༩༽
32
to British Passport holders in Hong Kong. But now they are being put in a catch 22 situation of being told that they must not be too difficult because that might produce a backlash in Britain which would have prejudicial consequences for their own future position (and at the moment they are likely to be the beneficiaries of a selective right of entry.)
A recent edition of the Far East Economic Review carried a newsnote saying that Mrs. Thatcher was furious with the Foreign Office for having foisted on her this troublesome Sino-British Agreement, but that her reaction to the trouble was to decree that the number of Hong Kong people who would be granted a special right of entry should be reduced from 200 000 to 100 000 --- That it is believed that this report might be accurate is perhaps more important than its accuracy. Yet those who are involved know that if they are not difficult, no body will take any notice of them.
Some of these Interest groups have already been written off by grass roots opinion, but if grass roots opinion were to lose all confidence in these traditional methods of " Consultation", all incentive to make the present system work would be lost. The Sino British Agreement is explicitly dependant on the continuing stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. But the plan to extend a selective right of abode could produce precisely that instability which would render the Sino-British Agreement void, and which would also destroy the only reason China has for maintaining the present system in Hong Kong.
It is therefore significant that even grass roots movements like Meeting Point have reluctantly had to put their weight behind the demand for the return of citizenship rights, and the right of abode. Previously, in terms of theory, they had seen such a demand as backwards looking, and as irrelevant to the needs and aspirations of the majority, and as encouraging a falsely based sense of identity. But they now say that they have had to give way to the pressure from below
from the grass roots constituency they represent. If that popular demand, of which they are aware, is denied, it could lead to an explosive situation.
The whole position is full of anomalies and ambiguities. It appears that if a selective right of abode in Britain is given, the only Department which could administer this would be the Hong Kong Immigration Department. However, if the Immigration Department is not included in the right of abode, is it likely that they will administer the process? And if they are included, by what kind of logic can large numbers of people with identical or similar seniority be excluded.
Every argument advanced by the Government for a selective right of entry to and abode in Britain, which Government is committed to giving, is also an argument in favour of restoring the rights of citizenship to all British Passport holders of Chinese origin in Hong Kong. And that is what the Assembly should be urged to ask for.
Page 135Page 136
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.