Hong Kong
and
hypocrisy
As expected the government got its bill allowing up to 225,000 Hong Kong citizens to setle in Britain through the second reading on April 19. The vote was 313 to 216-a majority of 97.
The bill created a split among both Tory MPs and Labour MPs. The former chuirman of the Con servative: Party, Norman Tebbit, led the opposition to the bill among Tory MPs on the grounds That the mil broke the party s lection manifesto, which had op posed any large scale immigration. On April 19, 44 Tory MPs voted against the Bill while some
The Labour Party had issoed # three line whip for its MPs to vote against the bill on the grounds that it was elitist, unprin mpled and unworkable. Ahoul 25 Labour MPs broke the whip by
The Labour MPs who broke the party line did it for a variety of reasons, Most of them belong to the Socialist Campaign Group and did not want to be part of an unholy alliance with the Tebbil gang by voting against the Bill.
Labour criticism of the bill is to a large exten corcel The government's bill will only allow the elite of Hong Kong to get into this country. More than five million ordinary citizens of Hong Kong would have no chance to get into Britain, if they should want to. The bill is giving a
But the Labour Party leadership is giving no clear alternative to the government's bill Labour wants to avoid being specific on what should he done. Roy Hattersley said the Labour Party would only give passports to need them. For Labour, that means those Hang Kong citizens who become state-
UPDATE less by 1997 (when takes over the British Colony) because cannot become Chinese citizens. That only amounts to a few
The Labour Party corcriticises the government for not intro democracy Hong Kong. But that is also an indirect of former Labour Goverments who did nothing to introduce democratic nghts Hong Kong. Labour's criticism would gain some credibilty if they anounced that a Labour government elected before 1997 immediately introduce universal suffrage in Hong Kong. call elections to a General Assembly and respect the wishes of the people of Hong Kong.
A lot of hypocrisy is involved from all sides in the Hong Kong debate. The government want to give a helping hand to the elite of Hong Kong, who (according to the government) could he useful for the Brilish Economy if they should choose to come to Britain.
This is in contrast with the government's attitude to the 40,000 Vietnamese boat people living in inhuman conditions in Hong Kong. Instead of offering these refugees British passports the government wants to send them back to Vietnam by force. (and probably also Tebbit accepts that between 50,000 and 1 Africans have the right to sctile down in Britain. Not only that but UK immigrants" Advisory Service alleges that the Government is deliberately couring whites fearing black rule in South as ideal Tory voters." (Guardian 17.4.1990)
The Labour Party's hypocrisy less great than the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong: Victims of hypocrisy gOvernments: Government comes t power in two years time, this law will be impiemented. And: Labour is counterpesing the need for Asian and Black families to get their relatives intr Britain to letting 225,000 Hong Kong citizens into Britain, who have no relations in this country. The argument is that by accepting the 225,000 the queue will be much longur for everyone else, But that argument is only real if you accept that there should be a limit on im-
The Labour argument exposes what the Labour opposition to the government's bill is really about: accommodation to racist altitudes amung the electorate. Labour accepts the argument that a large scale immigration is bad for race relations here in Britain! Labour is opposing the bill bocause it wants to be seen as not allowing hundreds of thousands of Chinese people into Britain. Of course Labour is not saving that openly: That is where Labour ditters from Tebbil. from Tebbit. Bur as TebbiL Labour wants lo stop mass im-
Tor racist clectoral
That is why Labour is not mesenting a concrcte alternative to the government's bill. Hard pressed, Labour is willing to admit that only a few thousand Hong Kong citizens should be alJowed into Britain (Newsnight 1X.4.1990). That is why Labour is not campaigning to let the 40,000 Vietnamese Boat people in Vietnam come lo Britain.
No wonder that some Labour MPs had difficulties in following the Labour linc. But were these MPs right in not voling against the government's bill? If one can trust the press these MPs mainly abstamed in the vote because they did not want to make an alliance with Tebbit and because Labour's altemative vote was ab-
But surely one cannot decide a vote by looking at who will be casting the same vote. One has to judge the bill on its merits-not on who will vote for or against it. If it is a bad bill one should vote against it and campaign for a bet-
The Liberal Democrats argued that it is better to let 225,000 Hong Kong citizens into Britain Democrats have also heen arguing that all 3.28 million British Dependent Territories Citizens' in Hong Kong should have the right to comc to Britain. (That will exclude the more than 2 million non-British Dependent Territories citizens in Hong Kong from the option of leaving Hong government's bill the Liberal Democrats missed an opportunity for raising a campaign to let many more Hong Kong citizens into Britain. A defeat of the government's bill would give the opportunity to debate alternative bills, including a bill which grants universal suffrage to the people of Hong Kong.
By Finn Jensen