1 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL -- 5 July 1989 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL -- 5 July 1989 1
OFFICIAL REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 5 July 1989
The Council met at half-past Two o'clock
PRESENT
HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR (PRESIDENT)
SIR DAVID CLIVE WILSON, K.C.M.G.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE SIR DAVID ROBERT FORD, K.B.E., L.V.O., J.P.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE DAVID ALAN CHALLONER NENDICK, J.P.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE HONOURABLE JEREMY FELL MATHEWS, C.M.G., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE PENG-FEI, C.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DONALD LIAO POON-HUAI, C.B.E., J.P. SECRETARY FOR DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION
THE HONOURABLE STEPHEN CHEONG KAM-CHUEN, C.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS. SELINA CHOW LIANG SHUK-YEE, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARIA TAM WAI-CHU, C.B.E., J.P. DR. THE HONOURABLE HENRIETTA IP MAN-HING, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN YING-LUN, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS. RITA FAN HSU LAI-TAI, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE PETER POON WING-CHEUNG, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHENG HON-KWAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG PUI-LAM, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HO SAI-CHU, M.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HUI YIN-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, Q.C., J.P. THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE PANG CHUN-HOI, M.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE POON CHI-FAI, J.P.
PROF. THE HONOURABLE POON CHUNG-KWONG, J.P. THE HONOURABLE SZETO WAH
THE HONOURABLE TAI CHIN-WAH, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS. ROSANNA TAM WONG YICK-MING, J.P. DR. THE HONOURABLE DANIEL TSE, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, M.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE GRAHAM BARNES, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR LANDS AND WORKS
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL LEUNG MAN-KIN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE GEOFFREY THOMAS BARNES, C.B.E., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
THE HONOURABLE PETER TSAO KWANG-YUNG, C.B.E., C.P.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND INFORMATION
THE HONOURABLE RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN GILBERT BARROW, O.B.E. THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL CHENG TAK-KIN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DAVID CHEUNG CHI-KONG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD CHOW MEI-TAK
THE HONOURABLE MRS. NELLIE FONG WONG KUT-MAN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS. PEGGY LAM, M.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DANIEL LAM WAI-KEUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS. MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE
THE HONOURABLE LAU WAH-SUM, J.P.
DR. THE HONOURABLE LEONG CHE-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG WAI-TUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KINGSLEY SIT HO-YIN
THE HONOURABLE MRS. SO CHAU YIM-PING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS. ELSIE TU, C.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE PETER WONG HONG-YUEN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE YEUNG KAI-YIN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER
THE HONOURABLE NIGEL CHRISTOPHER LESLIE SHIPMAN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE
ABSENT
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG YAN-LUNG, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHENG MING-FUN
THE HONOURABLE JAMES DAVID McGREGOR, O.B.E., I.S.O., J.P.
IN ATTENDANCE
THE CLERK TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
MR. LAW KAM-SANG
Papers
The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Standing Order 14(2): Subject
Subsidiary Legislation L.N. No.
Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance
Specification of Public
Office........................................... 202/89
Ozone Layer Protection Ordinance 1989
Ozone Layer Protection (Fees)
Regulations
1989............................................................. 203/89
Ozone Layer Protection Ordinance 1989
Ozone Layer Protection Ordinance 1989
(Commencement) Notice 1989......................................... 204/89
Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation Ordinance
Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation
(Amendment) Regulations 1989........................................ 205/89
Road Traffic Ordinance
Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles)
(Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1989............................ 206/89
Road Traffic Ordinance
Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles)
(Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 1989............................
207/89
Immigration Ordinance
Immigration (Places of Detention)
(Amendment) (No. 7) Order 1989.................................... 213/89
Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation By-Laws
Kowloon-Canton Railway
(Restricted Area) Notice 1989.......................................... 214/89
Road Traffic (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance 1988
Road Traffic (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance 1988
(Commencement) Notice 1989......................................... 215/89
Road Traffic (Parking on Private Roads)
Regulations 1989
Road Traffic (Parking on Private Roads)
Regulations 1989 (Commencement)
Notice
1989.................................................................... 216/89
Road Traffic (Parking on Private Roads)
(Amendment) Regulations 1989
Road Traffic (Parking on Private Roads)
(Amendment) Regulations 1989
(Commencement) Notice 1989.......................................... 217/89
Road Traffic (Traffic Control)
(Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 1989
Road Traffic (Traffic Control)
(Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 1989
(Commencement) Notice 1989..........................................
218/89
Ferry Services Ordinance
Ferry Services (The "Star" Ferry Company, Limited)
(Determination of Fares) (Amendment)
Order
1989.................................................................... 219/89
Sessional Papers 1988-89
No. 77 -- Report of changes to the approved Estimates of Expenditure approved during the final quarter of 1988-89 Public Finance
Ordinance: Section 8
No. 78 -- Clothing Industry Training Authority
Annual Report for the Year 1988
No. 79 -- Construction Industry Training Authority
Annual Report 1988
Address by Member
Report of changes to the approved Estimates of Expenditure approved during the final quarter of 1988-89
Public Finance Ordinance: Section 8
FINANCIAL SECRETARY: Sir, in accordance with section 8(8)(b) of the Public Finance Ordinance, I now table for Members' information a summary of all changes made to the approved estimates of expenditure for the final quarter of the financial year 1988-89.
Supplementary provision of $2,731.7 million was approved. It was fully offset either by savings under the same head or other heads of expenditure or by deletion of funds under the Additional Commitments subheads. This included supplementary provision of $2,135.9 million for the 1988 Pay Adjustment and the revised salary
scales for disciplined services in respect of the Civil Service and government subvented organizations.
Approved non-recurrent commitments were increased by $35.4 million during the period, and new non-recurrent commitments of $513.7 million were also approved.
In the same period, a net increase of 1 189 posts was approved.
Items in the summary have been approved either by Finance Committee or under delegated authority. The latter have been reported to the Finance Committee in accordance with section 8(8)(a) of the Public Finance Ordinance.
Written answers to questions
Investigation of corrupt officers in the police force
1. MRS. TU asked: Given that continued public confidence in the integrity of the police force depends in part upon public acceptance that the corruption of earlier decades has now been effectively eradicated, will the Government inform this Council how members of the public can satisfy themselves that past cases which were not
publicly dealt with in the courts were satisfactorily investigated and that identified corrupt police officers were removed from the force?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, the short answer is that there are established and well used channels to the police, Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), OMELCO and Central Government for reporting information, making complaints or obtaining advice or clarification about specific matters.
But I should also like to make a number of points more fully by way of explanation and background information: first, only a court can determine whether a police officer accused of corruption is guilty of the offence. In this sense no police officer may be identified as corrupt without going through the due process of law. However, alleged corruption cases which have been investigated may not come to court for several reasons. Sometimes, after investigation, an allegation is found to be unsubstantiated, so no further action is taken. Occasionally, an investigation may lead to suspicion that corruption is involved, but there is insufficient evidence
to enable the Attorney General to authorize a prosecution. In these circumstances, action may, however, be taken under Colonial Regulation 59 to require persons to retire in the public interest on the grounds of strong suspicion of corruption. Since 1975 some 20 police officers have been compulsorily retired in this way.
In some cases, an investigation does not uncover evidence of corruption, but reveals evidence of other types of malpractice. These cases are referred by the ICAC Operations Review Committee to the Commissioner of Police for further investigation and consideration of disciplinary proceedings. Action taken by the commissioner in relation to such cases ranges from warnings and formal disciplinary proceedings, to dismissal and compulsory retirement. Some 330 cases were referred to the commissioner over the last five years, involving 630 officers, and disciplinary action was taken in respect of 476 officers.
Secondly, a very thorough system has been established to investigate allegations of corruption and to review cases where it is recommended that investigations should not proceed. This system is something from which the public can derive considerable assurance. The ICAC is obliged by law to investigate all reports it receives of alleged corruption provided that the reports contain enough basic information to enable an investigation to be started. Moreover, even in those cases in which a
decision is made not to proceed further with the investigation, the commission still reports to its Operations Review Committee. This committee includes members from outside the Government, and it advises on what further action may be necessary.
Thirdly, the efforts of the ICAC, and of the police, have been effective in reducing the problem of corruption. The number of complaints to the ICAC directed against the police has declined from 1 443 in 1974, that is 45% of the total complaints received, to 702 in 1984, 30% of total complaints, and down to 441 complaints, or 20% of the total, in 1988.
This downward trend is continuing. Up to the end of May this year corruption complaints involving police officers were 11% lower than in the same period last year. In contrast to the reduction in the number of complaints is the increasing proportion of complainants who are prepared to identify themselves. This is of great help to the ICAC in carrying out investigations and is a sign of increased public confidence in the system. In short, the system which has been developed to deal with corruption is working well and public confidence in the system is high.
Finally, Sir, I should like to observe that no one is more aware of the need to deal with the threat of corruption to the police force than the commissioner and his staff. They have co-operated fully with the ICAC and have also worked hard on their own account over the years to help eradicate and prevent corruption in the force. The commissioner and his staff deserve the support and encouragement of the community for what they have done and, are doing, to ensure that the Royal Hong Kong Police remains an effective and highly professional force which can be trusted to serve the community well.
Remedial training for maladjusted children
2. DR. IP asked: Will Government consider providing additional staff to schools with a high percentage of maladjusted children so as to provide adequate remedial training and counselling to these children?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, I assume Dr. IP is asking about children in ordinary schools who have emotional, behavioural and learning difficulties, rather than those with specific physical and mental disabilities for whom special education may be provided.
Cases of mild maladjustment are usually dealt with by the class teacher with support where necessary from the school-based student guidance officer in the case of primary schools, and from the school's guidance team in secondary schools. In 1982 the staffing ratio in primary schools was improved to allow remedial teaching, and a senior teacher post was provided with responsibilities for counselling and guidance. Since 1986, five additional teachers have been provided to every standard government and aided secondary school to strengthen pastoral services and to enable more remedial teaching. Where a problem cannot be dealt with within the school, it can be referred to professional social workers, educational counsellors or educational
psychologists.
Severe maladjustment can impair learning, so that intensive remedial teaching is required in addition to counselling. Any government or aided school having at least eight children with learning difficulties is provided with additional staff to undertake intensive remedial teaching in small groups. Up to two additional
teachers may be provided for this purpose in any primary school and up to three in
any secondary school. Government and aided schools having fewer than eight such children and private schools may refer these children to teaching centres operated by the Education Department.
Sir, it is clear that considerable resources have been provided to tackle maladjustment and learning difficulties among our students. Although we have no immediate plans for providing more resources in this area, the Education Commission is now studying behavioural and curricular problems, and I expect that recommendations relevant to this question will be made in the commission's next report.
Space for green plants in urban redevelopments
3. MRS. LAM asked: Will Government inform this Council whether consideration will be given to stipulating that when old buildings in urban areas are redeveloped the designs for the new buildings shall reserve on the sites concerned space for green plants?
SECRETARY FOR LANDS AND WORKS: Sir, I too strongly favour more plants and trees; and we will certainly look for opportunities to have more of these included in redevelopment schemes. This should be possible in larger schemes, such as the Comprehensive Development Schemes done by the Land Development Corporation and others. But trees and plants do not normally pay financial dividends, and it is seldom practicable to insist that people redeveloping single sites should reserve space for plants and trees, because there are frequently no planning or other powers.
Vietnamese boat people at Tai A Chau
4. MR. LAM asked: Will Government inform this Council whether it is aware that mariculture at Tai A Chau has been affected by the recent increase in water traffic in the area as a result of the Government's decision to accommodate Vietnamese boat people on the island, and whether consideration will be given to accommodating the Vietnamese boat people elsewhere in future to avoid affecting the livelihood of the local people?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, the Government is aware that mariculture at Tai A Chau has been affected by the recent increase in water traffic in the area. The Agriculture and Fisheries Department has been examining both the water quality and also the fish being cultured in the Tai A Chau fish culture zone. Preliminary results show the occasional presence of oil slicks on the surface and an increased turbidity of water caused by increased marine traffic in the vicinity of the zone. Fish reared in captivity were found to show signs of abnormal stress such as a high incidence of infection caused by external parasites.
Vietnamese boat people are held on Tai A Chau solely because of the serious accommodation crisis caused by the massive influx of boat people into Hong Kong this summer. The situation at Tai A Chau is far from ideal and alternatives are being considered. Although over 4 000 boat people have already been moved from the island, and there are plans to move another 2 000 - 3 000 in the near future, the continuing influx from Vietnam unfortunately makes it likely that the island will have to continue to be used in the forseeable future.
Meanwhile, action will be taken as far as possible to minimize the effects on the livelihood of the local people. The Hong Kong Fishermen's Association have written to the Director of Agriculture and Fisheries on the loss of fish at the Tai A Chau fish culture zone and the department is investigating their complaints. On completion of these investigations, action will be taken to improve the situation and to resolve the difficulties faced by the fishermen.
Motions
COMPANIES ORDINANCE
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY moved the following motion:
"That the Companies (Fees and Percentages) (Amendment) Order 1989, made by the Chief Justice on 6th June 1989, be approved."
He said: Sir, I move the first motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Companies (Fees and Percentages) (Amendment) Order 1989, which was made by the Chief Justice on 6 June 1989, increases various fees payable in relation to winding
up proceedings under the Companies Ordinance to take account of the increase in cost of the services provided since the fees were last revised.
The order also prescribes a new fee in respect of applications for release made by a liquidator to accord with a similar provision in the Bankruptcy (Fees and Percentages) Order.
Sir, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
BANKRUPTCY ORDINANCE
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY moved the following motion:
"That the Bankruptcy (Fees and Percentages) (Amendment) Order 1989, made by the Chief Justice on 6th June 1989, be approved."
He said: Sir, I move the second motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Bankruptcy (Fees and Percentages) (Amendment) Order 1989, which was made by the Chief Justice on 6 June 1989, increases various fees payable in respect of proceedings in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Ordinance to take account of the increase in cost since the fees were last revised.
The order also prescribes a new fee payable for insertion in the gazette of a notice relating to bankruptcy to accord with a similar provision in the Companies (Fees and Percentages) Order.
Sir, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
First Reading of Bills
COMPANIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1989
HONG KONG INDUSTRIAL ESTATES CORPORATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1989 PROTECTION OF INVESTORS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1989
SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (1988-89) BILL 1989
CHARITABLE TRUST FUNDS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1989
LI PO CHUN CHARITABLE TRUST FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1989
Bills read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 41(3).
Second Reading of Bills
COMPANIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1989
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Companies Ordinance."
He said: Sir, I move that the Companies (Amendment) Bill 1989 be read the Second time.
The main purpose of the Bill is to increase existing fees collected by the Companies Registry of the Registrar General's Department and to introduce new fees in order to recover the full cost incurred by the Companies Registry in carrying out statutory responsibilities under the Companies Ordinance.
The opportunity is also taken to streamline the arrangements for setting fees relating to company matters. One of the arrangements is to permit fee setting by a global costing approach. Fees will still be cost-related but on a broader basis. Instead of a separate costing exercise for each individual fee, which is neither practical nor economical, services charged by the Companies Registry will be grouped into one cost centre. The aggregate value of these fees will approximately cover the total cost of this cost centre.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be now adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
HONG KONG INDUSTRIAL ESTATES CORPORATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1989
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Hong Kong Industrial Estates Corporation Ordinance."
He said: Sir, I move that the Hong Kong Industrial Estates Corporation (Amendment) Bill 1989 be read the Second time.
The Hong Kong Industrial Estates Corporation was established by statute in 1977. Section 7 of the Ordinance provides for the appointment of a chairman, a chief executive and seven members to the board of the corporation. Not more than four of the seven members should be public officers. At present, the seven members comprise three public officers and four others.
Since 1985, the Director of Industry has been the chief executive. As a result of a recent review of the management structure of the corporation, it has been decided that the general manager of the corporation should take up the role of chief executive, and that the Director of Industry should cease to be the chief executive from 1 July 1989. However, it is considered essential that the director should continue to serve on the board in order to provide input to the work of the corporation. It is also considered the board would benefit from the addition of a further member.
In order to allow the board to appoint the Director of Industry as a member and also to appoint another member from outside the Civil Service, it is proposed the number of members should be increased from seven to nine, excluding the chairman and the chief executive. In addition, the Bill also proposes some minor changes to the Ordinance in order to simplify the administrative procedures in carrying out selected functions of the corporation.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
PROTECTION OF INVESTORS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1989
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Protection of Investors Ordinance."
He said: Sir, I move that the Protection of Investors (Amendment) Bill 1989 be read the Second time.
The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Protection of Investors Ordinance to streamline the procedures regarding advertisements in respect of certificates of deposit (CD) and commercial paper (CP) issues.
CD and CP issues fall within the definition of investment arrangements under the Protection of Investors Ordinance, the main purpose of which is to provide a measure of protection to ordinary investors in securities and other property by requiring the adequate disclosure of relevant information. As the law now stands,
advertisements in respect of capital market issues must be authorized by the Securities and Futures Commission before such issues can be marketed in Hong Kong. In recent years, there has been a substantial increase in the number of advertisements requiring authorization. This has created considerable work for the commission and has led to some delays in authorization.
We consider that there is some scope for simplifying the present procedures without compromising the protection of ordinary investors. To this end, we propose that, in addition to the exceptions specified in section 4(2) of the Ordinance, advertisements relating to CD and CP issues should be exempted automatically from authorization, provided that certain minimum denomination and capitalization tests are met. It would be a requirement that all exempt issues are reported to the commission on a post facto basis. Advertisements in respect of issues that do not qualify for such exemption will continue to require authorization from the commission in the normal way.
Clause 3(1) of the Bill exempts advertisements in respect of three main classes of capital market instrument. First, CD issues by banks and deposit-taking companies licensed or registered under the Banking Ordinance will be exempted as they are already subject to prudential supervision by the Commissioner of Banking. Such CDs are generally in a standard form and readily recognized by investors. This exemption will not affect the present restrictions on the taking of deposits by licensed or registered deposit-taking companies under the relevant provisions of the Banking Ordinance.
Secondly, CD issues by overseas banks not licensed in Hong Kong and by specified multilateral agencies (for example, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank) will be exempted subject to a minimum denomination of HK$1 million or equivalent and, in the case of overseas banks, to their being adequately supervised, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Banking, in their place of incorporation or principal place of business.
Thirdly, CP issues by specified bodies (including major public listed companies, government and public sector bodies, authorized institutions under the Banking Ordinance and multilateral agencies) will also be exempted provided that there is a minimum denomination of HK$1 million or equivalent and that, in the case of a corporation with a share capital, the issuer or parent company guaranteeing the issue has a minimum paid-up share capital of HK$75 million or equivalent.
The proposed minimum denomination of HK$1 million or equivalent is intended to keep these last two classes of instrument out of the hands of ordinary investors. These instruments are for the most part designed for, and traded in, the wholesale markets and this is, I believe, a necessary safeguard if we are to ensure adequate investor protection. Where in particular cases a smaller denomination is considered appropriate it will always be open to the issuer to approach the commission to seek express authorization of an advertisement to this effect.
Clause 4 of the Bill sets out the reporting requirements. All exempt issues will need to be reported to the commission within 10 working days of the date of issue. This is to enable the commission to monitor the development of the market. Failure to report an issue will be an offence.
The opportunity is also being taken to remove an anomaly in the Ordinance. Clause 3(4) of the Bill makes it clear that the exemption presently available to professional persons to market "securities" does not extend to any unit in unit trust or shares in mutual funds that have not been authorized by the commission under the Securities Ordinance.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be now adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (1988-89) BILL 1989
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to approve a supplementary appropriation to the service of the financial year which ended on 31 March 1989."
He said: Sir, I move that the Supplementary Appropriation (1988-89) Bill 1989 be read the Second time.
Section 9 of the Public Finance Ordinance states that "If at the close of account for any financial year it is found that expenditure charged to any head is in excess of the sum appropriated for that head by an Appropriation Ordinance, the excess shall be included in a Supplementary Appropriation Bill which shall be introduced into the Legislative Council as soon as practicable after the close of the financial year to which the excess expenditure relates".
The accounts for the financial year 1988-89 have been finalized by the Director of Accounting Services. Actual revenue amounted to $65,781 million and total expenditure amounted to $48,953 million. The final surplus is thus $16,828 million as compared with an estimated surplus of $16,630 million mentioned in the concluding speech in the Budget debate in May.
The expenditure charged to 46 heads is in excess of the sum appropriated for those heads by the Appropriation Ordinance 1988. This is because sufficient offsetting savings could not be found within the heads concerned. In accordance with section 9 of the Public Finance Ordinance, this excess has been included in the Supplementary Appropriation (1988-89) Bill 1989 now before Members. The Bill seeks to give final legislative authority for the amount of supplementary provision approved in respect of particular heads of expenditure by the Finance Committee or under powers delegated by it.
The total net supplementary appropriation required in respect of the 46 heads of expenditure is $4,255.1 million. This excess is largely accounted for by the 1988 Pay Adjustment and the revised salary scales for the disciplined services in respect of the Civil Service in the amount of $1,547.8 million and government subvented
organizations in the amount of $588.1 million. Other major contributing factors include the payment of the Hong Kong Government's cash contribution towards the cost
of the garrison in 1988-89 in the amount of $1,407.0 million, the Value Added Tax and Salaries Tax on Allowances incurred under the 1981 Defence Costs Agreement in the amount of $266.0 million and the expenses in implementing the new Student Travel Scheme in the amount of $247.2 million.
The cost of the 1988 Pay Adjustment and the cash contribution under the Defence Costs Agreement had been anticipated and provision made in the 1988-89 estimates under the "Additional Commitments" subhead.
Savings were also made in other subheads through continued tight control over public expenditure, and I would like to thank the controlling officers and others who have contributed to restraint.
Because of these savings and the provision made for additional commitments, total expenditure for the year is within the sum appropriated in the Appropriation Ordinance 1988.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
CHARITABLE TRUST FUNDS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1989
THE SECRETARY FOR DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend certain Ordinances creating charitable trust funds."
He said: Sir, I move that the Charitable Trust Funds (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1989 be read the Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to make minor amendments to the Sir Robert Black Trust Fund Ordinance, Li Po Chun Charitable Trust Fund Ordinance, Sir Murray MacLehose Trust Fund Ordinance and Sir Edward Youde Memorial Fund Ordinance in order to improve the investment operations of the respective funds.
The first three funds were established in 1961, 1963 and 1982 for educational and leadership development purposes, for the relief of distress and for the benefit of the people of Hong Kong as directed by the Governor respectively.
The Sir Edward Youde Memorial Fund was established in 1987 for the general purpose of providing for and encouraging the education or learning of, or research by, the people of Hong Kong.
Items 1 and 2 of the schedule to the Bill amend the Sir Robert Black Trust Fund Ordinance and the Li Po Chun Charitable Trust Fund Ordinance by removing the requirement for the Financial Secretary to approve investments which are not authorized by the Trustee Ordinance (Cap. 29). This amendment enables investment decisions to be made quickly in changing market conditions, when investments which are not trust investments are to be made.
Item 3 amends the Sir Murray MacLehose Trust Fund Ordinance by removing the limitation on investments in Hong Kong. This amendment gives the fund the flexibility to make investments overseas, if and when this becomes appropriate, in order to optimize the return on investments. The amendment also brings the Ordinance in line with other Ordinances governing the operation of trust funds.
Item 3 also amends the Sir Murray MacLehose Trust Fund Ordinance by specifying the trustee's power to appoint a professional person or financial institution to manage the investment of the moneys of the fund subject to the directions to the trustee, rather than a broad power for the person or institution to administer and manage the fund.
Item 4 amends the Sir Edward Youde Memorial Fund Ordinance by empowering the board of trustees to appoint a professional person or financial institution to manage the investments of the moneys of the fund subject to the directions of the board. This amendment provides more flexibility to the investment operations of the fund and is in its interest.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
LI PO CHUN CHARITABLE TRUST FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1989
THE SECRETARY FOR DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to
amend the Li Po Chun Charitable Trust Fund Ordinance."
He said: Sir, I move that the Li Po Chun Charitable Trust Fund (Amendment) Bill 1989 be read the Second time.
The Li Po Chun Charitable Trust Fund was established in 1963 with donations by the late Mr. LI Po-chun. The fund is administered by the Li Po Chun Charitable Trust Fund Committee established under the Ordinance, on which the LI family is represented. The committee has recently reviewed the operation of the fund and recommended that a number of amendments to the Ordinance would be desirable in order to enable the fund to operate more flexibly to better meet the needs of the Hong Kong community. The Administration supports the recommendations of the committee, which are
incorporated into the Bill.
The existing Ordinance requires the income of the fund to be applied generally on a fifty-fifty basis between educational purposes and the relief of distress. The fund was established 25 years ago and social circumstances in Hong Kong have changed considerably since then. Operational experience has shown that the Ordinance is becoming unnecessarily rigid with regard to the application of the income of the fund. Clause 2 of the Bill therefore amends this provision by allowing the committee to apply the income of the fund flexibly between educational purposes and relief of distress. The committee will however be mindful of the need to give balanced
consideration to both purposes.
Clause 2 also amends the Ordinance by enabling the committee to apply the capital of the fund for such educational purposes as it may decide, including the establishment of educational institutions in Hong Kong. Under the existing Ordinance there is no provision for applying the capital of the fund. Since its establishment in 1963 with a capital of about $2 million, the fund has grown very substantially and now has a capital asset of over $170 million. Its annual income has also exceeded the amount actually requested for educational purposes and the relief of distress. This amendment therefore expands the scope of operation of the fund.
The amendment in clause 3 is consequential upon the amendment in clause 2. Clause 4 amends paragraphs 3 and 4 of the schedule to the Ordinance. This
amendment to paragraph 3 enables the committee to award scholarships to students of secondary schools, rather than Chinese middle schools only, as selected by the Director of Education. The amendment to paragraph 4 enables the committee to apply any unused balance of income after making provisions for the scholarships specified in the schedule to such other educational purposes, rather than for scholarships alone, as the committee may decide.
The fund will continue to be able to preserve its original objects and the benefits it offers to the people of Hong Kong after the amendments proposed in the Bill.
Sir, I move that the debate on this motion be adjourned.
Question on the adjournment proposed, put and agreed to.
CONSUMER COUNCIL (AMENDMENT) BILL 1989
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 21 June 1989 Question on Second Reading proposed.
MR. MARTIN LEE: Sir, in recent years, the scope of the work of the Consumer Council has grown in both dimension and complexity. But I was not aware of this when I agreed to take over the chair from the Honourable Mrs. Selina CHOW. To cope with this continuous growth of activities, the council had to establish a total of 12 committees and working groups last year. This number has now been increased to 15 as of March this year. For this reason, and without it being necessary to increase the maximum number of members of the Consumer Council from 15 to 20, we have accordingly requested
amendment to the Consumer Council Ordinance to this effect with a consequential amendment on the quorum.
I am most grateful to the Secretary for Trade and Industry, Mr. John CHAN, for his prompt support of our proposal and I support this Bill.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to. Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
DUTIABLE COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1989
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 21 June 1989 Question on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to. Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1989
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 31 May 1989
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to. Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
Committee stage of Bills
Council went into committee.
CONSUMER COUNCIL (AMENDMENT) BILL 1989
Clauses 1 to 3 were agreed to.
DUTIABLE COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1989
Clauses 1 to 11 were agreed to.
IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1989
Clause 1
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Sir, I move that clause 1 be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
This simple amendment is necessary because another Bill, the Immigration (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 1989, which had been introduced into this Council on the same day as the present piece of legislation on 31 May, but completed all its stages in the one sitting and was passed by the Council on that day, became the Immigration (Amendment) Ordinance 1989. The numbering of this present piece of legislation,
therefore, needs to be changed after enactment, so that it will be entitled Immigration (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance 1989.
Proposed amendment
Clause 1
That Clause 1 be amended, by inserting "(No. 2)" after "(Amendment)". Question on amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clause 1, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 6 were agreed to.
Council then resumed.
Third Reading of Bills
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL reported that the
CONSUMER COUNCIL (AMENDMENT) BILL 1989
DUTIABLE COMMODITIES (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1989
had passed through Committee without amendment, and
IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1989
had passed through Committee with an amendment. He moved the Third Reading of the Bills.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bills proposed, put and agreed to. Bills read the Third time and passed.
Member's motion
FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT ON HONG KONG
MR. ALLEN LEE moved the following motion:
"That this Council takes note of the Foreign Affairs Committee Report on Hong Kong and urges strongly that the British Government should urgently take adequate and appropriate measures to ensure a safe and secure future for the people of Hong Kong, including the restoration of full British citizenship to British subjects in Hong Kong."
MR. ALLEN LEE: Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The non-government Members of this Council decided that we should hold a debate upon the release of the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) report. It was released on 30 June 1989. In view of the importance of the report, we are taking the first opportunity to address the issues raised in the report. The report has examined a number of key areas of concern to Hong Kong: the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration; the Basic Law; the development of representative government; nationality and Vietnamese boat people. This afternoon, my colleagues will be expressing their views on all these areas, starting off with the nationality issue.
On nationality, I find the premise of the recommendations of the FAC report
unacceptable. Whilst the FAC recognized Britain's unique obligation to Hong Kong, it has failed to translate that obligation into responsible action in one very important area. That is the right of abode in Britain for British subjects in Hong Kong and the undeniable responsibilities of the sovereign state towards its subjects.
The FAC report has, in my view, put forward a number of arguments which are fallacious. I would like to take this opportunity to briefly address these points:
The report suggests that the insurance policy concept is a confused argument
I disagree. I think the FAC's argument itself is contradictory. While the committee rejects the idea of providing an insurance policy to the people of Hong Kong, it sees fit, on the other hand and in almost the same breath, to offer some insurance policy to certain groups as an incentive for them to stay. Such a position is wholly illogical and indefensible.
The FAC report argues that Britain will find it very difficult to absorb 3.28 million Hong Kong BDTCs into her society
The scaremongering tactics adopted in rejecting the Hong Kong community's voice to restore the rights of the British subjects are appalling. We have already stressed time and again that the people of Hong Kong do not want to leave this territory. All we want is the provision of an escape route in case of need. I have in my last week's statement to this Council made it clear that this is our home and we want to stay. As far as the FAC is concerned, it seems to have either been totally ignored or fallen on deaf ears.
The report argues that granting full British citizenship to the British subjects in Hong Kong contradicts the Joint Declaration
I do not share this view. When the FAC visited Beijing, Chinese officials were reported to have mentioned to its members that the granting of British citizenship to the people of Hong Kong is entirely a matter for the British Government. In a related vein, we are interested to know why it is now possible for Portuguese passports to be given to Chinese residents in Macau. The FAC would find it difficult to suggest something similar to be done in Hong Kong? By the end of this century, Macau, like Hong Kong, will revert to Chinese sovereignty. And the different treatments afforded by the two sovereign states to their subjects will not be lost on the rest of the
world. Why cannot Britain, like Portugal, take the honourable course?
The FAC report recommends that some groups should merit special treatment
Whilst I would not deprive anyone in Hong Kong of the right to take up any offer which eventually might be made by the British Government, I must point out that the talk of making special arrangements for a small number of groups would not be in the interest of this community as a whole. Moreover, half-way proposals short of
granting full citizenship would only encourage people to leave rather than stay.
If the confidence crisis continues and people in Hong Kong are looking around the world for a home of last resort, the British Government should recognize the risk that this would certainly threaten the objective of maintaining and preserving the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. This would be a contravention of article 4 of the Sino-British Joint Declaration if Hong Kong cannot achieve prosperity and stability.
To conclude my comments on this very disappointing area of the FAC report, I would argue that the British Government open its eyes and ears, and listen to the voices in Hong Kong for what many consider is one of the most effective ways to restore confidence. You, Sir, have also conveyed a message with force and conviction, and we are grateful. It now remains to be seen whether the British Government will abide by her tradition of honour and do what is solely in her power to restore confidence in Hong Kong.
Now, I would like to touch briefly on some other areas of concern in the FAC report.
On the question of the Basic Law and the future political structure, I note that the committee appears to have come up with some constructive suggestions. However, my colleagues have not had the opportunity to discuss them in detail, but will be doing so in the coming weeks. I can only say that there is a swing in mood to a faster pace of democratization. I feel that the views of the people of Hong Kong are of paramount importance, and I urge the community to speak up.
I would like to comment on the question regarding the stationing of the People's Liberation Army in the future Special Administrative Region. I do share the view of the FAC that, given the tragic events in Beijing several weeks ago, the whole
question requires to be re-examined carefully. To allay the fears of the people of Hong Kong, I do think the Chinese Government should be bold enough to face up to the fact that it would not be boosting confidence if they insist on stationing the People's Liberation Army in Hong Kong after 1997.
Another important point I wish to make is that there is perception in our community that as far as the Basic Law is concerned, it has drifted from the spirit and the letter of the Joint Declaration in the last two years. The Chinese Government insists that the Basic Law is a matter for the Chinese Government and the people of Hong Kong, but the British Government has the right as a signatory of the Joint Declaration and the responsibility as the sovereign of Hong Kong. To get the Basic Law right, because all the provisions of the Joint Declaration must be totally enshrined in the Basic Law therefore the British Government must at the official level discuss with the Chinese Government on the Basic Law in the forum such as the Joint Liaison Group. Of course we all recognize the promulgation of the Basic Law is a matter for the Chinese Government.
On the question of human rights, I personally agree with the recommendation made by the committee. My colleagues have yet to discuss this aspect of the report, but we hope to be able to arrive at a more definite view in the near future.
Last but not the least, we are pleased to learn that the FAC supports our view that the Vietnamese boat people who are classified as non-refugees should be repatriated to Vietnam on a mandatory basis. With the influx of boat people at an alarming rate of 10 000 a month for the last two months, there is a great urgency in addressing this problem. We appreciate the British Government's apparent readiness in taking up the problem with the Vietnamese Government, and her contributions made towards the maintenance of the boat people in Hong Kong.
In conclusion, I have covered a range of subjects in the report. I spoke at length on nationality because I feel this is a crucial area. Where else at the present moment can we look to for a durable solution to our problem of an unprecedented scale? Our community is waiting to see what kind of action the British Government will take in the near future to boost the confidence of the Hong Kong people.
Sir, with the above remarks, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed.
MR. CHEONG: Sir, I would like to place it on record that most people in Hong Kong are extremely perplexed as well as disappointed with the whole Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) exercise. First of all, we were given to understand that the purpose of the select committee members' visit to Hong Kong was to listen and to probe. Yet, witness after witness were lectured patronizingly on issues such as nationality, British responsibility, as well as the pace of development of direct elections. Should there not really be the presence of an open mind amongst the members?
Secondly, in relation to the probing exercise on the smooth implementation or otherwise of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, one would have thought it necessary, right and responsible for the committee to require further evidence from all witnesses after what had happened in China on 4 June. Yet, no such opportunity was offered. Instead, an attempt was made to hurriedly advance the date of publication of a report which the chairman of the committee gleefully remarked "should serve as a constructive background for the Foreign Secretary's visit to Hong Kong". Constructive to whom, we may all ask?
Thirdly, fourthly, fifthly, so on and so forth. Sir, I could go on and on citing more points, but being considerate I would not waste honourable Members' time. Our sentiment can best be summarized by quoting from the following passages of a statement endorsed by the whole of OMELCO on the nationality aspects of the Foreign Affairs Committee report --
"The FAC's suggestion that the international community be mobilized in an Armageddon scenario betrays any desire by the FAC to understand, let alone accept, that there is a confidence crisis in Hong Kong now which clearly calls for immediate action. It fails to recognize Britain's constitutional responsibility for its subjects, now or in the future.
They rejected the insurance policy argument on the one hand, and on the other they readily offer it to certain sectors of Hong Kong as an incentive for them to stay. Such a position is wholly illogical and contradictory.
The height of insensitivity is the so-called show of British confidence in Hong Kong by rescuing us from the People's Liberation Army and replacing it with the future British Consulate in HMS Tamar.
This FAC report has discredited the time-honoured British tradition of duty and honour."
Sir, like it or not, Britain does have a colony called Hong Kong. She still has responsibility over the well-being of the place and all those who reside in it for another seven years and 360 days. There is a major confidence crisis now. As legislators we have a duty to try to help mitigate the adverse effect of this circumstance. However, it must be emphasized that what we have to deal with is the human dimension which changed so significantly for the worse in such a short period of time.
Our calls to Britain -- the sovereign state -- for urgent and effective actions were designed to help all concerned, so as to allow Hong Kong a good chance to remain stable and prosperous. They were made justifiably. Surely, Hong Kong British subjects are entitled to as much protection and governance as those who live in Gibraltar and the Falklands. Hong Kong, as a British colony, had paid our dues in the hours of need of Britain in her two world wars and the war with Argentina over the Falklands. In the interest of British honour and British foreign policy, we had to forgo, one time or another, our trading interest with various trading partners in the world like South Rhodesia, South Africa and Argentina. Where is Britain now in our critical hour of need?
Sir, our assessment that not many people in Hong Kong, even if they were all given the British insurance, would settle in the United Kingdom was made in good faith and was proven correct through published results of surveys conducted professionally. Why is it that Members of the same Parliament who willingly and readily granted full rights to the Gibraltarians and Falklanders should behave so strangely towards Hong Kong?
Finally, Sir, I want to make it clear to the people of Hong Kong that what we did should not be misrepresented as signs of weakness or even begging. We are only asking from the sovereign state what it should have been their duty and responsibility to give, no more and no less.
Sir, I support the motion.
MRS. CHOW: Sir, in the press conference where Mr. David HOWELL introduced the FAC report last Friday, he explained that the advance timing of its publication was to provide a constructive background to Sir Geoffrey HOWE's visit here.
As it turned out, the great minds thought so much alike one could hardly find any single point where they did not agree. In fact one can get easily confused as to who is explaining whose case, and which position is being fortified by which.
It is not in the least surprising that Sir Geoffrey remained so unmoved by the loud and united voice of Hong Kong, led and supported by that of yours, Sir, and our two Senior Members of OMELCO. He came armed with arguments, logical or not, fully aired in the report.
The FAC's obsession with the merits of the Joint Declaration as Britain's fulfilment of her unique obligation to Hong Kong conveniently paved the way for the Foreign Secretary's repeated insistence that the agreement is the best way that Britain could fulfil her responsibility to Hong Kong.
The denial of the right of abode to Hong Kong's holders of British passport was not unexpected, though highly unacceptable on moral grounds. Neither the FAC nor Sir Geoffrey HOWE should be under any illusion, nor should they create or broadcast it, that their stand to desert Britain's people under her care and protection is any more acceptable now than it has been, despite their efforts to justify it. Where the FAC failed to match up to Sir Geoffrey was the honesty and straightforwardness with which the latter dealt with the subject. The committee's criticism of "the insurance policy" concept presented by OMELCO was itself confused and illogical. On the one hand it queried the appropriateness of the metaphor, but on the other advocated it for some sectors of the community. By recommending passports for civil servants and key personnel so as to encourage them to stay, the committee has in fact lent weight to the value of the passports as a form of insurance policy.
Another coincidence is the FAC's call for the British Government to solicit help from the international community in providing refuge to our people in the case of an Armageddon scenario. The committee would have to be quite uninformed to be recommending action which the government has already undertaken. In any case, all efforts should be directed towards the prevention of an Armageddon scenario, not the preparation for its aftermath. It is Britain's duty to see to it that there will be no Armageddon scenario. We do not fancy the prospect of becoming refugees. That
is why we need the confidence booster now so as to ensure this cataclysmic happening will not come about.
But what I regard the major let-down of the report, and I suppose I can likewise be critical of Sir Geoffrey's visit, is an unwavering determination to ignore the single most urgent problem that our people are facing. It is simply one of fear -- fear of a Tiananmen scenario in Hong Kong, fear of a regime which would go to any length to maintain its supremacy, fear of the loss of freedom to our children, fear of the breakdown of the value systems that we have taken for granted, and so the list goes on.
"The disease of the heart can only be cured by the medicine for the heart."
That medicine badly needed now for the Hong Kong heart is the feeling of being free to stay or go. Once that freedom is affirmed, many will stay.
Whoever understands and acts on this understanding is a true friend of Hong Kong. Let us untangle ourselves from the meaningless arguments surrounding the insurance policy concept. It really does not matter what one calls it -- life-boat, emergency exit, escape route -- we must feel it exists, it is there, it is real. Without it, Hong Kong will lose its will to fight on. With it, Hong Kong will go on from strength to strength to create more records and miracles.
We are all part of Hong Kong, and proud of it. For us, nothing is impossible. We are the experts on Hong Kong, and we are the experts on China. We know what inclusions Britain must secure in the Basic Law in order that the "one country, two systems" concept can be realized. We also know the pace of democracy best suited for Hong Kong. We have achieved consensus before and we will do so again. All these will give true meaning to the Joint Declaration but all these are only achievable if our people do not lose heart!
Britain can choose the easy way out by following the FAC line on nationality and run the risk of losing the respect of Hong Kong and the world.
Or Britain can choose the honourable way out, face the most immediate problem of confidence in Hong Kong squarely, and prove her mettle as the responsible sovereign and world power who is prepared to rescue Hong Kong from the pit of its own despair. History until now may offer itself as an attractive excuse for the British Government
to wash her hands off Hong Kong, but the irresponsibility of that action will go down in history as a great disservice not only to the people of Hong Kong but also to the people of Britain.
DR. IP: Sir, as Legislative Council Members in Hong Kong, we do not have the opportunity to voice our feelings on behalf of the people of Hong Kong in the United Kingdom Parliament which, ironically speaking, determines our fate. This I would like to do so much that, Sir, I hope you will excuse me if I were to direct the rest of my speech to the United Kingdom Government as if I were at Westminster. Any reference I will make to "you" is not, Sir, directed to you personally, but to them.
Hong Kong is an island ceded to the British Government. Here we were born and live under British rule on British land. You have, by a stroke of the pen in 1984, given our land away. It is therefore your responsibility and our right to ask that you should give us back a place of abode so that we can continue to live under British rule on British land if we so wish.
You have, by the Joint Declaration to which we were not a party, destined all of us to live in Hong Kong under communist rule on communist land after 1997. Because of our love of Hong Kong, the only place we know of as home, some had believed, and more wanted to believe, that the Joint Declaration may work. And for a while some were convinced, but most wanted more assurances before they would accept this as an alternative. But after the June massacre in China, even those who were convinced have clearly changed their minds. And I truly believe that I represent most of all those who live here to firmly request and demand you now to give us back that right to continue to live under British rule on a British land. And if Hong Kong is no longer to exist under British rule after 1997, you have to grant us the right to full British citizenship so that we can, if we so wish, live in the United Kingdom, our Motherland. If you still have any confidence in the Joint Declaration, you ought to have no fear that we will take up this right. In fact, your resistance to granting us full citizenship and the right of abode in the United Kingdom reflects your doubt about the Joint Declaration. Yet the more you lack confidence in it, the stronger is the reason why you should grant us full citizenship to protect us from communist rule. Your granting us full citizenship will in essence not only give us the right to live in the United Kingdom but will open up our access to the whole of the Common Market countries, all Commonwealth countries including Australia and Canada, and the United States. It will be a route to freedom and safety if life in Hong Kong is no
longer tolerable under the communist regime.
The Foreign Affairs Committee report recommends "that the British Government should take the lead at the earliest opportunity in establishing the definite guarantees which could be put into place in the years ahead." I say to you that the right of abode in the United Kingdom is the best and the only definitive guarantee. I say to you also that the "earliest opportunity" is now before everyone leaves Hong Kong to secure a home of last resort elsewhere. If you will take the first step, and you should as it is your moral obligation to do so, in establishing this guarantee, then no doubt your "EC partners and immigrant receiving countries such as Australia, Canada and United States" may share your responsibility. With your failure to give us such a guarantee, reluctant as I may, I must advise the people of Hong Kong, and urgently now, each to seek for themselves a home of last resort even if they have to leave to do so. I do so because, as a legislator, my duty is with the people first and the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong second, although the two are so interdependent on each other.
I know my people; they want freedom and democracy, even more so than the students in Beijing. Having experienced it under British rule, they would not be prepared to give this up. If such is rejected, the consequences of confrontation with the Beijing Government after 1997 would be unimaginable. From what has happened in China, she has certainly not kept to her promise to maintain stability and prosperity of Hong Kong running up to 1997. We therefore have to turn to you, and rightly so, as you are our sovereign and the other signatory to the Joint Declaration. If you do not grant full citizenship to the people of Hong Kong and all of us flock to the four corners of the world, not only are you not contributing to maintaining the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong, but you are literally destroying it. Who else then can we turn to?
I will end with this request and that is: grant us now the guarantee of a home of last resort and we will stay. This is the only way to restore confidence and to maintain the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. This will give the only chance for the Joint Declaration to work for the benefit of all of us.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion before Council.
MR. CHAN (in Cantonese): Sir, following the June 4 incident at Tiananmen Square, Hong Kong people have been repeatedly warned by the Chinese authorities. Moreover, there
was also that "somebody" in Britain who also attempted to intimidate the Hong Kong community with threats. That is why after learning about the recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the people of Hong Kong have great reservations about the sense of justice and integrity of those Members of Parliament. On the other hand, they are afraid of the brutal regime in China which massacred its people. As a result, Hong Kong people are now standing at the crossroads.
In order to save themselves, the middle-class citizens who can afford to emigrate choose to leave the territory, joining the long queues of would-be applicants in front of foreign consulates. I think that as more and more people leave Hong Kong, those who are left behind will feel all the more frightened.
As for the majority who cannot afford to emigrate, they have conceived some very imaginative ideas to save themselves, such as appealing to the rich people to buy a piece of land outside Hong Kong as a place of resettlement for them, or urging the Government to scrap development projects such as the construction of a new airport and use the money thus saved for building a new Hong Kong elsewhere. Other suggest that we should lease Hong Kong from China and put it under the mandate of the United Nations, or that Britain should negotiate with China for an extension of her rule over Hong Kong.
I believe these people know very well that their suggestions are hardly practicable, but they put forward their views all the same, reflecting that the public are in a state of panic in regard to their future. It also brings home to us that
the solution we are seeking should be a guarantee for all. I must stress that if we are given anything, it must be given to all; we cannot accept the recommendation of the FAC that the right of abode be given selectively to a certain number of Hong Kong people, as this solution will only divide the Hong Kong community.
Britain must restore the right of abode in the United Kingdom for Hong Kong British subjects in the first place, and then commits herself to seeking "escape routes" for the remaining non-British Hong Kong people. I firmly believe that only in this way can we achieve the ultimate aim of persuading all Hong Kong people to stay here to work and live. This is the only viable option, and it is within the ability of the British Government. It will be too late to seek international assistance after Hong Kong people have become refugees, as suggested by some British Members of
Parliament. I therefore strongly support the motion moved by the Honourable Allen LEE.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR. CHUNG (in Cantonese): Sir, subsequent to the release of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on 30 June 1989, the Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey HOWE, paid a special visit to Hong Kong on 2 July 1989. In this prevailing situation of anxiety, I feel that the British Government and Parliament have shown their extent of concern out of a sense of morality and responsibility. Needless to say, any sudden unfavourable changes in Hong Kong would affect the prestige and interests of the United Kingdom.
The Foreign Affairs Committee report concedes that United Kingdom's obligation to Hong Kong has particular importance. However, it considers that the British Government has fulfilled its obligation to meet the request of the people of Hong Kong by entering into the Joint Declaration with China. Therefore, the report devotes much of its attention to the implementation of the Joint Declaration. It is important to note that the report believes there is a need for China to give stronger guarantees and formulate the provisions of the Basic Law to reflect faithfully the Sino-British agreement so as to re-establish the confidence of Hong Kong and the rest of the world in the continued stability and prosperity of the territory. This observation of the report does strike home the root of the existing problem in Hong Kong. As I have pointed out in the Legislative Council debate on 31 May 1989, faced with political earthquakes in China, we should first of all take precautionary measures to strengthen the provisions regarding the safeguards for human rights and the high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong in the Basic Law.
The question is, on matters concerning the responsibility of the British Government, the report apparently plays down the demand of the Hong Kong people for the right of abode in the United Kingdom arising from the events in Beijing. In this regard, the report believes what the British Government can do is to provide two "systems of assurances". First, the report recommends that the British Government should consult at the earliest opportunity the European Economic Community and other countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia in establishing guarantees that the people of Hong Kong will be accommodated on a broad basis in these countries as refugees if it proves to be necessary in the years ahead. The second system of assurance is to exempt certain categories of Hong Kong people from British immigration controls. These people include "key people in the Hong Kong civil service, the police
or in any area of public life". They have the chance to settle in the United Kingdom.
Sir, the problem is pretty obvious now. On the question of the right of abode in the United Kingdom for British subjects in Hong Kong, since the British Government has accepted that she will take in certain categories of Hong Kong residents, it is only indicative that she has the obligation to offer this right to all the citizens in Hong Kong. And it will be unfair, unrighteous, dishonourable and undesirable for the British Government to arbitrarily accord discriminatory treatment among the
people of Hong Kong.
If Britain can go so far as to deprive Hong Kong people of their constitutional entitlement to the right of abode in the United Kingdom, how can she bring herself to solicit international assistance for us? Although we hope that in times of difficulties we will be able to obtain support from friendly countries, we would not like to see this being used by the British Government as an excuse to evade the rightful claims of the Hong Kong people to the right of abode in Britain.
According to the report, should Hong Kong become an intolerable place to live in, the countries concerned will offer asylum to millions of "Hong Kong refugees" on the basis of the established guarantees. What it refers to is apparently the situation after 1997. However, judging from the situation of the Vietnamese refugees or boat people arriving in Hong Kong, where have all these "international guarantees" gone?
Having said this, it should be admitted that the United Kingdom has never before adopted such positive attitude in expressing their concern towards the future well-being of the Hong Kong people. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey HOWE, stated that "the Sino-British Joint Declaration is the foundation for the future stability and prosperity of Hong Kong." But under the present circumstances, what sort of assurance has been provided to this "future"? Most probably, the Foreign Secretary himself would not even venture to "accept this insurance liability". Actually, the problem in question only reveals the fact that it is essential within the responsibilities of the British Government to understand and give further consideration to the background and the state of mind of the Hong Kong people in their demand for the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
It has been stated in the FAC report that with the enactment of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act in 1962, the right of settlement in the United Kingdom by Hong Kong
BDTCs was removed. In my view, this piece of legislation is fundamentally wrong because it had entirely deprived the British subjects in Hong Kong of their fundamental rights previously enjoyed, and is completely contradictory to the traditional spirit of the rule of law and the legal principles of Britain.
We must make it very clear that the legal and humanitarian obligation of the British Government to restore the right of abode to the people of Hong Kong and the faithful implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration together with the provision of absolute assurances are two separate issues which pertain to different kinds of obligation. It is imperative that both issues are crucial to the destiny of the whole community in Hong Kong, and the British Government should not shirk her responsibility on these issues.
Sir, as regards the Joint Declaration and its implementation, it has been stressed in the report that Britain must concentrate on the implementation of the provision of the Joint Declaration through the Basic Law which has been described as the "son" of the Joint Declaration and not a product of the People's Republic of China
constitution. Thus, I must point out that this mother-and-son relationship between the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration has not been spelt out so far. In my opinion, it should be explicitly stipulated in the Basic Law that "the provisions of the Basic Law are based on the Sino-British Joint Declaration."
Sir, judging from the major proposals recommended in the FAC report regarding the Basic Law and the existing political reforms in Hong Kong, one can undoubtedly say that these recommendations have implied a lack of confidence by Britain towards the future of Hong Kong after 1997. By the same token, the substance of the FAC report has virtually explained the logic behind Hong Kong people's demand for the restoration of the right of abode in the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, as far as the major
responsibility is concerned, we have to look forward to the endeavour of the British Government. It is hoped that the British Government will adopt prudent policies which are beneficial to Britain, China and the people of Hong Kong.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR. HUI (in Cantonese): Sir, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the United Kingdom House of Commons (FAC) has staged quite a show by conducting public hearings and consultations on a rather extensive scale on the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration by the British Government. However, the FAC report published last
week not only gives us the impression of much said but little done, but also fully demonstrates that the British Government and some of the Members of Parliament are irresponsible, egocentric and hypocritic.
Concrete examples can easily be found in the report but I only wish to make three points which are more representative.
The first point is concerned with the right of abode for Hong Kong British passport holders. The FAC does recognize that granting Hong Kong people the right of abode is a way to safeguard their confidence, and that the British Government should take the lead to negotiate with her European Economic Community partners and other
immigrant receiving countries in jointly establishing a system of assurances. However, the report recommends the British Government to grant the right of abode to only a small minority of Hong Kong people. I believe that as the British Government's position now is to apply "greater flexibility", it is not difficult for her to accept this recommendation. But in doing so Britain will no doubt demonstrate to the world her irresponsible and selfish attitude as well as her stupidity in believing that she is doing the right thing. It is because no one will believe that Britain, who is only prepared to confer the right of abode in the United Kingdom to a small number of Hong Kong people, will be able to give a lead in the international community by taking up the difficult task of lobbying for support. We need only look at the sort of leadership that she provided in resettling Vietnamese refugees stranded in Hong Kong; then we can see how hypocritic she is in being irresponsible on the one hand and trying to assume leadership on the other.
Secondly, regarding the speeding up of the democratization of our political system, the FAC proposes that to tie in with a fully directly elected Legislative Council in 1995, 50% of the seats should be returned by direct elections in 1991. Superficially, this recommendation is very encouraging to the local democrats, but its feasibility is in doubt. The report has ignored the stance and reaction of the Chinese Government in the past. It has also failed to urge the British Government to take up this proposal with the Chinese Government and try to get it implemented. I still remember how difficult it was for us to secure a commitment in the White Paper on the Development of Representative Government published in 1988 for the introduction of 10 directly elected seats to the Legislative Council in 1991. Based on what observations or arguments did the FAC make such a bold suggestion after a lapse of only one year?
I must emphasize that I am not unhappy to see this recommendation come to fruition, but I want to express my indignation over the way the Hong Kong and British Governments made a mockery of public opinion in the days when we were arguing about the pace of political development. Moreover, the FAC thinks that by speeding up the pace of political development, Hong Kong people will feel assured and thus the British
Government may not have to take up the responsibility which she is unwilling to shoulder--to provide Hong Kong people with an "escape route". The FAC is irresponsible in making such a proposal which ignores the actual circumstances. Obviously, the political wisdom and courage of the British Government and Members of Parliament to shoulder responsibility have vanished in the face of party politics and political interests.
The third point is reflected by the refugee policy. The FAC believes that the British Government may eventually agree that Hong Kong should introduce the policy of mandatory repatriation of boat people. This is understandable because the Legislative Council has already indicated its unwillingness to undertake further financial commitments for the support of boat people who continue to pour into Hong Kong. Realizing that the burden will inevitably be shifted to herself, Britain is then willing to strip off the mask of humanitarianism procured at Hong Kong people's expense. Another example of generosity at other people's expense with total disregard of the actual situation is the proposal that the People's Liberation Army troops should not station in Hong Kong. But in reality, how can the British Government make a decision or make any concession in regard to this matter?
The FAC report is totally devoid of merits. The aim of the FAC is to cover up for Britain the ugly fact that she is irresponsible. Unfortunately, the FAC fails to advance arguments to justify the case, and the more it tries to cover up, the more the wrongdoings are exposed. But the FAC still assumes that its arguments are sound and valid, though they are in fact absurd and agitating.
The recent mood of helplessness, frustration and hopelessness among Hong Kong people is comprehensible, for the facts have made us realize that both the Chinese and the British Governments are unreliable. Such being the case, we should pull ourselves together and apply the courage and perseverance that have taken us through difficult times. We should stand together to build our community. It is time for Hong Kong people to strive hard to save Hong Kong. We should try to improve the economic structure, develop the political system and establish a new legal system so that the Chinese Government may not dare to interfere in our affairs at will after
1997.
Of course, we should not give up the fight for the restoration of full British citizenship, for through this campaign, we can teach and press the British Government to implement the provisions of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The British Government has the responsibility to maintain the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong during the transition period.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR. MARTIN LEE: Sir, allow me please to start my speech with a quotation: "It was the best of times;
it was the worst of times,
it was the age of wisdom,
it was the age of foolishness,
it was the epoch of belief,
it was the epoch of incredulity,
it was the season of Light,
it was the season of Darkness,
it was the spring of hope,
it was the winter of despair,
we had everything before us,
we had nothing before us,
we were all going direct to Heaven,
we were all going direct the other way."
Sir, this opening passage from A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens sums up the feelings of many people in Hong Kong today. It is particularly suitable because the novel was written about the French Revolution, and today is just nine days away from the bicentennial of the Fall of the Bastille.
The cries of the French peasants for "liberte, equalite and fraternite" 200 years ago were picked up by the tens of thousands of university students in Beijing in their demands for democracy, human rights and a clean government. And the students built for themselves a replica of the Statue of Liberty in New York which was a gift from the French people to the people of the United States over 100 years ago. That symbol of democracy for China was crudely crushed by a tank during the Tiananmen Square massacre on 4 June. But many other similar statues have since sprung up in different parts of the world to show that the flame of democracy which was so gently ignited by the Beijing students has touched the hearts of millions of people in every corner of the earth regardless of national boundaries, race or creed.
And in the aftermath of the massacre which the people of Hong Kong watched with horror, shock, anger and now fear for their future after 1997, it is timely for us to have a debate on the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) report which has addressed many concerns of the people of Hong Kong.
And I shall deal with the report under separate headings.
Blind faith in the Joint Declaration
It is naive and unrealistic for the British Government still to have blind faith in the Joint Declaration. Sir Geoffrey Howe told us two days ago that he still believes that the Chinese Government will honour the Joint Declaration to the full because it was in its interest to do so.
This sounds like a good argument; but there is a fundamental flaw in it. For if the present confidence crisis were to continue unabated either because of the British Government's refusal to grant the right of abode to the 3.25 million British subjects and to provide a life-line for the other 2.5 million Hong Kong citizens, or for some other reason, and if Hong Kong should lose her prosperity or stability as a result which many will think is a distinct possibility, then the Chinese
Government might no longer think it would still be in its interest to adhere to the terms of the Joint Declaration.
It is therefore clear that the British Government can no longer expect this agreement alone in its present form to guarantee for us a secure future.
When the British Government agreed to hand Hong Kong back to the Chinese Government with all its people under this agreement in 1984, it was like a foster parent agreeing to return a child to the natural parent who is known to love and care for her own children. But a little later, and still before the transfer of custody, the natural parent becomes a completely changed person and kills one child and is cruel to another. Will the foster parent say: "Well, an agreement is an agreement. And besides, since the child in question is a talented young movie star, it will be in the natural parent's interest to be nice to the child."
If one really wants to do something for Hong Kong, one must not start from the premise that the Joint Declaration is as inviolable as the Bible.
Further, bearing in mind the duty cast upon the British Government by clause 4 of the Joint Declaration to hand Hong Kong back to China as a prosperous and stable international city, it is the British Government's duty to sit down with the Chinese Government at some stage and say: "I regret that there is a strong likelihood that we cannot hand Hong Kong back to you as a thriving international city on 1 July 1997, because of your own acts of atrocity. But if you still want Hong Kong to prosper and be stable, then we must work on it very seriously and try to give Hong Kong a much better deal than the one we gave them in 1984.
I do not suggest that the Joint Declaration be torn up before such re-negotiation should take place. The Joint Declaration will remain binding until it is superseded by some new agreement. And if the Chinese Government chooses to be un-compromising, then the Joint Declaration still stands.
The following are the principal areas of concern which must be addressed. The stationing of troops
After seeing how the People's Liberation Army slaughtered its own people in its own capital, no one in Hong Kong would feel secure with these troops stationed in
Hong Kong.
The FAC accepts this but only recommends that "the British Government should make clear to the Chinese Government the strength of feeling in Hong Kong against any stationing of People's Liberation Army troops in Hong Kong."
This is not good enough.
I suggest that the British Government should seek to secure the agreement of the Chinese Government that troops will not be stationed in Hong Kong. This matter cannot be dealt with only through the Basic Law, but requires an amending of the Joint Declaration.
The Basic Law
I accept the view of the FAC that the relationship between the Basic Law and the People's Republic of China (PRC) constitution should be clarified. But I suggest that the correct approach is to stipulate in writing, whether in the Basic Law or in the constitution, those provisions of the constitution which are inapplicable to the HKSAR.
I suggest that it must be stated clearly that the four cardinal principles set out in the Preamble to the PRC constitution, including, for example, the insistence on the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, would not be applicable to the HKSAR.
As to the power of interpretation of the Basic Law, it is obvious that the FAC is reluctant to leave the final right to interpret the Basic Law with the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, and has therefore proposed the setting up of a Joint Constitutional Court.
This deserves serious attention.
But a simpler method may be to ask the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to delegate irrevocably its interpretative powers of the Basic Law to the courts of the HKSAR in keeping with our common law system.
I would also suggest that the power to review the constitutionality of any law enacted by the legislature of the HKSAR should also be delegated irrevocably to the
Final Court of Appeal of the HKSAR.
State of emergency
I suggest that the Basic Law should provide that only the Chief Executive be empowered to declare a state of emergency in the HKSAR. For such a power must not be exercised from Beijing. Otherwise, a peaceful demonstration in the SAR, which is frowned upon by Beijing, may be declared as constituting a turmoil in the region, with the result that martial law may be declared as in Tiananmen Square, with the same dire consequences.
Human rights
I am in full agreement with the FAC's call for the immediate enactment of a Bill of Rights in Hong Kong. But this Bill of Rights must be consistent with, and offer no less protection than, both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Covenant on Human Rights.
I would suggest further that the provisions of this Bill of Rights must be entrenched in the Basic Law as paramount and not subject to all the other laws of the HKSAR.
I suggest also that the United Kingdom should immediately extend ratification of the European Covenant on Human Rights and its acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights to Hong Kong, as in the case of a number of other overseas dependent territories. This would permit aggrieved individuals in Hong Kong to take their claims directly to the court, from which rulings are binding on member states.
Further, I suggest that Her Majesty's Government should, on behalf of Hong Kong, ratify the Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights so as to permit individuals to take their claims of violation of the covenant directly to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. And the competence of the Human Rights Committee to hear claims from individuals in Hong Kong must continue to be recognized by the Chinese Government after 1997.
In short, the protection of human rights must be secured both before and after 1997.
Progress towards representative government
I agree with the FAC's belief that full democracy must be introduced in Hong Kong before 1997. I also agree with their recommended time-table of having 50% directly elected seats on the Legislative Council in 1991, and 100% in 1995. I also support the FAC's recommendation on the distribution of seats for the 1991 election.
But as to the method of election of the first Chief Executive, I regret that the FAC has fallen into error.
In proposing that the first Chief Executive be elected by an electoral college, it is clear that the FAC did not wish to "risk confrontation with the PRC." But the FAC also insisted that "this electoral college should itself be democratically constituted."
The most important question the FAC failed to answer is this: Should Beijing be allowed to influence, or even control, the election of the first Chief Executive?
If the answer is in the affirmative, then I can only say that after the Tiananmen Square massacre, no one in Hong Kong will accept a Chief Executive who acts purely according to instructions from Beijing, regardless of how unreasonable those instructions may be.
But if the answer to the question is in the negative, then the only acceptable method is by universal suffrage.
As to the risk of confronting China, and the fear that the first Chief Executive selected may not be acceptable to China, I suggest that these considerations equally apply to elections whether by universal suffrage or by a democratically constituted electoral college. For if Beijing wants to control or influence the election of the first Chief Executive, then China will also object to election by a democratically constituted electoral college for such a college may return someone unacceptable to Beijing. But if Beijing does not want to control or influence the election of the first Chief Executive, then China will not object to either model. But then the people of Hong Kong will feel much more comfortable if they know that they can elect their first Chief Executive on a one person one vote basis.
The other reason given by the FAC is the unanimous view of OMELCO that the Chief Executive would be elected by universal suffrage no later than the year 2003. The consensus was arrived at as a compromise, because the latest date on which Members of the OMELCO wanted to see the Chief Executive elected by universal suffrage was the year 2003. It is true that only a minority of OMELCO Members then wanted to see the first Chief Executive elected by universal suffrage, that is, before 1997. But that view was reached before the Tiananmen Square massacre. And there is little doubt that any view expressed before that fateful date has to be carefully re-assessed. Indeed this very point was taken by the FAC in arriving at its conclusion that the Legislative Council must be fully constituted by direct elections before 1997. And it referred in paragraph 3.9 to the "brutality and horror of the repression of that weekend" which makes it "even more imperative the early establishment of proper
representative institutions in Hong Kong." With the greatest respect to the FAC, surely the election of the first Chief Executive must be part and parcel of the representative institution in Hong Kong.
I therefore submit that if we really want to implement the policy of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" "with a high degree of autonomy", we must insist that the first Chief Executive of the HKSAR be elected by universal suffrage.
As to the relationship between the executive and the legislature, I fully agree with the views expressed by the FAC on "accountability" (paragraph 3.21) and its recommendation that "where there is an irreconcilable conflict between the Legislative Council and the Chief Executive, the Chief Executive should resign." (paragraph 3.22).
Nationality/right of abode or life-line
During the recent democratic movement in China, the people of Hong Kong have joined in massive and orderly demonstrations protesting against the repressive actions taken by the present regime in China. And our people have marched in unison: liberals, conservatives, as well as people loyal to the Chinese Communist Party. But the democratic movement has now been branded as counter-revolutionary; and there can be little doubt that in the eyes of the Chinese leadership, our people are in rebellion. Our people have seen too how many activists in China are being hunted down, persecuted and then executed. And our people naturally fear the same crack-down in Hong Kong after 1997. And it would not be difficult to identify us, for apart from photographs and television news which might have captured our faces, many of our community leaders
and ordinary decent citizens have put their names down in newspaper advertisements condemning the actions of the present leadership in China.
Naturally, our people will not feel safe without a life-line. Our people do not want to leave Hong Kong unless it is necessary to flee for their lives. The 3.28 million British subjects are demanding to have their full British citizenship restored to them. What they are demanding was theirs by birth. But it was whittled down by successive Acts of Parliament. Yet there are another 2.5 million people in Hong Kong who are not British. Many have fled from the communist regime in China over the years for British protection in Hong Kong. They too should be given a life-line.
Now the British Government has refused to restore full British citizenship to all the 3.28 million British subjects, on the ground that if all of them were to settle in the United Kingdom, it would double the number of ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom.
But the British Government also said that if there were an Armageddon scenario or a catastrophe in Hong Kong, then it would have a firm obligation to take us as refugees.
But surely that is a defeatism line, and may even be self-fulfilling. Surely what the British Government must do is to take all reasonable steps to stop us from becoming refugees so that it does not have to take us. But though the British Government is primarily responsible for the people of Hong Kong, it does not have to take on the burden alone. It can quite legitimately ask the other nations of the free world to share in that burden, or asset, according to the recent Corry Report published in the South China Morning Post. But the British Government should take the lead, and must underwrite the balance. The FAC has got it right in recommending "that the British Government should take the lead at the earliest opportunity, particularly with our European Community partners and immigrant-receiving countries such as Australia, Canada and the United States, in establishing the definite guarantee which could be put into place in the years ahead. We believe that the accommodation of even several million people from Hong Kong would be quite possible if shared among the international community." (paragraph 4.15) But the British Government must act now.
The underlying objective here is not to encourage our people to leave, but to
stay, and yet armed with passports which would enable them to leave if absolutely necessary.
Armed with a life-line, and with all the safeguards together as a package, our people will stay, or at least adopt a wait-and-see attitude, knowing always that they have an option to leave, like the thousands of expatriates in Hong Kong holding foreign passports. They have no fear. And we likewise would have no fear.
Once the British Government has made such a commitment to Hong Kong, and it is a commitment by action and not by mere words, it will find it absolutely necessary to work with us in establishing a successful future for Hong Kong, so that we will never have to go and live in the United Kingdom.
And then the Chinese Government would also realize that it is not in its interest to ignore the wishes of our people or to suppress or frighten us with inconsiderate policies, for we all have an option to leave.
The insurance argument
The FAC as well as the British Government has rejected what has been called "the insurance argument," and I can understand why. For that argument went like this:
a) there is a confidence crisis in Hong Kong;
b) the people of Hong Kong do not want to leave;
c) therefore give them passports, and they would feel safe and stay.
This argument is unconvincing because there is nothing to show why the crisis of confidence would abate once the people of Hong Kong have got their passports.
I therefore suggest that to run the insurance argument, we must not pretend that the giving of passports alone will solve the problem. An entire package of policies must be pursued together.
International involvement
In the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square massacre and subsequent crack-down, if Hong Kong is to remain a prosperous and stable international city in 1997, then Hong Kong must not be allowed to suffer the same fate as Tibet or Beijing in face of atrocities, that is, Hong Kong must not be exclusively an internal affair of the PRC.
There must be some involvement of the United Nations or some form of monitoring by the international community. The FAC makes a similar point in paragraph 2.5.
The objective is clear: if there is any massacre in Hong Kong after 1997 like those in Tibet or Tiananmen Square, China cannot be allowed to say to the protesting international community: "Mind your own business and do not interfere with our internal affairs."
There are a number of possible ways of achieving the objective. And further study is necessary.
Perhaps one option would be to establish a United Nations monitoring group to supervise the 50 years of a "high degree of autonomy." This would provide neutral monitoring of implementation of the Joint Declaration; adherence to the Basic Law; elections in the HKSAR; the movement of Chinese troops affecting the HKSAR, and the maintenance of human rights.
Conclusion
Many of the above proposals are not easy to achieve. But given the will, there must be a way.
And it is entirely in China's interest to give Hong Kong a better deal if it still wants to take Hong Kong back from the British Government on 1 July 1997 as a prosperous and stable international city.
But if the British and Chinese Governments will not co-operate fully with each other and solve this most pressing confidence crisis, then there is a strong likelihood that both will be in breach of clause 4 of the Joint Declaration, which provides that "during the transitional period, ... the Government of the United Kingdom will be responsible for the administration of Hong Kong with the object of maintaining and preserving its economic prosperity and social stability; and that the Government of the PRC will give its co-operation in this connection."
MR. LI: Sir, the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) report is lamentable. There are a few constructive recommendations. But these are overshadowed by arrogance and ignorance. Certainly, this is not one of the Mother of Parliaments' finest hours.
The report attempts to divide our society. This we must ignore. We must unite. We must throw our full weight behind you, Sir, and our Government.
Events overtook the FAC. Their report is based largely on observations and comments made before 4 June. Today, there is a totally new situation in Hong Kong.
The FAC failed to recognize this -- despite pleas from you, Sir, from the Senior Members of OMELCO, from Members of this Council and the community, including myself, who went to the United Kingdom to press our case, and from the people of Hong Kong.
Without sympathy, perception, understanding, vision and even a sense of reality, the FAC's report is virtually meaningless.
We must not allow Britain to wash her hands of Hong Kong. Britain has a moral, if not legal, obligation to the people of her Crown colony. The world is watching to see that Britain holds to her duty and keeps her honour.
Britain must restore to the people of Hong Kong their birth-right as British subjects. The fight for the right of abode is not over; it has just begun.
We must use our talent and our resources to convey to the people of Britain the deep concerns and fears of the people of Hong Kong. We have the sympathy of the British public, but not that of their Government. We need the help of the British people to convince their Government.
We are not a liability to Britain. We are not a liability to the world. Just as Hong Kong has a vital economic role to play in China, so do we have a vital role to play in the world.
Here at home, we must accelerate the pace of democratization. We must protect civil liberties with a Bill of Rights. We must expand civic education so that the people of Hong Kong fully understand the rights and the responsibilities of citizenship -- because without this, democracy has no foundation.
Hong Kong is our home. We are united. We must remain united to protect our past, our present and our future.
We have seen Britain at her worst. But Britain has yet to see Hong Kong at our best.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR. NGAI (in Cantonese): Sir, in its report on Hong Kong, the Foreign Affairs Committee has highlighted that the British Government should try to restore the confidence of Hong Kong people as soon as possible. It has also reiterated that the British Government should firmly carry out her commitments in the Sino-British Joint Declaration to maintain stability and prosperity in Hong Kong. However, to our regrets, nowhere in the report can we find proposals of any concrete and specific actions to realize the British commitment to restore Hong Kong people's confidence. Further to our regrets, moral obligation and legal responsibility on the part of our sovereign state have been totally set aside in the face of political reality.
Sir, while refusing to accept that the people of Hong Kong should be granted the legitimate right of abode in the United Kingdom, the Foreign Affairs Committee proposes to call on the whole world to provide assistance to the people of Hong Kong should they have to seek asylum in the future. What irresponsible remarks! We have made it clear that Hong Kong is our home. We are only seeking an insurance policy for our long-term residence here. How can one imagine that several millions of people are rushing to the United Kingdom to live there, bearing in mind that they will lose their means of living?
Sir, 1.5 million people from various sectors of the community in Hong Kong took to the street last month. I would like to take this opportunity to tell Sir Geoffrey HOWE seriously that their participation in the march has adequately shown that the people of Hong Kong do have strong sentiments in matters of national self-esteem and we are proud of that. With our strong will and creative power, a small fishing village has been developed and transformed into a world famous financial, economic and trade centre. Obviously, we are reluctant to abandon our achievement. Since all these have been made possible through a century of British rule, we appreciate her effective administration as well as her political, economic and legal systems. We pin high hopes on these aspects of her rule. As long as our escape route is ensured, we shall
go on living on this piece of land generations after generations. There are people in Britain, some hold public office and some do not, who see us as a terrible, uncivilized and uncultured population like the subjects of her Asian-African colonies of the last century. They have also overlooked the fact that we have developed with time. Hong Kong has all the sophisticated features of an international city. Hong Kong is a thriving city and is prosperous. How regrettable that they should be so ignorant and unwise!
Sir, machine gun shots from the capital of China have shaken up our confidence for the future. How to ensure that the Sino-British Joint Declaration can be truly implemented so that Hong Kong may maintain her prosperity and stability, and how to realize the "one country, two systems" policy so that two different social systems, specifically the socialist economic system and the market economy of the capitalist system, can play their respective roles separately here and across the border will be the main targets to which we shall direct our efforts hereafter. Our confidence hinges upon these factors. Therefore, it is imperative that we should formulate a good Basic Law. However, the cornerstone on which the Basic Law is to be formulated must be compatible with our existing socio-economic conditions. Limited in its
natural resources, Hong Kong has to rely, to a high degree, on economic activities for its survival. It is therefore important that the overall interest of Hong Kong people should be given priority before we can maintain the kind of prosperity and stability we are after. On our political system, the Foreign Affairs Committee
proposed that 50% of the seats of the Legislative Council should be returned by direct election in 1991 and political democratization be fully completed before 1997. Sir, I must say I cannot agree to this proposal. I maintain that such proposal is not conducive to boosting local confidence. On the contrary, too big a stride may lead to unbalanced political and economic development. It disturbs the public and does harm to the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.
Sir, I firmly believe that democracy covers various aspects and the success of a democratic political system hinges upon its compatibility with various specific social factors such as economy, employment, livelihood, education and social services. Any attempt to introduce hasty changes would only disrupt our social and economic conditions, and leave the general public susceptible to the manipulation and the rhetoric of the politicians. It would bring extremely unfavourable effects on the interests of our society as a whole. Sir, I do not fancy for any democracy which may be achieved at one stroke and I absolutely disagree with the committee which recommends a democratic development similar to "fast food" meals. I insist that the
pace of democratization should be accelerated in a progressive manner lest the legislature should make lopsided or radical development, for there are no precedents or past experiences which we can follow. As a matter of fact, the consensus reached by OMELCO Members on this subject is highly commendable, that is, a legislature entirely returned by direct election should be in place by 2003 and the Chief Executive be elected through general election. Further acceleration in political reforms does not necessarily guarantee the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. I find the consensus reached by OMELCO Members on political development practicable and appropriate. The pace of democratization has been accelerated and it is not conservative at all.
My honourable colleagues, I believe that most of the Members present today and most of the general public in Hong Kong, especially our friends in the industrial and commercial sectors, share my views in that we all hope those factors which contribute to the prosperity of Hong Kong can be retained and further developed to bring about an even more flourishing economy and thereby to bring more benefits to the community. Only under such circumstances can we stay and live in this attractive place generations after generations.
Similarly, I wish to give my sincere advice to the Chinese authority who ought to take heed of the grief expressed by the Hong Kong people towards the recent events in the Mainland. People's confidence is now being hard hit. In the face of such regrettable situation, should the authority concerned not spend some time thinking over the cause of the crisis? Should they refuse to ponder upon the situation
carefully, they will be unworthy of the high hopes that Hong Kong people have placed in their country.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR. POON CHI-FAI (in Cantonese): Sir, the outcome of the student movement in Beijing has not only brought bitterness, despair and deep grief to the people of Hong Kong, it has also shaken our confidence in the future. It is understandable and most reasonable that during this unprecedented moment at which our confidence has been shattered, the people of Hong Kong should strive for the restoration of their entitlement to the right of abode in Britain, so that they can feel secure and stay in Hong Kong for further development. However, judging from Britain's premeditated measures in tightening up its immigration legislation and in the light of the content
of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Hong Kong recently published and the remarks made by the Foreign Secretary Sir Geoffrey HOWE during his recent visit to the territory, we can hardly pin any high hopes on our action to strive for the right of abode in the United Kingdom. We are disappointed, discontented and indignant at the British Government's insensitivity of heart in refusing to make concessions on the nationality issue.
Given such circumstances, it will be meaningless for us to carry on a hopeless fight and beg mercy from Britain for granting us the right of abode. As a matter of fact, time is running short in the run-up to 1997. The situation does not allow us to spend all our energy on lengthy argument with the British Government on the hopeless nationality issue. This will only bring continual bitterness and anxiety to the population here. Furthermore, if the fight fails in the end, it will only deepen our sense of frustration, despair and helplessness. It will drive Hong Kong into a disastrous situation beyond restoration.
Sir, we can no longer rely entirely on either Britain or China to solve the confidence crisis in Hong Kong on our behalf. We must be realistic and pragmatic enough to seek our own solution to the problems. To a large extent, the future of Hong Kong still lies in our hands. Hong Kong still possesses all the advantageous conditions for economic development. With a unity of will, we will continue to reach new heights in economic prosperity and create a better future for those who are rooted in Hong Kong. History tells us that neither assurance from the Chinese Government nor concern from the British Government can ensure stability and prosperity, high degree of autonomy or a self-governing Hong Kong. Only with our outstanding economic achievement can we hope to win China's respect and be able to maintain stability and prosperity, high degree of autonomy and self-governing in the real sense.
The people of Hong Kong do love Hong Kong. Most of us wish to make a living in this peaceful place where we have settled for years and where we speak the same language. We are prepared to devote our efforts to strive for the prosperity and stability of this island. We know that the road before us is rugged and thorny. But if we can sweep away the worries of seeking refuge by emigration and gather the courage to work for our ambition with the quick mind, resilience and solidarity that we used to have, we can definitely create a better future with prosperity and stability as well as a paradise on earth for the people of Hong Kong.
Sir, the way Britain is handling the Vietnamese boat people problem has brought
despair and resentment to the people of Hong Kong. Under the pressure of Britain, Hong Kong has been unable to withdraw its policy of port of first asylum, thus leading to an indefinite influx of illegal immigrants from Vietnam and incurring huge expenditure on the shoulders of the Hong Kong people. On the other hand, the Hong Kong Government has been applying an unfair and unreasonable double standard towards the Chinese illegal immigrants who are closely related to the local population. We are therefore much aggrieved, dissatisfied and resentful towards such measures. Although the Foreign Affairs Committee report is in favour of mandatory repatriation and assistance to boat people being repatriated, this will not completely solve the Vietnamese boat people problem in Hong Kong. As a matter of fact, without scrapping Hong Kong's status as the port of first asylum as a supporting measure to stem the incessant inflow of boat people from Vietnam, the provision of assistance to boat people being sent back will only encourage more arrivals deliberately planned by the Vietnamese authorities and its people in the hope of trying to get more assistance. If that is the case, it will not help solve the problem but aggravate it. Sir, during the past 12 years, Hong Kong has been singly bearing the greater part of the expenditure on Vietnamese boat people. We should no longer resort to taxpayers' money for the maintenance cost of the boat people or part of the assistance offered to those being repatriated. Instead we should make use of billions of dollars budgeted for the expenditures on Vietnamese boat people to strengthen our infrastructural development at this time when Hong Kong is suffering from confidence crisis.
Sir, in the light of recent changes in Hong Kong, it is beyond reproach that the development of a democratic system in Hong Kong should be speeded up at a reasonable pace. However, democratization cannot be achieved overnight, it must be developed gradually. The way to accelerate the pace of democratization requires careful
deliberation and in no way should we be influenced by the student movement to believe blindly that long-lasting democracy can be immediately attained by having half of the seats in the legislature be returned by direct election in 1991. Undeniably, whether Hong Kong can maintain freedom and democracy again depends to a large extent on its economic development, apart from public awareness of civic duties, a sound electoral system and a Basic Law which is favourable to Hong Kong. Sir, in order to pacify the discontent of the Hong Kong people against the British Nationality Act, the British Government vigorously "pushes" political democratization in Hong Kong as a substitute for the right of abode in the United Kingdom. Such a move may not bring about true democracy, stability or prosperity to Hong Kong. Nor will it
necessarily be in the interests of the territory. The pace of democratic development
in Hong Kong should be speeded up according to the practical circumstances within the territory rather than the decision imposed arbitrarily on us by the British Government aiming at diverting our attention.
Sir, with due respect, I have to say that the British Government has all along tried to shirk its responsibility on the issue of the Vietnamese boat people. In the meantime, it flatly refuses to restore to the Hong Kong people the right of abode in Britain as a form of insurance in future. What Britain has done is contrary to its duty as a sovereign state and gives rise to discontent and bitterness among the people of Hong Kong. In conclusion, I wish to point out that I find the Foreign Affairs Committee report utterly unsatisfactory and unacceptable. Before rounding up my speech, I would like to say that in the past month or so, the people of Hong Kong have, by various means, fully expressed to the world their dissatisfaction and disappointment towards the suppression of the student movement in China and the
British Nationality Act. However, we cannot solve problems or re-establish confidence simply by taking to the streets and shouting slogans day and night. Hong Kong will have a better future and the majority of people who are determined to stay here will have a better place to live in only if Hong Kong is stable and its people make concerted efforts in enhancing economic development. Therefore, as people of Hong Kong, we have to keep calm and think thrice before taking any actions in future. We must not act on impulse and lose our power of reasoning, otherwise we are putting Hong Kong's future stability and prosperity at stake.
Sir, the visit of the Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey HOWE, has been brief. The tight schedule allowed Legislative Councillors little time to meet the Secretary and express opinions on the issue. The Secretary had travelled far to come to Hong Kong. It is regrettable that he could not stay a day longer to attend today's sitting to have a clearer picture of our positions on the matter. It is only through you, Sir, that our views expressed in this Chamber can be relayed to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
4.32 pm
HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT: Members might like to take a break at this point.
4.55 pm
HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT: Council resumes.
MR. PETER WONG: Sir, I thank you and the honourable Members for allowing me to speak out of turn.
The events of 4 June made us smarter but regrettably little wiser as to what sort of future Hong Kong holds in store for us.
We have no weapons to match anyone other than hard work and free and fair trade. These weapons have stood us in good stead in the past and have got us to where we are now. So we should not forsake our winning formula unless we have good and overwhelming reasons to do so.
I wish to say nothing about nationality because I am a member of the New Hong Kong Alliance which wish to take Britain to court to substantiate Hong Kong's legal case. It is not something that can be achieved overnight but I verily believe that it complements OMELCO's moral case.
At this moment in time, I am convinced that nothing short of a tri-partite approach to uphold the Sino-British Joint Declaration can save Hong Kong from our predicament. China must live up to her promises to her own citizens if we are to have any trust in "one country, two systems". Britain must fulfill her role in the Joint Declaration by agreeing to speed up democratic reforms and guarantees of basic rights in the Hong Kong legislation. Hong Kong itself must work harder than ever to make sure that the "one country, two systems" will be in everybody's interest to preserve.
On 12 June, I wrote to the secretariat of the Basic Law Consultative Committee to say that I have decided to suspend my active participation in the work of the committee pending the receipt of clear signals from the Beijing regime that it will truly honour its obligations in the Joint Declaration in a manner very different from that of the basic rights of its own citizens. I suggest that this cautious approach to the Basic Law drafting should be adopted in view of the significant impact the legal document has on Hong Kong's future.
Prior to my notification sent to the Basic Law Consultative Committee, I had sent
out a questionnaire on the OMELCO consensus to all members of the Hong Kong Society of Accountants. As chance would have it, the questionnaire reached the members over the 4 June weekend so the replies can be said to be post-4 June.
Out of 306 replies, 251 agreed with the OMELCO consensus whilst 33 wanted to advance direct elections to 1997 or earlier. Only 1 wanted direct elections later than 2003. I can therefore say that the overwhelming majority of accountants concur with the OMELCO consensus.
These findings provide me with pointers for future discussions on the Basic Law.
However, it does not mean that I will cease work altogether on the Basic Law. I intend to be busier than ever to improve the text of the Basic Law taking into account the recent events. I am pleased to report that the business and professional group is in the process of instructing two leading constitutional lawyers of international repute and we hope to have the experts' opinions on the legal document towards the end of August. I think that the time is well overdue to get the real professionals to give their views.
I believe that we should ask Beijing for an extension of the consultation period, not only to make up for the time lost by the mainlanders not being able to get their act together as a result of the turmoil, but for us to examine in depth the implication recent events in China will have on our own rights and safety. I also believe that the promulgation of the Basic Law will now have to be delayed.
Further we have to get the right signals from Beijing about their bona fide intention and commitment.
I would urge Britain, our sovereign state, to convey our deep feelings over what has happened to the authorities in Beijing and our concern for Hong Kong's future. We want to continue the success story of Hong Kong.
Sir, with these words, I support the motion.
MR. SZETO (in Cantonese): Sir, I am the chairman of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of the Patriotic Pro-democracy Movement in China, and I am also one of the promoters of the Hong Kong People Saving Hong Kong Campaign. Some people consider that the
patriotic pro-democracy movement and the Hong Kong People Saving Hong Kong Campaign are mutually exclusive in nature and to support both campaigns is self-contradicting. They therefore denounce such support. I would like to take this opportunity to defend the case.
Firstly, we should be strict with ourselves but lenient towards others. While I respect people who have the determination of a martyr to die nobly for righteousness, these people should also respect the right of other people to be free from fear, which is not only a human right but also a reflection of human nature.
Secondly, the confidence of Hong Kong people has completely shattered after the June 4 massacre in Beijing. There is a common and strong wish among the majority of the local population to find a home of last resort. How can we overlook or even hold such wish in contempt while we participate in social compaigns? We must face public opinion and the reality. Such wish in itself is a kind of public opinion and the reality.
Thirdly, there are three objectives in launching the Hong Kong People Saving Hong Kong Campaign, namely, to strive for the right of abode, to speed up democratization and to formulate a Bill of Rights. Striving for the right of abode is only one of the objectives. In fact, this campaign is now planning to launch another action known as "To take on the Mission beyond 2000" in its appeal to the community leaders to stay in Hong Kong and go through thick and thin with the citizens as we move hand in hand into the 21st century.
Fourthly, even if the right of abode is not granted, we still cannot stop the overwhelming tide of emigration. The great majority of the Hong Kong people, who have totally lost their confidence and are in great fear, will try every means to seek other refuge though they are not granted the right. With the right of abode, they will adopt a wait-and-see attitude and will not go away unless the situation is compelling. Otherwise, they will leave as soon as possible. This will aggravate the brain drain problem and will bring an instant adverse impact on the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong.
Fifthly, there is a key statement in the declaration of the Hong Kong People Saving Hong Kong Campaign and I quote, "We firmly believe that only when democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law are truly in place in China can the problems of confidence and of Hong Kong's future be solved at source." Therefore, all the
promoters of this campaign are devoted supporters of the Chinese patriotic pro democracy movement.
Sixthly, all overseas Chinese and many friends from foreign countries, though they are not Chinese citizens, render their support to the Chinese patriotic pro-democracy movement. We are grateful to them for their support. Why is it in Hong Kong that the Chinese patriotic pro-democracy movement and the fight for the right of abode are considered to be mutually exclusive and contradictory issues? I believe that the people of Hong Kong, no matter where they go, will still support the Chinese patriotic pro-democracy movement. We always welcome and appreciate their support.
I will not change my stand of staying in Hong Kong. I was born in Hong Kong. However, even if the right of abode is offered to me, I will not take it. In my understanding, the right of abode is a basic right Hong Kong people are entitled to. I respect people's right to be free from fear. I cannot ignore the wish of the people. I firmly believe that wherever they go, they will still be proud of being a Chinese and will continue to contribute every effort and enthusiasm towards the realization of a truly democratic China under the rule of law with freedoms and human rights. These are the reasons I take part in the Hong Kong People Saving Hong Kong Campaign. I hope I can gain understanding from those who have misunderstood the issue.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR. TAI: Sir, may I take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation for all the effort and thought you applied in supporting our case in the United Kingdom and before the Foreign Affairs Committee especially in regard to the right of abode issue. Also, at the Geneva Conference you spoke most effectively on the Vietnamese boat people issue for and on behalf of Hong Kong. Regarding the nationality issue and the deep-rooted distaste of the United Kingdom Parliament to grant the right of abode to British subjects in Hong Kong, your stand as Governor of Hong Kong by sticking your neck out for Hong Kong over what the United Kingdom Parliament finds to be a particularly unsavoury issue clearly demonstrated your personal commitment to the well-being of this territory.
Through the process of decolonization by the United Kingdom from the early 1960s, the United Kingdom has been faced with the problem of immigrants from her various dominions during her empire days, largely from Africa and the Indian subcontinent.
Immigration has been a nightmare for politicians in the United Kingdom. To them, moral and constitutional responsibility, as history can tell us, comes second in importance to the issue of immigration. From the 1960s onwards, Britain has begun to gradually dissociate herself from Hong Kong. Frightened by the large immigration flow from Africa and the Indian subcontinent and fearing a similar eventuality in respect of Hong Kong from 1960s onwards she gradually closed her door to Hong Kong. She did this by a series of immigration and nationality Acts which classified Hong Kong passport holders as second class citizens. This very intent is again
demonstrated in the United Kingdom memorandum in the Sino-British Joint Declaration which expressly stated that BDTCs do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
The efforts by the Administration and by our Senior Members to champion the cause of Hong Kong people's right of abode in order to alleviate the present confidence crisis arising out of the tragic event in Beijing, knowing the difficulties involved, have clearly demonstrated our conviction to maintain our stability during this
transitional period.
Following the 4 June tragic event and the refusal to grant the right of abode to BDTC passport holders, there is a strong resentful mood in the community towards both the Chinese Government as well as the British Government. This would do more harm than good to our territory because I personally fail to see how the Joint
Declaration can work for the present and future of Hong Kong if there is a lack of goodwill towards Hong Kong by either country. The crisis of confidence arises out of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. We look to the parties to this declaration to act in restoring confidence. Equally important, Hong Kong must also ask herself to adopt measures to help in restoring confidence.
Despite the fact that the FAC report is disappointing in a number of important respects, many of its views are worthy of further and careful study, such as the recommendation given on the various aspects of the draft Basic Law and interpretation of the Basic Law regarding our judicial system and our political structure leading up to 1997. Briefly, in dealing with the nationality issue, insufficient weight and support was being given to the strength and justness of our conviction that the right of abode should be restored to all BDTC passport holders. The moral case in support of our just claim has been inadequately presented, so has the related issue of the confidence crisis here in Hong Kong. The confidence issue has become more crucial and imporatant since the 4 June tragic event.
Against the background of the recent visit by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and his intimation on the issue of right of abode and the related confidence crisis in Hong Kong, we, the people of Hong Kong must not be deflected from the equally and perhaps more important task for Hong Kong to form and establish as democratic a system and framework of government administration as possible to replace the existing British administration.
Parallel with this objective should be our determination to maintain our investment aims related to our long-term programmes in the fields of education, training, health, social affairs as well as our long-term investment and our aim to improve our overall infrastructures so that we can do all we can to shape the future prosperity for this territory and provide a promising future for those who are willing to stay behind irrespective of their race, colour and creed as well as creating investment opportunities for our local and overseas investors. This would then provide additional opportunities and thereby attract the professional talents who would have left Hong Kong to return here.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MRS. TAM (in Cantonese ): Sir, I share the great disappointment felt by many Hong Kong citizens over the fact that the report on Hong Kong published by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British Parliament has failed to offer any immediate and effective solution to the nationality issue which is of gravest concern to us.
While the FAC report has made some useful recommendations in certain areas, it has been evasive in the responsibility which Britain, as the sovereign state of Hong Kong, should undertake in regard to the nationality issue. Moreover, it has not put forward any positive recommendations on how to solve the pressing confidence crisis in Hong Kong.
The report repeatedly refers to the British Government's "unique obligation" towards Hong Kong. However, it contains no evidence at all of any substantial commitment to fulfil this unique obligation.
You, Sir, and colleagues of this Council as well as people from various sectors in Hong Kong have made a unanimous and clear-cut request to the British Government that at this critical hour of the Hong Kong people's confidence crisis over their
future Britain should provide an insurance policy by restoring to all British subjects in Hong Kong their right of abode in the United Kingdom. The British Government has the moral obligation to provide Hong Kong residents with a home of last resort. Our voice is clear and unanimous. We are asking for something that the British Government,
as our sovereign state, has the need, the responsibility and the authority to provide for us.
The FAC's understanding of this "unique obligation" borne by the British Government is based on the provisions in the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed by the two governments to the effect that after 1997, a Hong Kong special administrative region government will be established under the principle of "one country, two systems", and that the present capitalistic system in Hong Kong will remain unchanged for 50 years. On the other hand, the formulation of the Basis Law and the democratization of our political system should ensure that the undertakings made in the Joint Declaration will be fulfilled after 1997. However, the FAC has failed to apprehend that the confidence of Hong Kong people in the implementation of the Joint Declaration has already been seriously shaken.
Of course, the Joint Declaration remains an important basis for the future development of Hong Kong. However, to fulfil the undertakings made in this agreement, we will require not only the efforts of the Chinese and British Governments, but also the confidence of the Hong Kong people which is of paramount importance to the effective implementation of the Joint Declaration.
History tells us that the British Government's "unique obligation" towards Hong Kong did not originate from the signing of the Joint Declaration but started over a century ago when Hong Kong came under British rule. As Hong Kong is a British dependent territory, its people are entitled to British citizenship by virtue of birth constitutionally; the British Government has a "unique obligation" to restore this birth-right.
Regrettably, the FAC report has neither attached importance to the confidence crisis in Hong Kong, nor acknowledged Britain's historical obligation. It has only made recommendations which suit Britain's own interests and enable her to shirk her responsibility. The report flatly refuses to restore the right of abode in the United Kingdom to Hong Kong British subjects, but proposes that in an Armageddon scenario after 1997 where it is impossible to implement the Joint Declaration, the United Kingdom Government has a "responsibility" to take the lead in mobilizing her European
Community partners and other immigrant receiving countries to take in Hong Kong people.
As our sovereign state, Britain is unable to introduce a contingency plan or take concrete actions on this matter, but tries instead to pass the responsibility onto other countries. Is she not trying to be generous at other people's expense? The whole argument is totally unconvincing and illogical. If this is how the British Government is going to fulfill its "unique obligation" as referred to in the report, I am afraid that the British Government can only be described as "dishonourable"
The FAC report also mentions that some forms of safeguard will be given to certain categories of Hong Kong people on a "selective basis". The "target group" will include people who have served the Hong Kong British Government and a very limited number of other Hong Kong residents and elites.
Sir, it is due to the co-operative efforts and devotion to duty of people from all walks of life and different social strata that Hong Kong is able to achieve the international status she enjoys today. What the FAC suggests will obviously bring injustice to our community and is detrimental to Hong Kong's development during the transitional period. These recommendations give us an impression that Britain is only safeguarding her own interests at the expense of ours. How can it be said that Britain is fulfilling her "unique obligation" to Hong Kong?
Sir, as we move towards 1997, the prosperity and stability of the territory will depend on the determination of the British Government to shoulder her responsibility, as well as the confidence of the Hong Kong people in the future. However, the FAC report has failed to properly address these two most important points. I find it very disappointing that the report has not been prepared with the interests of the Hong Kong people in mind and as such its recommendations have failed to fully reflect our wishes.
Hong Kong people do not have any direct say in the Sino-British talks. Before its honourable retreat from Hong Kong, the British Government must act with determination to secure the best interests for Hong Kong, but not to worry too much about China's responses or to look after her own interests only.
I want to stress that it would be wrong for Britain to think that she has fulfilled her duty by signing the Sino-British Joint Declaration which is supposed to have taken
the interests of our people into account and provided a guarantee for the future of Hong Kong. I think that at present the most pressing task is to restore the confidence of Hong Kong people in the implementation of the Joint Declaration. And the first step to take in looking after the interests of Hong Kong people is to resolve the confidence crisis as quickly as possible by providing them with an "emergency exit". Apart from this, to refine the Basic Law, accelerate democratization of the political system and thoroughly implement the provisions of the Sino-British Joint Declaration are equally important missions to be accomplished by the British Government during the run-up to 1997.
I hope that in considering the recommendations of the FAC, the British Government will think twice over their effects on Hong Kong and take into full account our interests in various respects. By doing so, Britain will add another glorious page to the history of over a century of her rule in Hong Kong.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
DR. TSE: Sir, many eloquent words have been said both inside and outside this Chamber in support of the OMELCO efforts on the right of abode issue. As a Member of this Council, I am proud of the dignified ways my colleagues have conducted themselves throughout this campaign. Just to set the record straight, I have always felt that the campaign has the unanimous support of the OMELCO Members, and not as reported by some newspapers last week. I for one, as a Member from the electoral college, signed up from the very beginning to join the special working group to give support to the two Senior Members during their London mission. Other Members, both from the electoral college and from the functional constituencies, have worked side by side with the appointed Members as a team, regardless whether they had signed up before. To me, this noble spirit of working together without ganging up ( ) is exactly the
kind of spirit we must endeavour to foster, and is also the spirit our OMELCO colleagues have enjoyed most of the time. I sincerely hope that this image is properly reflected by the press.
Sir, in one of the briefing sessions in which I participated as a Member of the special working group, I was asked why OMELCO put so much effort in fighting a cause which seemed to have little chance of success. To that question, I gave my reply : there are things in life one would calculate the chance of success before deciding whether to pursue; but there are other things in life one would pursue regardless;
and I believe that the nationality issue belongs to the latter. As I see it, the issue is a matter of cardinal principle and justice. The British Government has, through a series of parliamentary acts, unilaterally and systematically taken away the rights of its citizens in Hong Kong who are entitled to them either by birth or through naturalization. It is only right that our OMELCO colleagues should try our best to claim them back for those who want them. Whatever the outcome, our commitment to do what is right for our people must remain; even a disappointing result should not crush our spirit to fight for the well-being of our community. Politicians may come and go, but Hong Kong must continue.
Sir, it has been suggested that since Britain is unlikely to give Hong Kong people the right of abode, Her Majesty's Government should now speed up the process of democratization in Hong Kong. To this suggestion, I would also like to give my own reply.
It is true that we need a democratic form of government in order to exercise the high degree of autonomy that has been promised to us, but it should be up to us as a community to gauge how quickly we can move in that process. We appreciate the goodwill, but we should not be pushed one way or the other.
Furthermore, it is my view that in a territory like Hong Kong which was not, is not, and will not be a totally independent state, and in particular, when the future sovereign country to which it returns does not practise democracy as we understand it, there is no guarantee that we can maintain and defend a democratic system here unless either the new sovereignty has a good record of keeping its words and promises, or we ourselves possess the guarantee of human rights and safety measures independent of the system, a guarantee which the United Kingdom right of abode can provide. In the light of what has happened, and is happening in China since 4 June, it is my firm view that just a promise of a speedier democratization by the British Government simply cannot be a trade-off for the right of abode for the people of Hong Kong.
Having said this, I still believe that the mood of Hong Kong has changed, and that we are now ready to explore the possibility of a quicker pace of democratization.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR. LAU WONG-FAT (in Cantonese): Sir, I feel the same way as the other Members of this Council and find the recommendations concerning the right of abode in the United
Kingdom for the people of Hong Kong put forth in the Foreign Affairs Committee report very disappointing and unsatisfactory. We have an extremely acute confidence crisis right before us. To our regrets, the committee ignores the gravity of the crisis and the undeniable constitutional and moral obligation of Britain towards the people of Hong Kong. Its recommendations cannot solve our problems and are not acceptable to us.
The people of Hong Kong are worried about their personal safety in the future because of the recent events. With confidence terribly shaken, the public seeks the right of abode overseas as a safeguard for their future. Thus the "right of abode" and the "restoration of the confidence of Hong Kong people" are inseparable issues.
In view of the emergency, it should be our prime concern to re-establish people's confidence as soon as possible so that people's hearts may be put at ease and that they may stay on and attend to their work at least for the time being; otherwise, there will be the problem of governability in the territority and the stability and prosperity we enjoy at present will also be threatened, not to mention our prospect after 1997. The OMELCO Members and the general public feel that the most effective measure to tackle this crisis is for Britain to honour her obligation as a sovereign state and grant the legitimate right of abode in the United Kingdom to the people of Hong Kong.
The report only proposes to grant certain categories of people the right of abode in the United Kingdom. Apart from bringing about the undesirable effect of dividing the community, the proposal is contradictory in itself. For instance, the report considers it specially important to maintain the morale of the Civil Service during the transitional period, and civil servants consequently should be granted the right of abode with greater flexibility. If the report confirms the need to boost the confidence of the people of Hong Kong and it is a problem that requires immediate solution, the proposal to grant the right of abode to certain groups of people
(including a limited number of civil servants) will be pointless in solving the confidence crisis; instead it will lead to social disintegration. Even if civil servants remain high in morale, what can they do to help achieve effective administration when local confidence shatters and every one is looking for an "escape route"?
Besides, the report recommends that Britain should seek international assistance in providing refuge to the people of Hong Kong in the future. Such a proposal is
unrealistic. It is nothing more than a vain attempt to shirk responsibility and put on a show of generosity at the expense of others. To treat the people of Hong Kong like refugees is an insult to us and to our sovereign state Britain too.
According to international practice, people of the territory concerned have the right to choose on matters of nationality and place of abode upon the transition of sovereignty. On basis of legal principles or moral obligation, Britain should offer the people of Hong Kong the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
Sir, confidence of the public is a problem that needs to be addressed immediately. To grant them the right of abode is the most effective cure. Going through recent speeches made by Sir Geoffrey HOWE, we find Britain still avoids the point at issue and refuses to prescribe the right medicine. Ours is an urgent case, but the one who handles the case is slow in taking action. All in all, the report has only given consideration to the internal political factors of Britain. It has never taken into account the actual situation of Hong Kong. At such critical moments, we want no fanfare from Britain. We want practical and effective actions.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR. EDWARD HO: Sir, I find that the Foreign Affairs Committee report contained many useful and valid observations and recommendations such as those on the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, the pace for the development of a representative government and the recommendation to introduce a Bill of Rights. All these recommendations are helpful to the effective administration of Hong Kong in the run up to 1997. My greatest objection to the report is in respect of their recommendation on the nationality issue.
The work of the Foreign Affairs Committee took place during the period from March to June 1989, in the midst of which the horrible events in Beijing took place. The bulk of the committee's work, especially in the taking of evidence, was conducted in April, at the time when no one anticipated that what happened in China could have happened. If their work were to have started in June, it would be logical to assume that the evidence put forward by the witnesses would have much more intensity and urgency and that the Foreign Affairs Committee would have drawn different conclusions and recommendations. After all, the Foreign Affairs Committee stated in the
introduction to the report that "the action of the Central People's Government and
the People's Liberation Army have appalled and shocked the world."
But such would not have been the case. For although the Foreign Affairs Committee took into account the latest events in China, its mind has been closed and its recommendations on the question of British policy and actions with regard to nationality have been formulated even before they came to Hong Kong. This certainly answers the Honourable Stephen CHEONG's question why there was not more taking of evidence after the Tiananmen affair.
Despite the Foreign Affairs Committee's acknowledgment in many places in the report of the British obligation to the territory and Hong Kong's unique position as the United Kingdom's only colony or dependent territory whose people cannot exercise the fundamental rights of self-determination, and despite its acknowledgment that the British Government must also find ways to restore confidence in Hong Kong in the shorter term, it fails to address the fundamental concern of the Hong Kong people: to have the assurance of a safe abode in case the worst should happen.
The recommendations to mount an international rescue of the Hong Kong people in an Armageddon scenario after 1997 and to grant right of abode to identified key personnel do not fulfill the aim and objective which the committee professed to accomplish, that is, the restoration of confidence in Hong Kong in the short term. The former is neither practical nor re-assuring; the latter is divisive.
Representatives from nine professional bodies met with the Foreign Affairs Committee in Hong Kong on 19 April 1989. The Foreign Affairs Committee was told of the confidence crisis that has affected Hong Kong and led to a steady brain drain in the past few years. They were given statistics produced by the Hong Kong Government that showed convincingly the magnitude of the problem in relation to those who emigrated from the professional, administrative and management classes. I would not go over these statistics again. During that public hearing, committee members expressed to the professionals several times the political difficulty of admitting 3.5 million people to the United Kingdom. Thus, it can be seen that the committee's position in June after the events in Beijing has not changed from its position during its first public hearing in Hong Kong in April. The position has always been that political difficulty transcended any real consideration of British obligations. What is even more damaging in the Foreign Affairs Committee is that it failed to recognize the realities of the Hong Kong situation and the wishes of the Hong Kong people : which is that Hong Kong is their home; and it was plainly wrong, and grossly
misleading to the British Parliament and the British people, to assume that millions of people from Hong Kong would be emigrating to the United Kingdom if they were given the right of abode.
It also failed to appreciate the gravity of the confidence crisis in Hong Kong in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square events. In so doing, it failed to propose any real measure that would provide the desired immediate effect of restoring the confidence of the Hong Kong people and stopping the tidal outflow of our most valuable assets : our people.
In conclusion, the Foreign Affairs Committee report can be summed up in the last sentence of paragraph 3.3 : "Despite the understandable concerns of the people of Hong Kong about the recent events in the People's Republic of China, we are in no doubt that their best future lies in Hong Kong and therefore that the best guarantees for the future are the continuing economic success of the territory and strong and stable democratic institutions." Fine words, but what the Foreign Affairs Committee really meant was : "We know there is a problem and ours is the sovereign country. But, look to yourselves. Don't look to us for any real help as there will be political difficulties; and however righteous the course, we cannot subject ourselves to
political risks."
With these remarks, Sir, I support the motion.
MR. BARROW: Sir, in recent days we have focussed on the right of abode issue, which has been our number one priority. However I believe we should not let the right of abode so dominate the thinking and energy of the community that all other issues which may help rebuild confidence are excluded.
We should not be blind to the fact that the FAC report does indicate some measure of general support for Hong Kong. Whatever the outcome of the right of abode issue, we are going to need resolute United Kingdom support during the coming months and years, so it would be wise to take stock of the nature of this support and evaluate it cool-headedly.
The Basic Law
The proposals on the Basic Law in the FAC report echo almost everything which has been covered in our recent debate. The United Kingdom's vigorous support on these
points, as well as on the pace of democratization, once we reach a consensus, and on the Bill of Rights will be essential.
I hope that China will be willing to make concessions on these issues as soon as possible, as doing so would be a major factor in the partial restoration of the shattered confidence of this community. China must quickly come to recognize the extent of this loss of confidence, and the need for remedial action.
If confidence cannot be re-established then Hong Kong's future will be very different from that intended by the Joint Declaration. The model of an economically, financially and socially successful international centre built up over many decades under British administration, and able to demonstrate all the advantages of a free market economy, would become just another southern Chinese city.
There will be little need for a separate economic or social system unless people remain in Hong Kong who are self-confident and imbued with the staunch entrepreneurial spirit which -- together with a sound administration -- has been a major reason for Hong Kong's extraordinary achievements.
On the issue of nationality, we are all disappointed by the rejection of our request for the right of abode for all Hong Kong British subjects. Although the argument of the FAC is contradictory, the insurance or "safety net" position we have taken has not yet been accepted in the United Kingdom and we must now consider how best to re-marshal our case.
I remain convinced that almost everyone wants to stay. Most people are held here by the strength of their family and material commitments and are most unwilling to break their links with a strong and vibrant culture. They know that in leaving they face the prospect of moving to lower-status jobs with lower pay in lands whose cultures and business climates are unfamiliar to all but a few.
The sections of the FAC report dealing with nationality make disappointing reading in that they show the members to have totally underestimated the strength of Hong Kong feeling following the events of 4 June. To observe that the people's concerns have merely been "intensified" is to grossly understate the position.
However, despite our strong feelings, we must continue to act in a responsible and dignified fashion. We must remember that ideally our priority should be not so
much to seek the right of abode in the United Kingdom per se, but to create the conditions in which Hong Kong people positively want to stay here -- British passport or not.
I believe that closer reading of the minutes indicates that there is perhaps little more support for Hong Kong's position than may be inferred from the main body of the report. For example, the principle of "right of abode of last resort" is certainly a complex one but it is a concept that might not be impossible to work out, given the will and the intellect.
In the various amendments proposed to paragraph 4.16 the FAC was almost equally divided on this issue, with only a narrow rejection for the suggestion that the British Government should explore within the European Community the possibility of granting full British citizenship to the BDTC population of Hong Kong in the event of a
fundamental breach or abrogation of the Joint Declaration by China after 1997. This of course falls short of our immediate restoration of the rights of the British subjects and is therefore not what we want, but nevertheless it indicates some sympathy in the United Kingdom on which we can build further support for our primary objective.
Finally, Sir, on the Vietnamese boat people.
I share the FAC's view that only reluctantly does one come to the conclusion that there is no alternative to arranging repatriation to Vietnam on an orderly basis. There has been progress on this in recent weeks and I hope the community will continue to show patience.
Nothing could be more damaging to Hong Kong's present interest than ill considered actions such as anti-Vietnamese demonstrations or the abandonment of the policy of first asylum or the risking of lives of these pitiful people by turning their boats away. At this time, we need all the support we can get from around the world. From all that I hear such international support would be sharply reduced were we to initiate a change of policy; for obvious reasons we would be accused, however unfairly, of adopting double standards.
This sad and difficult problem has long been with us and I can well understand the frustrations that many Hong Kong people are feeling. But I hope this Council can continue to support a sensible and humane approach to those whose predicament
-- despite Hong Kong's current problems -- is still considerably worse than our own. With these words, Sir, I support the motion.
MR. DAVID CHEUNG: Sir, the FAC report is full of illogicality and contradictions and, reading between lines, one can see through its proposition hiding behind a cluster of words that the British Government should shirk its responsibilities for Hong Kong.
The FAC, while recognizing and realizing the gravity of the situation in Hong Kong following the recent bloody events in China, fails to recommend the proper action the British Government should take. The gist of the report, in my view, is that the FAC craves to be seen to be helping Hong Kong, but is loath to recommend that Britain pay any price.
The report recognizes that:
(a) confidence in Hong Kong has been shaken; Para 1.1
(b) the situation has changed so completely that Para 1.2 positions have to be fundamentally reassessed;
(c) the concerns which were identified during the Para 1.5 committee's visit had been intensified and required
addressing even more urgently;
(d) Hong Kong people cannot exercise the fundamental Para 1.6 right of self-determination;
(e) it is of redoubled importance that Britain acts as Para 1.9 a strong champion of Hong Kong's interest;
(f) the People's Republic has demonstrated again Para 1.10 its historically persistent unpredictability;
(g) Hong Kong can least afford to lose those who Para 4.18 are emigrating because of uncertainty over the future.
With such recognitions, Sir, particularly the People's Republic's demonstration again of its historically persistent unpredictability, it strikes me as to how the FAC still can say that it "believes that the Joint Declaration met Britain's unique obligation to Hong Kong".
The report asserts that:
(a) nothing should be done to cast any doubt on the Para 4.18 Joint Declaration and the British memorandum;
(b) no Hong Kong BDTCs granted British Para 4.8 citizenship would be able to become the Chief
Executive and so on;
(c) the granting of right of abode, right of entry or Para 4.9 right of readmission means the removal of immigration
controls for Hong Kong BDTCs, this would be contrary
to the fundamental principles of immigration controls;
(d) the argument for an insurance policy is confusing; Para 4.12
(e) Britain could be vulnerable to large influxes Para 4.12 of people provoked by internal events in China
rather than those in Hong Kong;
(f) certain categories of people -- those that Canada, Para 4.19 Australia and United States want, could be
given the assurance (by the granting of British citizenship);
(g) Britain will be ready to help us when we become refugees; Para 4.15 and
(h) Hong Kong has historically had a highly mobile population. Para 4.18
These assertions, Sir, only show too vividly that the FAC is trying to absolve Britain from its constitutional and moral responsibilities towards the people of Hong Kong.
Since the British memorandum is not part of the Joint Declaration, to grant British citizenship to Hong Kong BDTCs would not constitute a breach of the treaty. It is within the powers of the British Government to do so if the will is there. As to the argument that no BDTC granted British citizenship would be able to become the Chief Executive and so on, there is nothing to worry about. After all, Hong Kong can but have one Chief Executive and a handful of top government officials. Even the granting of the right of entry or the right of admission would defeat the purpose of our call for the restoration of Hong Kong people's right of abode in Britain. Hong Kong people want to stay in Hong Kong, not to leave Hong Kong. We can stay and will want to stay if, and only if, we are assured that there is nothing to be worried about and that, in the worst scenario, we have Her Majesty's Government to turn to for a home of last resort. The argument for an insurance policy is therefore not a confused argument. If Britain is so confident in the Joint Declaration, why should it be so worried about possible mass influxes of Hong Kong people? In the extreme case of an Armageddon scenario in Hong Kong, is Britain prepared to stand aside and keep Hong Kong people away? Categorization is divisive. It is demoralizing for those who do not get the insurance. Leaders in different sectors in the community may be instrumental to the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong, but so are the people. Hong Kong would not be what we are today without the people. It would be very ungentlemanly and dishonourable if Britain just waits and sees until we become refugees before helping us. In the post-war years, more people moved into Hong Kong than out of Hong Kong. After what has happened in China recently, the situation, Sir, as should be recognized, is totally different.
To end, may I call on Her Majesty's Government to act now to restore our rights and go down in history as moral, constitutional, responsible and honourable. If not, history might depict Britain as immoral, unconstitutional, irresponsible and dishonourable towards its subjects. The choice is HMG's; I trust it will be sensibly discreet.
With these words, Sir, I support the motion.
MRS. LAM (in Cantonese): Sir, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons arrived in Hong Kong in April 1989 to listen to the views of the people of Hong Kong on the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the Basic Law, the Nationality Act and the Vietnamese boat people issue. On 28 June, the FAC released a report drawing
conclusions and making recommendations on these issues. Unfortunately, no concrete solutions have been suggested so far as the part on nationality is concerned, though that is the question the people of Hong Kong are most worried and concerned about. Being confronted by a confidence crisis, what the Hong Kong people need most is an insurance policy. However, the FAC's report has not made the least commitment in that respect, but only thinks of the benefits of Britain, disregarding public
opinion here. The people of Hong Kong are very disappointed indeed.
Hong Kong has been under British rule since 1842. With the exception of the period of Japanese occupation lasting three years and eight months during the Pacific War, governors were appointed by Britain during the past 140-odd years to rule Hong Kong on behalf of the British sovereign. All official letters and documents of the Hong Kong Government bore the royal insignia. Her Majesty the Queen is also the Queen of the people of Hong Kong. People born in this territory have all along been
recognized as British subjects, and were issued with British passports. Before changes were made to the Nationality Act, these passport holders were allowed to enter and leave Britain freely, to settle down, study and work there.
The people of Hong Kong were actually looked upon by Britain as British citizens. On 14 September 1951, legislation was introduced to stipulate that all Hong Kong British subjects, whether male or female, must join voluntary services, including disciplinary forces such as the auxiliary police and the Civil Aid Services. At that time, the people of Hong Kong raised no objections, as that was considered a civic duty and obligation. Although such practices have later been suspended, many people with such experience are still alive. When registering for Hong Kong identity cards and entering personal particulars on other occasions, Hong Kong British subjects always fill in "British" in the column of nationality. This is another proof that those born in Hong Kong are British. As obligations and rights should go hand in hand, the Hong Kong British people should enjoy the right of abode in Britain.
The nationality of an individual is an inherent right. Under the principles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Charter of the United Nations, regardless of a person's place of birth, be it anywhere on land, in air or at sea, he is born to become the citizen of that country or any country which has the control of such land, territorial sky, territorial waters or the mode of transport thereon. Unless he is naturalized to become a citizen of another country, his
inherent nationality remains unchanged. The people of Hong Kong have no intention to change their nationality as this is their only begotten nationality and they intend
to retain it. They do not want to leave their homeland where they were born and brought up, unless there is a recurrence of the Tiananmen Square incident here. In the event of such mishap who can guarantee that the people of Hong Kong will take departure safely from here? Hence, they need to have their future insured and only Britain, their sovereign state is qualified and held responsible for acting as their insurer. In so doing, the confidence of the Hong Kong people can be restored,
otherwise, their worries will be intensified as 1997 is drawing near.
Britain has been founded for several thousand years; she is a civilized, advanced and democratic country. She is recognized as a prestigious country by the international community. Britain has given us the impression of being a power standing fast to cherished principles, responsible, honourable, righteous and honouring her commitments. It is for sure that she will prudently reconsider the aspirations of the Hong Kong people for they are only demanding something that rightfully belonged to them in the past. Britain should not deprive them of their birth-right as these people are really British subjects born in a British dependent territory! Hong Kong is a British colony. We do not want to see Britain disgraced over the nationality issue in the remaining years of her rule in the territory. As Britain has been generous and benevolent to the people of other British colonies such as granting the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar the right of abode in the United Kingdom, why are the people of Hong Kong singled out and treated differently? Why did Britain first tighten her control over the Hong Kong British people's right of abode in the United Kingdom, then deprive them of such right altogether? What we ask for is only fair treatment. I would like to raise a query: where have Britain's long-standing code of practice and righteousness gone?
Apart from the fact that those people who were born in Hong Kong are British subjects, there is another group of people who, out of admiration for Britain's constitutional system, have willingly given up their inherent nationality to become British subjects by way of naturalization. This group of people have taken an oath of allegiance to Britain and have been bestowed British nationality by Her Majesty the Queen. They are under the conviction that henceforth they can feel secured about their future and need not worry that they will have to lead a life under an authori-tarian government. However, the present situation falls short of their expectation, because the passports held by the naturalized British subjects in Hong Kong can only serve as travelling documents in future. On the nationality issue, how can Britain be accountable to these naturalized British subjects in Hong Kong? Do not forget that many people have indicated that if they had been disposed to hold
on to their original nationality, they would not have applied for naturalization in the first place. People of Hong Kong are already accustomed to the free and democratic lifestyle here; they will not leave the territory, if this way of life is allowed to continue. The right of abode in Britain will be taken only as a safeguard against uncertainty. However, if the right of abode was granted only to some people as proposed in the FAC's report, it would divide the unity of the community and accelerate the rate of emigration of professionals, civil servants and wealthy people to other
countries, thus turning Hong Kong into a city without talents. In that case, how can Hong Kong continue to enjoy prosperity and stability? Now many shopkeepers have complained to me about the decline of their business -- some boutiques only make three transactions in a week and those in the food trade also suffer set-backs in business. If the volume of business goes on like this, the shopkeepers cannot even afford to pay the rents. When such a situation comes about, how can British fulfil the Sino-British Joint Declaration's undertaking of handing over a stable and prosperous Hong Kong to the future SAR Government? Lastly, I sincerely hope the British Government will carefully consider the contents of the speeches made by my colleagues.
Sir, with these remarks, I support the motion.
6.00 pm
HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT: It is now six o'clock and under Standing Order 8(2), the Council should now adjourn.
CHIEF SECRETARY: Sir, with your consent, I move that Standing Order 8(2) be suspended so as to allow the Council's business this afternoon to be concluded.
Question proposed, put and agreed to.
MRS. LAU: Sir, the Foreign Affairs Committee report fails miserably at addressing the single most imperative problem of Hong Kong -- the confidence crisis. When feelings of anger, fear, frustration and depression run high, the FAC's conclusions on the nationality issue serve only to add more bitterness.
The FAC seemed unable or unwilling to appreciate the fact that Hong Kong British subjects have a legitimate claim to the right of abode in Britain, in other words, full British citizenship. What we are asking is merely a restoration of a right which lawfully belonged to us but which Britain, by successive Acts of Parliament,
wrongfully eroded. The FAC appears to find comfort in saying that the 1981 Act
removed no pre-existing rights of entry or settlement in the United Kingdom. It refused to acknowledge that we ever had any right. But the fact remains that prior to 1962, Hong Kong British subjects did have the absolute right to live and work in Britain and become British citizens. Our rights were only taken away by the
Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. Further legislations in subsequent years rendered watertight the door which was already closed. The whole process of erosion of our nationality rights was conducted in total disregard of the interests of Hong Kong people by a United Kingdom Parliament in which Hong Kong has no representation, no influence, no vote and no say. The 1981 Act further relegated the position of Hong Kong British subjects to that of second class citizens. Is it not monstrously unjust to treat Hong Kong people this way when they have served Britain well? In a political emergency such as the present, is it too much to ask for restoration of a
constitutional right which ought to belong to those born on British soil not to mention those who have forsaken their own nationality to swear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen?
In 1986, Lord MACLEHOSE said in the House of Lords:
"It is difficult for us here to realize the feelings of someone who was born a British national with right of abode in the United Kingdom who through no fault of his own finds that that right has gone from him, in spite of the fact that all this time he has been called British and has been administered from Britain."
It is difficult for the British politicians to understand us from across the miles and that is why they have come to us. But if they come out here to us with their minds closed, the difficulty can never be overcome. It is apparent from the FAC report that our carefully prepared and soundly based submissions on the nationality issue have all been cavalierly dismissed. Instead what we have is a mere accentuation of the all too well known die-hard British Government line. I had hoped that at least there might be some sense of justice or honour and some respect for our basic
constitutional rights from these gentlemen, but to my utter disappointment, none was forthcoming.
The FAC has repeatedly emphasized in its report that Britain has a special obligation to Hong Kong because Hong Kong people are not able to exercise the fundamental right of self-determination. Having acknowledged Hong Kong's sad predicament, the FAC goes no further to expound on this special obligation other than to say that it has been met by the Joint Declaration. The Joint Declaration purports
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.