427
Hong Kong
5 DECEMBER 1984
so far been one of the 20th century's most glittering successes and a beacon of light amidst a world of much darkness and misery. It is essential that we keep that beacon alight.
8.33 pm
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): In my 10 minutes I shall not have time to make reference to the Foreign Secretary's speech, which is the normal tradition, and nor do I intend to give way to interventions. I think that the introduction of the 10-minute rule is a nonsense, and I hope that we get rid of it.
I believe that both Governments, the British and the Chinese, and particularly their negotiating teams, deserve our warmest congratulations for having evolved an extraordinarily satisfactory agreement. And I believe that confidence that essential component for its successful fulfilment - will be maintained by the conduct of the three parties involved in Hong Kong's future.
-
Concern has been expressed both here and in Hong Kong that China might not observe the agreement over the years. I strongly oppose that view-and there are very good reasons for doing so. First, historically, all Chinese Governments whether dynastic, Republican or Communist — have meticulously honoured their inter- national agreements. Secondly, the process of the reunification of China will not be complete until Taiwan returns. Thirdly, China needs to pursue the process of modernisation and will certainly not wish to damage its "open-door policy". Fourthly, China needs the foreign exchange generated by Hong Kong. Finally, China may even want to learn from Hong Kong some of its dynamic commercial and trading skills.
Britain, of course, wants the agreement to work because of Britain's commercial and trading interests in Hong Kong's prosperity. But even more importantly perhaps Britain wants to tidy up the ends of empire responsibly. That she must do. What of the views of the Hong Kongers—the people most affected by the ending of the lease and the abandonment of empire? I have visited Hong Kong a number of times over the last few years, usually on the way to or from China in the company of my admirable friend, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley). On such visits, contacts in Hong Kong are normally pretty limited on the establishment round. But ́ the purpose of my last visit in September-three days after the initialling of the agreement—was to elicit the reactions of the range of contacts which were set up at my specific request--and most of those were certainly not on the cocktail circuit.
Two reactions to the agreement were immediately clear from all those contacts. First was the "Chineseness” of the Chinese of Hong Kong-the feelings of attachment and affection for the land and the culture of their mother country, and that feeling seemed to override most of the adverse considerations. Second was the view stated time and again by all the groups I talked with that the Chinese Goverment had met nearly all the points put to them at various meetings by Hong Kong representatives of a variety of interests. The agreement, they conceded, was much better than they had thought attainable.
But the real surprise of that last visit was the moderation and rationality of the reaction from those I thought would have responded otherwise. We Parliamentarians are great proponents and exporters of the Westminster model. But it does not always fit. And it often does not work. I had
221
;
Hong Kong
428
expected strident demands for the immediate introduction of direct elections to the legislative council. But it was not like that. Even the radical groups and the young intellectuals- —a most impressive crowd of young men and women-were not arguing for direct elections now or tomorrow. They understand the unique and precarious position of Hong Kong. They want its prosperity to survive. In all the many conversations I had, most in the excellent company of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston), these supposedly radical people seemed to me to accept, indeed to stress, the responsible view of “phasing in” direct elections and seemed to accept too the need for indirect elections for some period of time, although I must say that the functional constituencies were not universally popular.
What time, of course, is the crucial question. I criticised the Green Paper on Hong Kong's future while I was there, on its time scale of change. The recent revised White Paper has already brought the start of the process three years forward from the suggested 1988, to 1985. So far so good. However, I do believe that even this position is unduly pessimistic about the ability of Hong Kong people to comprehend the democratic procedures, although education in that area is mooted, and certainly needed.
The people of the territory have never had the chance nor the choice of participation. I understand the argument about the Chinese tradition of respect for authority. But Hong Kong has had compulsory education for 32 years, since 1952. And Western pressures and attitudes have certainly been at play over many decades —–—– whether always advantageous is another matter. Perhaps Hong Kong's people have more sense and more appreciation of Hong Kong's special situation than the local government allow for. Democracy is an infectous thing, once given rein. And historical processes always move much faster than expected. I think that a somewhat quicker pace of change to fully representative government than the White Paper allows for, will have to be met in Hong Kong.
Then there are issues that remain out of the residual responsibility of empire. I am perturbed that the rights of protection and travel under the British Dependent Territories citizenship cannot be transmitted after 1997 to the first generation of Chinese Hong Kongers. I wonder if Her Majesty's Government have tried hard enough on that. Perhaps there was strong resistance from the Chinese Government to the possibility of such rights continuing and lasting beyond the 50 years of the two systems in one country. But perhaps we did not want an inflow of immigrants.
I am
particularly concerned about the non-Ch residing in Hong Kong-children of citizens of the British dependent territories who will become stateless after 1997 and who may number between 6,000 an 10,000. However, I understood the Foreign Secretary to give an assurance about them. Then there are the British dependent territory citizens living outside Hong Kong. Their numbers are difficult to estimate but figure of 3,000 Indians, among others, has been put forward. Do we in Britain not have a responsibility to assure the future those last categories? Have we not a duty to them demise of empire? Fortunately, we will be able to purt those matters on later legislation on nationality; but there me fuo further points that I must make. If and when direct elections to the legislative council are introduced-
1.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.