TNAG-2013-FCO40-2865A-Constitutional-development-in-Hong-Kong-1991-1990 — Page 113

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

1 March 1990

香港立法局

一九九○年三月一日

26

The gist of the matter is that China fails to see that Hong Kong will not be a sovereign state and therefore the jurisdiction of its legislation will only be on local affairs.

The spirit of the Joint Declaration, Sir, is to safeguard and guarantee that the freedoms and rights Hong Kong people now enjoy will be maintained after 1997 for 50 years.

The existing system here does not bar anybody, be he a Chinese or a gweilo by race, or whether he holds a foreign passport or right of abode, from taking part in the administration and legislature so long as he is qualified as a permanent resident here.

There is also absolutely no nationality qualification imposed on people joining politics. China has pledged not to change Hong Kong's system. But to impose such a restriction is to change the system.

Yes, Sir, it is important that Hong Kong needs to retain and strengthen its own identity which transcends racial and national frontiers; yet what Hong Kong needs is freedom, and not restrictions.

Let us pause for a moment and consider why China made such a big fuss by creating "one country, two systems" and "high degree of autonomy", and why China dispenses a VIP treatment to Hong Kong by allowing a complete capitalist way of life to flourish within a communist state for 50 years beyond 1997?

The answer has to be that China wants Hong Kong to keep on being a vibrant economy. What makes Hong Kong tick depends on our international identity, which is, everybody who takes Hong Kong as his or her home belongs to Hong Kong and identifies himself or herself as a Hong Kong belonger irrespective of race or creed.

The Joint Declaration clearly stipulates that "the Government and legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be composed of local inhabitants." The term "local inhabitants" is irrespective of nationality.

Thus, Sir, the final draft which imposes nationality restrictions appears to contravene the clear intent of the Joint Declaration.

It really baffles my commonsense how Her Majesty's Government could have co-operated and allowed an issue that clearly violates the spirit and the letter of the Joint Declaration.