TNAG-1858-FCO40-2633-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-memoranda-and-minutes-of-me-1989 — Page 66

2100 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

5 July 1989

to implement the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Has the June 4 tragedy not indicated that the Beijing authorities manage things in an illogical and unpredictable way? Does the FAC not feel that the Beijing authorities' ruling tactics and credibility need reassessment after the June 4 incident? Is it not necessary to critically re-examine their sincerity and ability to implement the Sino-British Joint Declaration? Should the British Government not adopt the necessary corresponding remedial measures after a careful reassessment of the situation? I do not consider that the Sino-British Joint Declaration should be totally rewritten. However, with the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress still in session, the direction of the Chinese uppermost echelon not being entirely clear and foreign bank loans to China being temporarily frozen, the FAC has jumped to a conclusion and made recommendations in respect of the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Is it not done in too much haste? The FAC has not deferred the release of its report to reflect the changes in China. Have they forgotten the original aim to investigate, or do they have no intention at all to see if the Sino-British Joint Declaration can be thoroughly implemented?

Since the June 4 incident, the index of economic confidence in Hong Kong has plummeted 12 points in one month's time to a level of 85% of that in January 1985, while the index of political confidence stands at 82%, which is a record low. The FAC report basically has failed to face the problems squarely. It proposes a series of measures to restore the confidence of Hong Kong people, including the democratization of our political system, enactment of a human rights Bill, and so on. However, the insurance that is needed behind these measures is precisely the right of abode in the United Kingdom for the people of Hong Kong. All these measures are indispensable, and must come in a package. We are compelled by the British Government to walk on a tight rope without the protection of a safety net. What is more important is that Britain has a constitutional obligation to more than 3 million British subjects in Hong Kong, and a moral obligation to the remaining 2 million people or so. This is undeniable. Since Hong Kong people regard Hong Kong as their home, the right of abode in the United Kingdom is no more than a kind of insurance. Yet Britain is unwilling to offer precautionary measures, but would only brag about remedial work if necessary. The report further quotes Sir Geoffrey's words that in the case of an "Armageddon scenario", Britain will urge the international community to admit the Hong Kong people as refugees. This is tantamount to the case where a sex maniac on the prowl has been spotted and reported to the police, with a request for stepped up protection for women, and the police simply replying, "Take it easy. We have got ready for you sufficient aftercare contraceptive measures."

To strive for the right of abode in Britain is only one of the measures to be taken by the people of Hong Kong to save Hong Kong. In order to help Hong Kong people stay behind, and to ensure ruling of Hong Kong by Hong Kong people, similar efforts must be made in respect of the Basic Law, a Bill of Rights and a democratic government system. The steps of democratization of the legislature as proposed by the report deserves our support, but the proposal that the first Chief Executive will be selected by an electoral college falls behind the aspiration of the people of Hong Kong. Such a way of selecting the Chief Executive would undermine his authoritativeness