportunities for choice which they already enjoyed. The joint declaration, which was widely welcomed both in Hong Kong and in this House. finally defined that future as "a high degree of autonomy.”
That many people in Hong Kong are unconvinced that the draft Basic Law guarantees that promise is evinced by the emigration flow which is calculated to have run at about 100.000 since 1984. We may think that that figure is not so great compared with the whole population of 5-5 million, but it assumes much more worrying significance when it is compared with the approximate 500,000 of Hong Kong's middle class. It is that group which gives Hong Kong its drive, and entrepreneurial and intellectual vigour.
Before I turn to the specific causes for anxiety, I wish to stress that neither on my part nor on the part of those with whom I discussed these matters both here and in Hong Kong, who have submitted memoranda, many of which I am sure have been available to hon. Members on both sides of the House, is there any lack of appreciation or, indeed, admiration for what has already been achieved and for the flexibility shown by the Chinese, operating, as they are, against a profoundly different historical and political experience which also creates difficulties in the use and interpretation of language. But those anxieties are real and, in some cases, crucial to working out the concept of one country and two systems.
!
C
157
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.