433
Hong Kong
5 DECEMBER 1984
Hong Kong
434
[Mr. Dennis Canavan]
could expect such co-existence to continue for ever. There will have to be some kind of accommodation between the two systems.
The Hong Kong economy was largely built on the hard work and endeavour of its people. Unfortunately, this was sometimes accompanied by the exploitation of cheap sweated labour by multinational capital. That exploitation will not and should not survive and I hope that it disappears long before 1997. That is why, despite the provisions of the draft agreement, there will eventually have to be some accommodation between the two systems so that eventually all the people of the reunified China can live together in peace, equality and dignity, with respect for one another's human rights and a higher degree of social justice for all.
9 pm
Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch): I am fortunate that you, Mr. Speaker, have returned to the Chair and called me as the clock shows 9 pm when we escape the appalling penance of the 10-minute limit. You will correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Speaker, but I understand that that is the position. It is a great tribute to your judgment that you have called me at this time.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman tempts me. There is no longer a 10-minute limit on speeches, but quite a number of other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
Mr. Adley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have asked my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) to give me a swift dig in the ribs when I reach nine minutes.
I hope that those who observe our affairs will not take the thinness of attendance at this debate as in any way suggesting any lack of interest in the future of Hong Kong. I believe that more of us have spent more time genuinely worrying about whether we can get this matter right than any other single issue for many years. Members in all parts of the House are deeply aware of our responsibility to try to ensure that the people of Hong Kong have the future that they want.
I shall not take up time repeating the tributes to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues are so clearly entitled. As he rightly said, we must remember the deep roots of history underlying the Hong Kong situation. We know the political reality, but the practical reality is also legion.
Only three per cent. of Hong Kong's fresh water supply be obtained from the present territory of Hong Kong island, Kowloon and Stonecutters. When we talk about
the Chinese have done in the past and might do in future, we should remember that they could at any time have turned off the water supply and taken over. The best guaranice that the people of Hong Kong have as to the likely behaviour of the Government of the People's Republic in the future is the reality of their behaviour since 1949.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) suggested that sovereignty was not the key issue. However, it always was for the Government of the People's Republic of China. It is no use us suggesting that it was not, or is not, an important issue for them. Although they could have taken over Hong Kong any time that they wanted to, the negotiated return of Hong Kong to mother
i
China is and always was the key emotive issue for them. More than two years ago, the previous Chinese ambassador said to me that until sovereignty is conceded nothing would be possible, but once sovereignty was conceded everything would be possible. As a result of that, I was perhaps slighty less surprised than some hon. Members at the progress that we have been able to make since we conceded sovereignty.
Two points require our attention. One is about the pace of change. Those who hold power in Hong Kong now like it, and want to hold on to it. They have not been elected to it and have an obvious incentive to resist change. The idea of an annual debate is acceptable, but it is a peripheral issue and to suggest that it is the overriding priority emerging from the debate is indicative only of the priorities of those who have put the idea forward as though it is the most important thing in the world.
Those who have power in Hong Kong at the moment were appointed by the governor, who was appointed by Her Majesty's Government. They have always looked to London as the ultimate source of their patronage, and they want to continue to look to this place as the source of influence for Hong Kong. However, it is in Hong Kong itself that the changes must take place. Therefore, we should be encouraging change in Hong Kong: not change for change's sake but because it is vital that the people of
political institutions long before 1997.
I have never been a sycophantic supporter of UMELCO, so all that I have to say about them is to quote a sentence in a leading article in the Hong Kong Standard on 11 May which said:
"For a self-proclaimed mirror of Hongkong opinions, Umelco seems to reflect not so much the daily concerns of the Hongkong public but the obsessions of the few.”
By quoting that, I am suggesting to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the Government that we must broaden our listening as we go into the next 12 years. We simply cannot allow a handful of people who are appointed by the governor to be taken as solely, or even mainly, representative of the genuine voice of Hong Kong. That is why I agree with the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made, particularly about the young people in Hong Kong.
Most hon. Members have so spoken of citizenship. We must not forget that there are between 3,000 and 4,000 people in the Indian community, many of whom held British Indian passports before India achieved its independence in 1947. The Government must pay particular attention to that group.
My second point is about Chinese intentions. I believe hat the Government of the People's Republic of China has
intention to observe both the spirit and the letter of the bement, but they are looking for advice and guidanc the best way to achieve this objective. They encourage change, provided it is change that aids in the maintenance of stability in Hong Kong. If I were to be so presumptuous as to give the Government of the People's Republic of China some advice, it would be to involve the people of Hong Kong in the creation and development their own institutions. A motto of “Invite, involve and entrust” would be a good way for the Chinese Governmen
Sezare stability in Hong Kong by keeping the people content and confident in their own future. I agree with
230
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.