409
Hong Kong
(Mr. Peter Temple-Morris)
5 DECEMBER 1984
must preserve the value of what China takes over, and the self-interest argument comes in there. Secondly, we must create positions and institutions which are reasonably compatible with the system that is due to take over Hong Kong. Therefore, everything that we do must be directed to that end. Positions and institutions that are reasonably compatible is all that we can achieve.
The future of democracy within Hong Kong is a delicate matter and it has been approached delicately in the debate so far. There is nothing sacred about democracy. It has not always worked in parts of the world where we have wished it to work and where we have introduced it. In many instances it has declined rapidly and in many others it has died. It is important, whatever the system, to get the Hong Kong Chinese into leadership positions whatever the system that prevails in Hong Kong between now and 1997. During the next 12 years we must create something that will continue beyond 1997.
The proposals for indirect elections are just about right. Again, this is a difficult and delicate matter. We must proceed slowly in the recognition that democracy is neither a Chinese nor a Hong Kong institution. Democracy is not exactly the main attribute of Hong Kong or the reason for its success. There are great dangers in undue speed. Those who advocate speed, such as the radicals, pressure groups and Hong Kong observers, perhaps strike some of us as being rather too western-oriented for comfort, and perhaps not the ideal people to advocate a lasting system beyond 1997. I am not deriding democracy. I am merely observing that it is necessary to be practical. [Interruption.] I notice that one or two certain great democrats have responded to my remarks. Perhaps they are amused by what I am saying, but there is a certain seriousness behind my remarks.
We must not divide a consensus community. Hong Kong is not and has never been an independent state. It has operated by consensus and we must not exacerbate the differences which might appear between the Nationalists and the Communists by pressing on too quickly towards a system which is based on direct elections. That is why indirect elections will be going quite far enough for the moment. There are Communists within Hong Kong and they have a close relationship with the mainland. They would not win in any direct elections and we should not cause them to feel that they should not compete. If we did, they would opt for abstention and perhaps eventually influence those who take over to dismantle the system that we have tried so laboriously to build up.
It is all important that the United Kingdom continues interest and support over the next 12 years. It is pleasing that so many hon. Members are present in the Chamber to lemonstrate their interest in Hong Kong, and this interest must continue. Indeed, it must be seen to continue. It is only then that China will take sufficient interest in the Hong Kong Chinese. It is imperative that we give them an increasing role' if the framework is to last and continue beyond 1997.
It is vital also to maintain confidence. If we fail to do so, the consequences and results will be dire. We all know that various individuals are, understandably, going to various bolt-holes. When they have the nationality that will result from those bolt-holes they may well return to Hong Kong. There is a vital middle ground of talent within Hong Kong that is responsible primarily for the
218
Hong Kong
410
continuation of its success. That talent will leave if we get things wrong. This terrible danger was apparent in Shanghai back in the 1940s and it has been apparent in other parts of the world.
If things start to go wrong, they rapidly become worse. That leads to corruption, “take while you can," and the entire edifice collapses. That is why confidence is so vital. It is necessary to maintain Hong Kong's freedom of operation bearing in mind the opposition and competition which it faces. If exchange controls were to be introduced, for example, in addition to other measures, confidence would be lost and the Hong Kong experiment would diminish to such an extent that it would be the end of the agreement which we have all worked so hard to achieve and which we want to make a success.
In maintaining confidence there is no greater challenge than the liaison committee. The issue has been raised with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and his answers were rather blurred, although he pointed out the presence of the Hong Kong Government on that Committee. Within the agreement there is a facility for continuation to the extent that we can involve the Hong Kong Chinese, at least for the moment on the sub- committees. The liaison committee will have a vital role in the next 12 years. Its contribution and its access to the basic law will be all important. It is the duty and role of the House-I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be dealing with this in more detail than my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary did-to ensure that we have the active and vital participation of the Hong Kong Chinese on the Committee rather than a load of Hong Kong Government luminaries.
7.17 pm
Mr. Eric Deakins (Walthamstow): I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple- Morris) about the need to maintain the confidence of the people of Hong Kong. I hope that this debate will not be the last occasion on which we have a major examination of the affairs of the colony. I hope also that we shall have regular reports from time to time that will enable us to show the people of Hong Kong that we are continuing to maintain our interest in what will remain for the next 12 or 13 years British colony. ·
I shall address myself to two problems. One problem is that of democracy and the other is the international recognition of the agreement. We have had the Hong Kong Government's White Paper and there have been comments already on how for and how fast we shall go by 1997. I join with those, including the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who feel that by 1997 there should be in place in the colony a system of fally representative government. I believe that that will be in the best interests of the people of Hong Kong. I invite hon. Members to envisage a situation in which there is virtually no progress towards democracy in Hong Kong over the next 12 years. We shall then be handing over authoritarian system of government to another. It will be much easier in those circumstances for the inco Government and governor, if they wish, fundamental alterations irrespective of whether accordance with the terms of the agreement. Their task in doing whatever they may wish after 1997 will be mat immeasurably easier and smoother by the absenop
presentative institutions and government in Hong Kong
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.