TNAG-1856-FCO40-2631-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-memoranda-and-minutes-of-me-1989 — Page 42

HONG KONG

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 香港立法局—————————————一九八九年七月五日

5 July 1989

26

Member's Motion

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT ON HONG KONG

MR. ALLEN LEE moved the following motion:

"That this Council takes note of the Foreign Affairs Committee Report on Hong Kong and urges strongly that the British Government should urgently take adequate and appropriate measures to ensure a safe and secure future for the people of Hong Kong, including the restoration of full British citizenship to British subjects in Hong Kong."

MR. ALLEN LEE: Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The non-government Members of this Council decided that we should hold a debate upon the release of the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) report. It was released on 30 June 1989. In view of the importance of the report, we are taking the first opportunity to address the issues raised in the report. The report has examined a number of key areas of concern to Hong Kong: the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration; the Basic Law; the development of representative government; nationality and Vietnamese boat people. This afternoon, my colleagues will be expressing their views on all these areas, starting off with the nationality issue.

On nationality, I find the premise of the recommendations of the FAC report unacceptable. Whilst the FAC recognized Britain's unique obligation to Hong Kong, it has failed to translate that obligation into responsible action in one very important area. That is the right of abode in Britain for British subjects in Hong Kong and the undeniable responsibilities of the sovereign state towards its subjects.

The FAC report has, in my view, put forward a number of arguments which are fallacious. I would like to take this opportunity to briefly address these points:

The report suggests that the insurance policy concept is a confused argument

I disagree. I think the FAC's argument itself is contradictory. While the committee rejects the idea of providing an insurance policy to the people of Hong Kong, it sees fit, on the other hand and in almost the same breath, to offer some insurance policy to certain groups as an incentive for them to stay. Such a position is wholly illogical and indefensible.