Examination of witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
TUESDAY 28 APRIL 1998
MR DEREK
FATCHETT, MP,
MR GRAHAM
FRY and MR
STEPHEN LILLIE
20. I think many ordinary people in Hong
Kong will be disappointed to hear one of Her Majesty's Government's
ministers saying the question of sweeping away the elected legislature
is a technical seminar debating point. There was a sense in the
reply you gave to colleagues of a very common theme about Hong
Kong, that ordinary Hong Kong people are really not interested
in democracy, that is just a preoccupation of Western liberals.
Whenever they are allowed to vote it is the people standing up
for universal suffrage, be it Martin Lee, be it Emily Lau, who
get the biggest possible vote. Do you think it is unfair to peddle
this line that it is all right they do not have universal suffrage
because really they are not that interested when every indication
is when the Hong Kong people are allowed to vote they vote for
people calling for universal suffrage?
(Mr Fatchett) I have certainly never peddled the
line that the Hong Kong people are not interested in democracy.
Nor, let me say, has that been the position of this Government
or the previous government.
21. It was implicit in some of your replies,
that is why I am teasing it out.
(Mr Fatchett) I am glad that I have been able
to take the implicit to the explicit and make it clear for your
benefit, Diane. The fact is I did say earlier to Peter that my
view is there is a strong democratic pressure in Hong Kong, quite
the contrary to the notion that the Hong Kong people are not ready
for democracy and do not wish democracy.
22. We are well aware——
(Mr Fatchett) Let me just finish my point. That
is why I feel that with some confidence we will make progress
towards the universal franchise because that is what I believe
the people of Hong Kong wish. If I can also take up the first
part of your question, I certainly have never said that the removal
of the Legislative Council and the through train is a technical
matter.
23. Seminar.
(Mr Fatchett) No. You probably failed to understand.
Let me repeat it for your benefit again. What I did say was that
this Government and the previous government have made clear in
principle our fundamental objection to the abolition of the Legislative
Council. What was the seminar matter was the discussion about
the Geoffrey Howe papers, the Patten papers, the discussions with
Beijing that took place in a whole number of meetings in the early
and mid 1990s. That is history and there will be a judgment of
history on that. There is no judgment as far as we are concerned
that is any other than to say that we feel it was wrong to get
rid of the Legislative Council and we have been abundantly clear
and fundamentally clear in our criticism of the decision to set
up a Provisional Legislature.
24. As a Committee those of us who went
to Hong Kong are very well aware of the popular pressure for universal
suffrage in Hong Kong, it is the only ex-British colony that I
know of that was not offered universal suffrage on independence.
The question we are putting to you as the relevant Minister is
are you confident that the government, particularly the Chief
Executive and some of the chief ministers, is committed to making
progress towards universal suffrage? In some of the things that
the Chief Executive is reported to have said both in public and
in private he gives the strong impression that universal suffrage
by the year 2007 is just not a priority for his government.
(Mr Fatchett) The Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region is bound by the provisions of the Joint Declaration. As
I said to Peter in my earlier comment, there is no negative suggestion
in any of the comments by the Chief Executive that he is trying
to avoid the responsibilities that exist under the Joint Declaration
and, therefore, I tend to be an optimist by nature and I look
at the pressures that exist within Hong Kong society, the expectations
of greater openness, transparency and involvement, and that in
turn will lead to universal franchise because I think that is
the direction in which the people of Hong Kong want to go. If
I can make the point that I made to John in an earlier question,
if you look at the success of Hong Kong economically you cannot
divorce Hong Kong's economic success from its respect for political
freedoms, its respect for human rights, its transparency and its
accountability. All of those are part of the same cocktail.
25. I will not dwell on this topic for much
longer. We are well aware of your sunny nature, Minister. Let
me ask you again, because Hong Kong is a subject that the Committee
intends to return to and I think it is important to get Her Majesty's
Government's views on the record now. We know about the pressures
from below, we know about the popular demand for democracy, we
have been there for a week, we know that. What we are asking you
to do now in this Committee on the record is to say are you confident
that the Chief Executive and that government is on track to achieving
universal suffrage by the year 2007, or very soon after? At this
point are you confident? Let us leave the court of public opinion,
let us leave the pressure from below, let us talk about Her Majesty's
Government's assessment as to where the Chief Executive is going.
(Mr Fatchett) I suspect if I had the opportunity
of these questions 12 months ago you would have put to me the
hypothesis that no elections would take place in Hong Kong. You
would have suggested then that the Chief Executive Designate would
not allow elections to take place. The fact is that the elections
are taking place on 24 May. There are deficiencies in those but
what they do is to maintain the principle of the ballot box and
of the election process. I think that is a vote of confidence
by the Chief Executive in that process and I am confident that
process will continue.
26. I am sorry to keep repeating it but
in a sense it is at the heart of our continuing oversight over
Hong Kong. You are confident that the current administration is
on track and committed to achieving universal suffrage by the
year 2007, if not sooner, because many people in Hong Kong said
to us they could not see why not? Many of the politicians, not
just Emily Lau and Martin Lee, but many of the politicians we
met, said that they are anxious to see a move towards universal
suffrage sooner than 2007. Are you confident this administration
is on track? That is the question I am asking you.
(Mr Fatchett) If I can just take one of the points
in your question.
27. Would you try answering the question,
Mr Fatchett, that would be nice.
(Mr Fatchett) Just give me time, it will come.
I think the fact is that it is not so-called democrats but it
is others who have an interest in democracy that is an interesting
aspect of the political development of Hong Kong. Twelve months
ago there was again an argument around that it was only the democrats
who wanted to maintain a democratic electoral system, the fact
is now that others who may have been appointed to the Provisional
Legislature want to see that process develop. That I think is
important, it pushes towards the pressures for a more democratic
process. For all of those reasons I will say to you that we are
confident that the Chief Executive understands his commitments
under the Joint Declaration.
Sir John Stanley
28. Just following your very last sentence,
Minister. Are you aware that when the Chief Executive had his
meeting with our Committee in Hong Kong, when asked specifically
whether he accepted that his own appointment as Chief Executive
was going to be subject to universal franchise voting at a subsequent
date or not, he specifically referred to the fact that there was
no commitment even for his own election to be made the subject
of universal franchise, let alone the election of LegCo in the
Joint Declaration?
(Mr Fatchett) There are very clear commitments
in relation to LegCo and those are the points that I have made
in the year 2007. The role of the Chief Executive assumes a different
nature and it may well have been that it was that on which he
responded. The LegCo responsibilities and the election there are
clearly set out under the Joint Declaration.
29. On the question of LegCo, you responded
to Sir Peter Emery's question as to whether or not you had any
evidence to suggest that the Hong Kong Government was not moving
towards universal suffrage and you said to Sir Peter that you
had no negative evidence. Do you have any positive evidence that
the Hong Kong Government is moving towards universal suffrage
for LegCo elections?
(Mr Fatchett) I think the evidence we have is
the area in which I would take some comfort and some confidence
and that is the fact that these elections are taking place next
month. They may not be all that we would wish for but they are
a very clear indication that the democratic structures and values
are still in place in Hong Kong. I see that very much as a step
towards the objectives that are set out there under the Joint
Declaration.
30. How can you see the elections taking
place this month as being a step towards universal suffrage when
the basis on which these elections are being held is a reduction
from universal suffrage, compared to the ones that took place
during the last election when the British were still in government?
You surely are aware of the very substantial reduction in the
numbers of people allowed to vote in the functional constituencies?
You surely are aware that the effect of that is that the democratic
parties which are likely to secure in excess of 60 per cent of
the votes will end up with at best probably about one-fifth of
the seats? Surely all the evidence is that the Hong Kong Government
is moving away from universal suffrage rather than towards it?
(Mr Fatchett) I go back to the point I made earlier
that 12 months ago there were those voices who said we would not
have these elections. These elections are taking place. I remember
very well, John, at the meeting that the Foreign Secretary and
I had with C H Tung just before the handover in Hong Kong on 30
June last year, the press interest, the public interest, was whether
during the course of that meeting we raised the question about
the principle of elections and whether we got any commitment from
C H Tung that those elections would take place. I recognise the
defects, the deficiencies, in the current electoral system. I
said that earlier in my opening statement and I have no difficulty
in agreeing with you on that. All I am saying is look at it in
the context of where we were 12 months ago. The fact is that the
elections are taking place. They are not perfect, I have never
argued that, but they are taking place and they do enshrine into
the Special Administrative Region a commitment towards a democratic
process. We have to build upon that and, as I said to Peter earlier,
that has to be our political objective.
31. Will you just clarify one point in your
evidence. You have given the impression that there is a binding
commitment in the Joint Declaration—a binding commitment—to
achieve universal suffrage elections to LegCo by a specific date.
(Mr Fatchett) No.
32. I do not believe you would wish to leave
the Committee with that impression. Surely that is stated as an
objective, not as a binding commitment?
(Mr Fatchett) I was clear in my language earlier
I thought and that is yes, it is an objective of the Joint Declaration
but there is not a specific date target.
Mr Mackinlay
33. If I could follow up Sir John's point.
It seems to me, Minister, that we are perhaps unconsciously confused
here in our Westminster style system in assuming that elections
to the Legislature ipso facto mean that governments have
mandates. Am I correct that there is no institutional mechanism
whereby even if you have a democratically elected Legislative
Council in Hong Kong the executive branch of government would
be answerable to that? There is no linkage at all in either the
Joint Declaration or other constitutional documents, is there?
(Mr Fatchett) You are constitutionally and historically
correct.
34. Therefore, when this Committee meets
the Chief Executive, who makes it quite clear that he has no intention
of subordinating his office to elections, it means in a sense
pretty bad news. Even if we have a democratically elected Legislative
Council, government will not be elected. Government will still
be handed down from Beijing. I think we have to face facts that
is so, is it not? Hands up anybody who can suggest there is any
leverage, any document, anything we can hang our coat on to say
that the Chief Executive and his government will have some democratic
mandate.
(Mr Fatchett) You are right in saying that we
must not build up structures and expectations that were not there
in the Joint Declaration. You may wish to open up an argument
about the negotiation on the Joint Declaration but I am not sure
how relevant that would be in 1998 as we live by the document.
You are absolutely right in saying that that structure, that apparatus,
is not present in the Joint Declaration. You are also right in
saying, if you take the historical example, that there is the
analogous position of the government back to the Chief Executive
and the government of Hong Kong was not elected under the previous
administration. Therefore, the analogy historically is correct
as well. What I think is important, before I allow you to move
into a total mood of pessimism and despair, is not to under-estimate
the extent to which a democratically elected legislative body
can exercise an important influence on accountability informally.
If you talk to the previous Governor, Chris Patten would say that
his appearances before the Legislative Council were occasions
that he felt were even more terrifying than an appearance before
a Select Committee of the House of Commons. I am not in a position
to make a judgment on the comparison. He was certainly subject
to criticism there and was always sensitive to that criticism.
If you have an open Legislative Council that is democratically
elected, that is rooted in the community, then of course what
it does say will be an informal form of control and accountability
but you will not be electing government, I take that point.
35. I accept you have to deal with Hong
Kong as it is and not as we would like it to be but it does seem
to me if I have one kind of complaint, for want of a better term,
there is a desire by a number of people to fudge over this by
talking in terms of elections and aspirations for democratic elections
rather than being absolutely clear of the way things are. I think
on the floor of the House to some extent perhaps unconsciously
it has fallen into the category, and this morning I think some
of my colleagues, of confusing the two things, Legislative Council
and the election of government. I think we should say things as
they are rather than trying to fudge the thing because it is really
quite a different system that we are talking about from a Westminster
style operation, although it has its genesis here. There is no
prospect at the time, no indication, is there, that the executive
branch of government will be elected?
(Mr Fatchett) Can I just make three points on
that to get the record absolutely straight, which is what you
are aiming to do around which there will be no disagreement. First
of all, the Joint Declaration does not provide for an elected
government. You are right in saying that it is not the Westminster
model whereby government appears from those that are elected,
there is a different process.
36. Or the United States model?
(Mr Fatchett) Indeed. Secondly, though, the Joint
Declaration does provide for that accountability of the government
to the elected bodies, so there is an accountability.
37. Of scrutiny?
(Mr Fatchett) Of scrutiny.
38. But it cannot be dismissed by the legislature?
(Mr Fatchett) There is an accountability there.
That is the point I was making about the nature of the process.
39. I accept that.
(Mr Fatchett) Thirdly, maybe most important in
this context, the executive arm of the constitution in Hong Kong
is subject to the rule of law and, therefore, you go around what
is a very important circle in that respect.
Mr Mackinlay: I am
obliged.
|
