1389
Hong Kong: Democracy After 1997
[LORDS]
[LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE] justice. It is right to consider whether Her Majesty's Government are dealing fairly with the matters raised in the terms of the Joint Declaration.
The Joint Declaration enshrined the goals of autonomy and democracy for Hong Kong. That commitment was clearly spelt out in the debate on the Joint Declaration in another place in December 1984. My right honourable friend Mr. Richard Luce, then the Minister of State at the Foreign Commonwealth Office, said:
and
"We all fully accept that we should build up a firmly-based, democratic administration in Hong Kong in the years between now and 1997”.—{Official Report, Commons, 5/12/84; col. 470.]
There is a great deal of concern in Hong Kong that that firmly-based, democratic administration is not in place. There is at the moment a curious hybrid which could have come straight out of Alice in Wonderland. There is an elected opposition and a non-elected, chosen, appointed administration consisting of appointees of the governor and members of various sectional interests. Would it not seem odd if there were an elected government and an appointed opposition? Will my noble friend Lord Caithness tell us whether that is the right way forward for Hong Kong?
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, referred to the elections in September. However small the turnout, and the issue has been criticised, there is no gainsaying the fact that the United Democratic Party claims to be and is the only truly representative political party in Hong Kong. Yet, as the noble Lord pointed out, that has not been reflected in appointments made either to the Legislative Council or to the Executive Council. Ought some consideration be given to that at this stage? It is seen as an insult to the intelligence of the voters and to the democratic process itself.
Disillusionment with the niggardly progress to democracy has been compounded by the clumsy handling of the appointment of the successor to the present governor. That is seen as a slight to Hong Kong and to the present governor. The strong impression is that once again Britain has let Hong Kong down. Clearly that was not the intention but I am afraid that it has been the effect. The question of a successor to the present governor is of great- probably of prime importance in Hong Kong. With only 5 years remaining of our stewardship it is of key importance that a person who is credible here, in Hong Kong and in China should be appointed. Such a person should possess a great many attributes. He should be respected in Hong Kong, Westminster and China. He should have an understanding of the commercial realities that obtain in Hong Kong. He should be an effective leader and spokesman for Hong Kong.
That is quite a tall order but there is such a person. I do not share the diffidence of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, in naming that person. If your Lordships substitute "she" for "he" you may find the answer. I refer of course to the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, who is at the same time politician, businesswoman and diplomat. Her appointment would be welcome in
702 LD25/44 Job 7-1
Hong Kong: Democracy After 1997
1390
Hong Kong. It would give that territory something of the political confidence that it seeks in the years remaining until 1997.
I hope that the Government will address the issues that were raised so cogently by the noble Lord. Lord Wyatt. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's reply.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, for facilitating the debate. I agree with much that he said, although not all, and with much that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. I believe that Parliament, especially another place, has given inadequate attention to developments in Hong Kong during recent years. It has overlooked the significance of the five years between now and the time when responsibility is to be handed to Beijing.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, that there has been a real failure on the part of the British Government to formulate an adequate strategy in the negotiations over Hong Kong. I believe that the Chinese have taken advantage of that. I have said on a number of occasions when talking about Tibet that the Government have been prepared never to be strong but always to be weak. I do not believe that is the best way to have satisfactory and effective negotiations with the Chinese.
On 22nd January I attended a business conference at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. The conference was brilliantly organised and magnificently attended by more than 600 people. I cannot adequately praise the people of Hong Kong for their energy and enthusiasm. Their economy and that of the 18 million people in South China within the economic zone that is now influenced by Hong Kong is surging ahead. One of their few complaints is that the deplorable economic management of affairs in the United Kingdom is something of a drag upon their rate of growth.
If Britain appears to forget about Hong Kong it is not surprising that Hong Kong appears to have little or no expectations of Britain. It is painful to see Britain becoming more and more isolated and irrelevant in Hong Kong and to see the situation in Hong Kong becoming more marginalised by British. politicians.
However, the case against the British Government is not merely of neglect but of extraordinary insensitivity. That was sadly demonstrated by the handling of the governor, Sir David Wilson. He is a man of outstanding ability who will be warmly welcomed in this House, as was the noble Lord, Lord Maclehose. We look forward to hearing from him. In my view Sir David was publicly humiliated by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in the announcement that he would be retiring but that his successor would not be appointed until after the election. I do not argue that an appointment ought to be made before the election; I argue that no such statement should have been made about Sir David's
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.