TNAG-1858-FCO40-2633-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-memoranda-and-minutes-of-me-1989 — Page 9

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 5 July 1989

2043

Law right, because all the provisions of the Joint Declaration must be totally enshrined in the Basic Law therefore the British Government must at the official level discuss with the Chinese Government on the Basic Law in the forum such as the Joint Liaison Group. Of course we all recognize the promulgation of the Basic Law is a matter for the Chinese Government.

On the question of human rights, I personally agree with the recommendation made by the committee. My colleagues have yet to discuss this aspect of the report, but we hope to be able to arrive at a more definite view in the near future.

Last but not the least, we are pleased to learn that the FAC supports our view that the Vietnamese boat people who are classified as non-refugees should be repatriated to Vietnam on a mandatory basis. With the influx of boat people at an alarming rate of 10 000 a month for the last two months, there is a great urgency in addressing this problem. We appreciate the British Government's apparent readiness in taking up the problem with the Vietnamese Government, and her contributions made towards the maintenance of the boat people in Hong Kong.

In conclusion, I have covered a range of subjects in the report. I spoke at length on nationality because I feel this is a crucial area. Where else at the present moment can we look to for a durable solution to our problem of an unprecedented scale? Our community is waiting to see what kind of action the British Government will take in the near future to boost the confidence of the Hong Kong people.

Sir, with the above remarks, I beg to move.

Question on the motion proposed.

MR. CHEONG: Sir, I would like to place it on record that most people in Hong Kong are extremely perplexed as well as disappointed with the whole Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) exercise. First of all, we were given to understand that the purpose of the select committee members' visit to Hong Kong was to listen and to probe. Yet, witness after witness were lectured patronizingly on issues such as nationality, British responsibility, as well as the pace of development of direct elections. Should there not really be the presence of an open mind amongst the members?

Secondly, in relation to the probing exercise on the smooth implementation or otherwise of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, one would have thought it necessary, right and responsible for the committee to require further evidence from all witnesses after what had happened in China on 4 June. Yet, no such opportunity was offered. Instead, an attempt was made to hurriedly advance the date of publication of a report which the chairman of the committee gleefully remarked "should serve as a constructive background for the Foreign Secretary's visit to Hong Kong". Constructive to whom, we may all ask?