1391
Hong Kong: Democracy After 1997 [29 JANUARY 1992]
retirement. He is a highly respected man. On 22nd January in the Legislative Council the honourable J. D. McGregor said:
"The lack of information is alarming and, frankly speaking, disgraceful and insulting to Sir David Wilson and the people of Hong Kong... Who on earth in the British Government decided to announce Sir David's retirement and not his successor? I believe that this was a real blunder and that it has seriously reduced Sir David's standing and credibility during his remaining months of office. It also suggests that the British Government is insensitive to the very delicate situation in Hong Kong where six million people ponder their future".
I agree with that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, said, the elections in September 1991 were a watershed in Hong Kong. That was the date when-in the words of Mr. George Foulkes the Labour spokesman in another place-the first shafts of democracy lit up in the Territory. As has been said, the voters were allowed to elect 18 out of 66 candidates for the legislative council. The United Democratic Party, led by Martin Lee, won 12 of the 18 seats and five of the six remaining seats went to people with liberal tendencies. It was a stunning victory for those who really believe in democracy. Many of them were deeply disappointed that the appointments in no way recognised the will of the people of Hong Kong.
At the conference last week to which I have referred, a Mr. Stephen Cheong, who has been a LEGCO member since 1980, said:
"We in Hong Kong have the funniest situation in terms of politics: the government in power are not allowed, or see it as undesirable, to form their own party, while the largest party in the legislative assembly remain an opposition party. The present state of affairs is unimaginable in any western democratic countries”.
He went on to say:
"If nothing is done to rectify this situation, then what we see today may well be the beginning of a period of anarchy in Hong Kong”.
I hope that that is not true but the British Government have an obligation to recognise the strength of feeling which now exists in the Territory.
In the course of the next few weeks something must be done to rectify the situation. It is a pity that the Government did not introduce an element of democracy years ago. It would be absurd to assume, as the Government seem to, that agreements already reached with China are set in stone. After all, there are five years between now and 1997. There must be some flexibility. I welcome statements by Labour leaders that, if elected to power, they will begin early discussions on how to improve the democratic conditions in Hong Kong. Of course we want to see a free press, an independent judiciary and a democratic legislature. The political situations in Hong Kong and China are also not set in stone. In this country we are bound to have an election in the next few months. In China there must be changes as younger men are bound to succeed to prominent positions in the increasingly aged leadership of China. China is unlikely to avoid some of the winds of change which have blown from Europe, Africa and Latin America. It may be that the speed will not be so great but I do not believe that there will be no change in China in the course of the next five years.
Hong Kong itself may help to bring about the change. We have already seen the remarkable speed
703 LD25/45 Job 7-2
Hong Kong: Democracy After 1997
1392
: with which China's southern provinces have broken free from a command economy. In helping to create a climate which is free from the central control of Beijing, Hong Kong is helping to create a climate in which political differences with Beijing can submerged. I believe that the taste of economic freedom is bound to create a taste for political freedom so far denied to the rest of China's population and, in a sense, to its colonial peoples.
Of course the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law remain the foundations on which Hong Kong's future must be built but the five remaining years of British rule must be years in which there is everything to play for. It is a period in which the old men calling the shots in Beijing and the has-beens in Westminster will be replaced by a more rational, accommodating and imaginative leadership. I have great confidence in the people of Hong Kong, in their judgment and ability to lead. Without mentioning any names, I agree that when one looks around for the next governor, we should look seriously at those who come from Hong Kong and who know and understand the nature of the people. I urge the Government, in the weeks before the election, to turn their minds away from electioneering and confront this fundamental problem which must be faced in Hong Kong. They must have a strategy to take us through the next five years.
8.24 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, for initiating this debate. I must apologise to the House because, for unavoidable reasons, I may have to leave the Chamber after my speech. I hope to be back to hear the Minister's reply but I apologise to the noble Lords, Lord Derwent. Lord MacLehose and Lord Geddes, if I do not hear their speeches. I shall certainly read them in Hansard.
As a bishop I am in contact with Hong Kong through the Anglican communion network. There is ! an Anglican bishop in Hong Kong and through Church House I have been in contact with him. In 1984 and 1990 a delegation of the British Council of Churches was invited to Hong Kong. The message which was brought back was that we should alert people to Hong Kong's situation and needs.
Through my contacts I have found that the first thing which seems to be lacking is confidence in the British Government with their great tradition of colonial experience and government to see their responsibility for Hong Kong through to the moment at which it joins the mainland of China in 1997. That 60,000 people left Hong Kong in one year is an indication of that lack of confidence. The bishop tells me that the people of Hong Kong are conscious of the fact that the right of abode was taken away from them in 1962. They now have the status of British dependent territory citizens. They realise that in 1962, when their right of abode was taken away, the United Kingdom was concerned not to have large numbers of people entering the country because our services would inevitably break down. They understand that. However, the people of Hong Kong need effective citizenship. If they can be given that, and if there can
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.