HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 5 July 1989
2045
readily granted full rights to the Gibraltarians and Falklanders should behave so strangely towards Hong Kong?
Finally, Sir, I want to make it clear to the people of Hong Kong that what we did should not be misrepresented as signs of weakness or even begging. We are only asking from the sovereign state what it should have been their duty and responsibility to give, no more and no less.
Sir, I support the motion.
MRS. CHOW: Sir, in the press conference where Mr. David HOWELL introduced the FAC report last Friday, he explained that the advance timing of its publication was to provide a constructive background to Sir Geoffrey HOWE's visit here.
As it turned out, the great minds thought so much alike one could hardly find any single point where they did not agree. In fact one can get easily confused as to who is explaining whose case, and which position is being fortified by which.
It is not in the least surprising that Sir Geoffrey remained so unmoved by the loud and united voice of Hong Kong, led and supported by that of yours, Sir, and our two Senior Members of OMELCO. He came armed with arguments, logical or not, fully aired in the report.
The FAC's obsession with the merits of the Joint Declaration as Britain's fulfilment of her unique obligation to Hong Kong conveniently paved the way for the Foreign Secretary's repeated insistence that the agreement is the best way that Britain could fulfil her responsibility to Hong Kong.
The denial of the right of abode to Hong Kong's holders of British passport was not unexpected, though highly unacceptable on moral grounds. Neither the FAC nor Sir Geoffrey HOWE should be under any illusion, nor should they create or broadcast it, that their stand to desert Britain's people under her care and protection is any more acceptable now than it has been, despite their efforts to justify it. Where the FAC failed to match up to Sir Geoffrey was the honesty and straightforwardness with which the latter dealt with the subject. The committee's criticism of "the insurance policy" concept presented by OMELCO was itself confused and illogical. On the one hand it queried the appropriateness of the metaphor, but on the other advocated it for some sectors of the community. By recommending passports for civil servants and key personnel so as to encourage them to stay, the committee has in fact lent weight to the value of the passports as a form of insurance policy.
Another coincidence is the FAC's call for the British Government to solicit help from the international community in providing refuge to our people in the case of an Armageddon scenario. The committee would have to be quite uninformed to be recommending action which the government has already undertaken. In any case, all efforts should be directed towards the prevention of an Armageddon scenario, not the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.