TNAG-2013-FCO40-2865A-Constitutional-development-in-Hong-Kong-1991-1990 — Page 94

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL -1 March 1990

香港立法局 一九九0年三月一日

Members' Motions

6

FUTURE POLITICAL SYSTEM IN HONG KONG

Resumption of joint debate on motions moved on 28 February 1990

MR. ARCULLI: Sir, I received the pronouncement of the Basic Law Drafting Committee on the Basic Law with mixed feelings. I say mixed feelings because I sensed that Hong Kong's reaction would be one of relief but no joy. Relief because the four-and-a-half-year long process of drafting the Basic Law had come to an end. No joy because despite repeated reassurances by senior officials of both the British and the Chinese Governments that our views would be taken into account that was not to be. We had hoped that the British Government could successfully champion our cause and that the Chinese Government would be sufficiently magnanimous to accede to our requests. Negotiations behind closed doors are always viewed with suspicion. However, when the result of such bargaining falls so far short of expectations is it any wonder that this suspicion turns to mistrust?

All of us in this Council know that the OMELCO consensus on constitutional changes is in no way drastic, has obtained the widest possible public support, and clearly reflects Hong Kong people's strong determination to help realize the concept of high degree of autonomy and "one country, two systems" as promised in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Beijing can be under no illusion that Hong Kong people want autonomy and democracy after the handover. But it has chosen to go its own way.

The draft Basic Law now awaits the approval of the Chinese National People's Congress later this month and it is extremely unlikely that there will be an improvement from our point of view to the post-1997 political blueprint before promulgation. Although we should no longer place high hopes that Beijing would allow last-minute changes to the draft, it would be a serious mistake to jump to the conclusion that Hong Kong would have no future under this document.

Sir, I do not think any useful purpose would be served to continue lashing out at the Chinese Government for not heeding our wishes or at Whitehall for yet another sellout. Criticisms never correct prejudices. Action, patience and persuasion may. There are those who hold the view that if the future Basic Law is unacceptable to Hong Kong we should not only say so clearly and loudly, but insist on striving for a better deal. I do not think that as an intellectual exercise anyone is likely to disagree. The difficulty is balancing our desire with reality.