Sir/Russell Johnston j
Hong Kong
IS JULY 1988
My view as a Liberal is that the whole of the Hong Kong legislature should be directly elected. I am not arguing for it to be done at once. If Hong Kong is to have a preserved separate system for half a century, that can be achieved only by a combination of legal protection and entrenchment and democracy. Those two things are the two sides of the coin. One can argue about phasing in and how quickly it is done, but I should be disappointed if the proportion of 50 per cent. was not achieved by 1997.
The grand electoral college has been mentioned. It seems to me to be basically an appointment system, and I suspect such systems wherever I see them. The through train concept is much more to be preferred. With regard to the first SAR Government, it would be of value to the House if I read out the short comments by the Bar Association, because, again, it sums up the matter clearly and explains the concerns well. The association says:
"The Joint Declaration promises that the legislature of the Hong Kong SAR shall be composed of local inhabitants. The legislature of the Hong Kong SAR shall be constituted by elections."
That is a quotation from paragraph 1 of annex I to the joint declaration.
The association continues:
"Under the Draft Basic Law, the first SAR Government is not constituted by elections. The distinction between election and appointment is blurred and the meaning of election is distorted."
Part of the explanation for that is language, as the hon. Member for Wycombe said. The quotation continues:
"The word 'election' must be given its conventional meaning in accordance with international political practice. namely, direct election with universal suffrage.
On the formation of the First Government. Beijing appoints a Preparatory Committee, which in turn appoints an Election Committee. The First SAR Legislature is then
Election Committee. This 18 'elected' by the appointment exercise and a clear departure from the Joint Declaration."
J
As the draft Basic Law will be in pretty firm shape by 1990. there is no reason why direct elections cannot be brought forward to 1990 or 1991 and the proportion increased. Despite what the Foreign Secretary said, there has been a tendency for the British to be afraid to ask for too much. I do not think that democracy is too much.
I have not referred to the Vietnamese refugees, not because I do not think that their situation is tragic and important, but because that is not the issue today. The debate today is about our responsibility to the people of Hong Kong and our recognition of their trust in us. It is a trust that I want history to say we fulfilled. We cannot yet be sure of that.
11.18 am
Mr. Alastair Goodlad (Eddisbury): I, too, welcome the debate as an opportunity to express our continuing commitment to a stable future for Hong Kong and to trying to make a contribution towards that. I, too, apologise for the fact that I shall have to leave before the end of the debate to attend a constituency surgery in the north of England.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) referred briefly to the Vietnamese refugees. The Hong Kong Government had no alternative to the action that they took in introducing screening. The number of arrivals was rising fast and departures for permanent resettlement were falling. Most of those coming in were economic migrants. Those who qualify under the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees will still receive asylum. but it is important that
Hong Kong
712
arrangements are made with the Vietnamese Government for those who are screened out of Hong Kong to be taken back under fully acceptable conditions that guarantee their right to return to their homes and resume work. I appreciate that that is easier said than done, and I know that our good wishes and encouragement go to those in the British and Hong Kong Governments who are seeking to achieve that.
In the meantime, the international community and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees must find a way to solve the international problem of the 16,000 Vietnamese refugees awaiting resettlement in Hong Kong. It cannot be left to Hong Kong. Now that measures have been taken to stem the flow of economic migrants, I appeal again to the Government to redouble their efforts to secure the permanent resettlement of the Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong and, if necessary, adding to our quota in Britain as a catalyst in that process.
Hong Kong is very important to China in two ways: first, as a symbol of national unity; and, secondly, because of its people, their skills and the unique climate of enterprise that they have built. There are other ports on the China coast, but there is not, and never can be, one like Hong Kong. If that climate evaporates, although China will have achieved a measure of national reunification, it will have been at a very high cost. The current brain drain of people who are worried about Hong Kong's future and their children's propects is understandable, but it would be a tragedy if it were eventually to debilitate the genius of Hong Kong. As my right hon. and learned Friend emphasised, the perception of the people of Hong Kong of the Basic Law is crucial to confidence in Hong Kong and, therefore, to Hong Kong's future.
The joint declaration and the maintenance of confidence in the Hong Kong economy represent a massive achievement that few would have dared to predict. The promulgation of the draft Basic Law has been another important step. I join in the tributes that have been paid by both Front-Bench spokesmen to the openness of the consultation procedure, as arranged by the People's Republic of China. I believe that in order to achieve the conditions and confidence necessary for the future stability and prosperity of Hong Kong substantial changes will prove to be necessary in the Basic Law. That is a matter for the People's Republic of China in consultation with the people of Hong Kong. This debate represents an opportunity for those of us who regard ourselves as friends of China and Hong Kong to offer suggestions, in the hope that they may be helpful.
It is tempting to say that to quibble with the fine print of the draft Basic Law is mere legal pettifogging. On the one hand. no country in the world is constrained by its constitution if powerful forces will otherwise. On the other, some countries live happily enough without any formal constitution. We must put our faith for the future in the pragmatism of the parties.
I fear that such an attitude does not quite meet the case in Hong Kong. The future of Hong Kong will depend on the will of the People's Republic of China and the people of Hong Kong to make the experiment of one country and two systems work. Thamay from time to time involve sacrificing cherished beliefs and turning a blind eye to unpalatable factors. Such is the nature of a variation in sovereignty. I do not think that the necessary climate of competence to enable Hong Kong to flourish will continue to be a reality unless a number of changes are made to the confetime?
360
Page 30Page 31
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.