1

UK House of Commons

Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry of the

Foreign and Commonwealth Office's handling of

UK's political, cultural, education and trade ties with

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China

Speaking notes prepared by Alan Lung

Chairman, Hong Kong Democratic Foundation

Wednesday 17 December 2014

_______________________________________________________________________

Thank you for inviting the HKDF to give evidence. We fully appreciate the importance the

Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) and the House of Commons attaches to this inquiry and to

the relations between the UK and Hong Kong. As I understand it, the recent emergency

debate on HK was only the 5th

ever granted by the Speaker.

I have read the “Hansard ” report on the emergency debate. Some speakers, such as the Hon.

Sir Malcom Rifkind (former Foreign Minister) have shown deep feelings and knowledge of

China and Hong Kong. Others speakers were angry, perhaps feeling humiliated by the refusal

of entry to Hong Kong by China. I do have a story to tell -- and I'll try to tell the story with

two themes and a few key points.

First Theme -- UK, Hong Kong and China to act on "Hope" and not on "Fear"

I would like to point out the causes the FAC care about, and it can be that Hong Kong's

democratic development may not move forward if the UK, Hong Kong and Beijing act on

“Fear” and not on “Hope”. I believe we all know that China will become “very irrational” if

Taiwan declare independence, even though they know that it will be very costly for China to

fight.

The same is true for HK – the Central Leadership in Beijing could act very irrationally if they

believe or are led to believe by the “hawks” and xenophobic forces within the system that

China’s sovereignty on Hong Kong is at risk.

Second theme -- a democratic Hong Kong is good for China

The House of Commons and the British Government could consider helping us to convince

the leadership in Beijing that a "Democratic Hong Kong is good for China".

But telling Beijing not to fear democratic development in Hong Kong is easier said than done.

HK's “diehard liberalism” is not just skin deep. There are fundamental difference between us

and the “Democratic Centralism” ideology that is based on “The 3rd

International” – the

Communist International (Comintern) of 1919. Further legal reform in mainland China is still

very difficult because of the “Comintern” style Chinese Constitution. There are also

2

fundamental difference in understanding of “Rule of Law” as understood and practiced in

Hong Kong and “Rule by Law” as practiced in Mainland China.

Because of this "Comintern" style Chinese Constitution, there is real difficulty in

understanding the concept of separation of powers practiced in the UK and HK. Many

Mainland Officials simply cannot believe the UK Government has no control on the House of

Commons. We have no such difficulty in HK as our Legco members are truly very

independent. But the term "Opposition" is understood differently in HK and in the mainland:

there's nothing "Honorable" about being the opposition party in the minds of some mainland

officials. The term is often used in a derogatory way -- suggesting that opposition Legco

members in Hong Kong are not loyal to the China and even subversive. And the implication

is often extended to organizations that have democratic aspirations.

However, some credits need to be given to the Beijing Government as they are now trying to

push ahead and deepen the “Reform and Opening” and practice “Consultative Democracy” –

a form of “democracy” practiced in British Hong Kong before 1997.

Of course, democratic development in HK is good for China because China could borrow

Hong Kong's experience to help solve the many conflicts and social problems arising in the

mainland because of rapid economic development. A senior U.S. Diplomat who is also a

Russian and Chinese historian said in one of the Hong Kong Democratic Foundation speaker

luncheons: "… if Gobochev had a little piece of Hong Kong, he could have done much better

with his reform in the Soviet Union". He also said, "… the Soviet Union almost had a little

piece of Germany in the form of Kaliningrad -- but they kicked all the Germans out!"

The real risk for China's further Reform and Opening is that the most valuable features of

"Hong Kong" could be kicked out of China if the "Two Systems" is not observed more

closely by the HKSAR Government and the Central Government. HK could become just

another Chinese City. As Mainland China is really the dominate player in this contest of

ideology, such a development trend cannot be a good thing from China's internal

development viewpoint.

It should be noted that we have been the good boys and girls. HK never asked for

independence; we only asked for democracy. The protests in HK have been peaceful and

non-violent. Universal suffrage was even promised to us. If there's no good outcome for HK,

there can be no good outcome on and no hope for China to solve the Tibet, Xinjiang, and

Taiwan issues.

Chris Patten versus Sir Percy Cradock

The first point or comment I would like to make is on Governor Chris Patten's

representation in the House of Commons and whether the position taken by the FCO of "…

welcoming China's objective" and stating that "… the details of the constitutional package for

the Government of HK and China and the people of HK to decide in the Basic Law" …

without mentioning the "Joint Declaration" is a good thing or a bad thing for us in HK.

3

Chris Patten's has many fans in HK and I am one of them. This egg-tart eating, flesh-pressing

Governor of Hong Kong "… ain't nothing we've seen before". The HKDF is also linked to

Chris Patten. One of HKDF's founding members, Jimmy McGregor was appointed to Chris

Patten's cabinet. I also believe that Chris Patten heard about Jimmy's death in Canada a few

months earlier perhaps a day or two before we did in HK.

I watched Chris Patten's presentation at the House of Commons twice and I agree with

everything he said. I even like his accent and the way he put things. But I could not agree

with his antagonistic tone against China. It was like a déjà-vu, taking us back to 1997. It is

now 17 years later. The "Honorable Retreat" for Britain is over and it seems that Chris Patten

was still fighting Sir Percy Cradock and his disciples -- the sinologists who are serving in the

FCO. Many HKSAR Passport holders -- like me -- will pay the price if the antagonistic

attitude between UK and China continues.

I said the same thing and showed the picture of who received CY Leung together with Xi

Jinping in Beijing to a senior FCO official and I am not sure he knew all the personalities in

the picture. But when the same picture was shown to a former British diplomat who served in

HK, he immediately said " … oh this guy (Li Zhanshu) was the Guizhou party secretary.

Wang Huning -- he has served three Party Secretaries and he is Xi's foreign policy advisor".

I am sure there are many other Putonghua speaking experts within the FCO. This is a very

unique feature of the British Foreign Service. Because of their deep knowledge of China,

their judgment could be different from others and their feeling could be hurt by this inquiry.

UK could offer to assist HK to rebuild its public policy development capacity

In the earlier days, Jimmy McGregor had encouraged HKDF members to do public policy

research and development. We did not know why at the time. A book by Prof. Li Pang-

kwong : "Governance of HK -- according to declassified British Archives" (published in

Chinese only) revealed that Hong Kong has real deficits in public policy-making and policy

development now because neither HK nor China understood the very sophisticated

appointment, training and policy implementation system of the British Colonial Offices and

the systems behind the British Civil Service that administered HK before 1997. The book

revealed that Hong Kong has major issues other than the electoral systems.

But HK cannot follow the policies and implementation systems in mainland China. So

perhaps one of the things UK could do for HK is to assist the HK and Chinese Government to

put the policy development capacity back to Hong Kong by encouraging more exchange

between UK and HK at all levels. The FAC could also help convince the leadership in

Beijing that it's OK and even patriotic for HK civil servants and politicians to talk to British

officials and Members of Parliament. And it is OK for the HKSAR Government to keep track

of what's happening in the UK and Europe with help from the UK Government.

A specific Chief Executive Election Proposal for 2017

The second point is the political order for Hong Kong is far from settled. The UK Parliament

and the FAC could try to assist HK by helping us convince the Chinese Leadership to allow

4

maximum flexibility in handling HK affairs. And the FAC should judge the Beijing

leadership by their action -- not by the "hot air" blowing from many who are trying to be

politically correct.

For example, FAC should observe if Beijing would allow CE Election proposals that conform

to the Basic Law, NPC-Standing Committee Requirements and allows as close to a genuine

choice to HK people as possible. For example:

1. Entry (Nomination) -- by 1/8 of 1,200 Nomination Committee (same as

before);

2. Screening (down to 2-3 Candidates by Legco) -- 20 votes from Legco

members needed; the major benefit of this arrangement is putting the link

between the CE and Legco which is now missing back; the weight given to

Legco members in the nomination process would partly compensate for the

narrow electoral base of the nomination committee;

3. Exit (50% approval by Nomination Committee) -- to reject or accept the

entire list; if rejected … start from Step 1. again.

The "Exit" could be a bit controversial -- but it more or less address Beijing's concern that a

Hong Kong CE could work against the interests of the Central Government. The question we

all have to ask is if the glass is "Half Full, or Half Empty".

UK's influence on Hong Kong and the assistance the House of Commons could offer

The third and the final point I would like to make is UK's influence on HK and what the

FAC and FCO could offer to Hong Kong. One very amazing thing Occupied Central

managed to achieve is striking a consensus between many activists in Hong Kong and the

leadership in Beijing -- that the past economic development policy of HK might be favoring

the property tycoons and the finance sector too much.

And that the needs of the people of HK -- housing, education and upwardly mobile

opportunities -- have been ignored. This is why the theory that "Occupy Central" was

influenced, started and managed by "evil" foreign forces is not gaining much support in

Beijing. The best analogy I've read is a Mao Tse-tung story by The Hon. Jasper Tsang Yok-

sing (President of Legco). In his blog, Tsang quoted Mao and said "… external force could

only be one of the conditions but not the fundamental reason. An egg will hatch into a

chicken with the right temperature and environment, but you cannot turn a stone into a

Chicken".

I believe Beijing has already made up its mind what HK might need on the economic

development front and the Post Occupy Central Economic Order for HK. There would

probably be more job creation that relies on a high-end economic development model such as

innovation and technology. There could be less reliance on sending mainland tourist to HK to

create low end retail jobs, which the young people of HK do not want.

5

But the issues that are behind "Occupy Central" are far from resolved. Even Professor Benny

Tai, founder of the Occupy Central movement said in SCMP that the problem is not solved

"… even if Legco veto the reform package".

So the first thing the FAC could offer to HK is a calming influence. For the sake of HK,

the FAC and the House of Commons could try to swallow its indignation and try to persuade

everyone in Hong Kong and in mainland China to do the same. It is now time for Hong Kong

to begin to discuss the CE Election in an open and rational manner.

The second thing the House of Commons could do is to persuade the UK Government to

increase its innovation and technology cooperation with Hong Kong. This form of "economic

assistance" is profitable for UK companies to do. At a practical level, it will lead to increased

trade with China in technology and services and using the superior legal environment in

Hong Kong to protect British Intellectual Property Rights when they are traded with China.

Such assistance and "interference" on HK affairs could be welcomed by the Beijing

Government.

The third thing is to take note of HK's policy-making weakness -- what Professor Li Peng

Kwong pointed out in his book and what Jimmy McGregor of HKDF tried to do for Hong

Kong. The FAC and UK Government should persuade Beijing to allow and to increase the

exchanges between HK and UK at all levels -- legislature, Government and NGOs.

In conclusion, HKDF has been saying "… tail wagging the dog". I am sure the FAC and

the UK Government wishes HK and China well and I am sure HK people will welcome a

forthcoming visit by the FAC. I do hope you'll come sometime in future and when you're in

Hong Kong, do talk to Jasper Tsang about the Mao Tse-tung story and to Prof. Li Pang-

kwong about the things he found about HK in the British Archive.

1

英國下議院外交事務委員會

調查

外交和聯邦事務部處理

英國與中國香港特別行政區的

政治,文化,教育及經貿關係

香港民主促進會主席龍家麟

準備的發言稿

2014 年 12 月 17 日（星期三）

_______________________________________________________________________

謝謝你邀請的香港民主促進會提供證據。 我們充分體會到外交事務委員會

(FAC）和下議院對這調查，和英國和香港之間的關係的重視。據我所知，

最近有關香港的緊急辯論、只是議長歷來授權的第五次。

我已閱讀過以上的緊急辯論的發言報告。 一些發言者，如里夫金德爵士

（Sir Malcom Rifkind 前英外長)，他們展示了對中國和香港的深厚認識和

感情。 其他發言者有表示憤怒，也許是感到中國拒絕外交事務委員入境香

港是羞辱。我有些觀點，並且會盡量由兩個主題和幾個關鍵點去表達出來。

第一個主題: 英國、香港、中國下一步行動應是基於“希望”而不是“恐懼”

我想指出的是如果英國，香港和北京的行動是基於“恐懼”，而不是“希望”

的話、所有 FAC 所關心的，和香港的民主發展可能無法前進。 我相信大

家都知道，如果台灣宣布獨立、即使知道打仗的代價是非常昂貴、中國也

很可能變得“非常不理性”。

這思維同樣適用於香港。如果在北京的中央領導相信或被系統內的 “鷹派”

和媚外勢力引導至相信中國對香港的主權出現危機、他們同樣會變得 “ ….

非常不理性”。

2

第二個主題: 香港實踐民主對中國是有必然的好處

下議院和英國政府可以考慮幫助 我們說服在北京的領導，一個民主香港

是對中國有利的。

但要北京不害怕香港的民主發展談何容易。 香港是不節不扣，不是虛有其

表的「自由主義」。香港和建基於 1919 年「第三國際」的「民主集中制」

思維之間是有根本區別的。而由於這建基於「第三共產國際」風格的中國

憲法、中國大陸進行更深層次的司法改革仍然困難。還有在中國大陸對

「依法治國」的認識 (Rule by Law) 和在香港深深了解的「法治」(Rule of

Law) 是有根本上理解差異的。「法治」不單只是要求公平、更要公認是

公平。

也是由於對這種「第三國際」風格憲法的習慣性理解，不少內地官員對理

解在英國和香港實踐的三權分立概念有真正的困難。 不少內地人員根本無

法相信英國政府無法控制下議院的運作。 我們沒有這樣的困難、香港的立

法會議員是真正很獨立的。但是，對“反對派” 一詞在香港和大陸也有不

同的理解：關鍵是在內地一些官員心中的沒有什麼「光榮反對黨」。 該術

語通常用於貶義的方式；意味著香港的民主派立法會議員是有不忠於中國

甚至有顛覆的意思。而且這寓意思維往往是會影響到內地官員對有民主意

識形態的組織的看法。

然而北京政府也不是完全沒有推動民主，目前他們正在努力推進和深化

「改革開放亅， 希望實行“協商民主” 、也就是 1997 年以前港英政府實行

的“民主形式”。

當然，在香港發展民主是有利於中國的，因為中國可以借鑒香港的經驗幫

助解決許多衝突和因為經濟的快速發展而在大陸出現的社會問題。 在香港

民主促進會午餐演講嘉賓之一的一位美國高級外交官和俄羅斯和中國的歷

史學家說：“...如果 當年戈爾巴喬夫有一小片香港，他在改革蘇聯時可以做

的更好”。 他還表示“... 蘇聯差不多有一小片的德國、就是加里寧格勒

(Kaliningrad)、但他們當年不幸地踢了所有的德國人” 。

3

中國的進一步改革開放面對的真正的危機是、如果香港特區政府和中央政

府不更加緊密實踐「兩制」，香港最有價值的東西很有可能被踢出中

國。 香港可能成為只是「另一個中國城市」。由於中國大陸是真正的主宰

這意識形態比拼的一方，這樣的發展趨勢，從中國的內部發展角度來看不

會是件好事。

應該指出的是，我們一向都是好孩子。香港從來沒有要求獨立、我們只是

要求民主。在香港的抗議活動也是和平的，非暴力的。 北京甚至經已答應

給我們普選。如果香港問題沒有好結果，中國在解決其他西藏、新疆還有

台灣問題、也沒有可能和沒有希望有好結果的。

彭定康與柯利達爵士的對決

第一關鍵點或評論, 我想提出的是彭定康在下議院的作證，以及英國外交

和聯邦事務部採取“...歡迎中國的在香港發展民主的目標”，並說明“...香港

的政改方案的細節，應由香港和中國政府及香港的人民基於基本法來決定

" ；而且聲明中沒有提及 "聯合聲明" 是件好事或是件壞事。

彭定康在香港擁有眾多粉絲，我也是其中之一。 這會吃蛋撻，表現親民的

香港總督 “...是我們以前從未見過 的奇蹟"。 民主促進會也與彭定康有深

刻的關係。民主促進會的其中一位創始成員麥理覺爵士 (Jimmy McGregor)

曾被任命為彭定康的行政局成員。我們也相信，彭定康可能比我們一两天

前知道麥理覺幾個月前在加拿大離世的消息。

我看了彭定康在下議院的演講兩次，我同意他所說的一切。 我甚至喜歡他

的口音和他把事情的說法。但我不能同意他對中國對立的語調。這就像一

個「似曾相識」，帶我們回到 1997 年英國“光榮撤退” 的年代。十七年

後，似乎彭定康依然和柯利達爵士和他的門徒、現時在英國外交部服務的

漢學家對決。如果英國和中國之間的對立態度繼續、很多香港特區護照持

有人 (例如本人) 將會為此而付出代價。

我曾向一位英國外交部的高級官員說過同樣的話，並向他顯示 APAC 期間

習近平在北京接見梁振英的圖片，我不知道這官員是否認識畫面中的所有

人物。但是，當把這同樣的圖片給一位曾在香港服務的前英國外交官看時，

4

他馬上說: “哦 ...這個栗戰書是 前貴州省省委書記 … 王滬寧、他曾擔任三屆

黨委書記的智囊，也是習近平的外交政策顧問"。 我相信現在還有其他許

多講普通話的漢學專家在 FCO 內服務、這是英國外交部的一個非常獨特

的能力。由於這些漢學專家對中國的深厚認識，他們的判斷可能是與其他

人不同的，他們的感情、也可能因為這項外交事務委員會的調查而感到受

傷害。

英國可以協助香港重建其公共政策發展的能力

在早二十年的日子裡，麥理覺曾經常鼓勵香港民主促進會的成員多做公共

政策的研究和開發。 當時我們不知道為什麼要這樣做。 一本由李彭廣教

授著的書籍:“ 管治香港 : 英國解密檔案的啓示” (只有中文版）透露，香

港在公共決策和政策制定出現重大的問題，是由於無論香港還是中國對英

國殖民辦公室的培訓制度、1997 年以前的非常複雜的外籍公務員任命制

度和政策執行體系並不理解。這本書表明香港在選舉制度之外、還有其他

重大問題。

但香港不能跟隨中國大陸的政策制定和實施系統。 因此，也許英國能為香

港做的事情之一是協助香港和中國政府重建公共政策研究和制定的能力，

鼓勵英國和香港各級之間有更多的交流。 外交事務委員會還可以幫助說服

北京的領導層，香港是可以(甚至是愛國行為) 與英國的公務員、政治家和

國會議員多點交流。 香港特區政府也可以在英國政府的幫助下跟踪在英國

和歐洲所發生的事情。

一個具體的 2017 年行政長官選舉建議

第二點 是香港的政治秩序還未能解決。 英國議會和 FAC 可以嘗試幫助我

們說服中國領導人允許在處理香港事務問題上容許最大的靈活性。而且英

國國會應觀察北京領導人的行動、而不是由很多意圖在政治上表白正確的

人所吹的“熱空氣” 去解讀評估形勢。

例如，FAC 應觀察，北京是否允許一個符合基本法，人大常委會的要求，

並同時允許一個盡可能接近一個有真正選擇給香港市民的行政長官選舉方

案。 例如：

5

1. 提名 － 由 1200 提名委員會的 1/8 提名（同 2012 年一樣）；

2. 篩選（到 2-3 候選人） － 需要立法會議員 20 票才過關; 這安排

的主要優點是把行政長官和立法會重新建立聯繫; 給予立法會議

員在提名過程中的關鍵角色會彌補提名委員會的狹隘選民基礎的

弱點;

3. 出閘（需 50％ 提名委員會支恃） － 1,200委員 以一人一票

「接受」或「拒絕」整個名單; 如果拒絕、步驟將從 「提名」重

新開始。

「出閘」安排、相信還是一個有重大爭議的議題, 但它或多或少地解決了

北京所關注的：不能接受香港行政長官與中央政府對抗的問題。 大家要問

的是，這「水杯」的安排是 “…半滿，還是半空的”。

英國對香港的影響力和下議院可以提供的援助

第三，最後一點: 我想提出的是英國國會和政府對香港的影響力和可以為

香港提供什麼的支援。 「佔中」其實成就了一些非常了不起的事情，就是

使中央領導人和香港社會運動家之間達成一些共識。 在北京的領導開 始

知悉到香港過去的經濟發展政策可能過份偏重地產商和金融發展。

香港人的要求: 住房，教育和向上流動的機會被忽略。 這就是為什麼認為

“佔領中環” 是受外國勢影響的說法、沒有獲得在北京領導人的大力支

持。 最好的比喻是立法會主席曾鈺成講的毛澤東故事。 在他的博客中，

曾引述毛澤東說: “... 外力只能是其中一個條件，但不是根本原因。一個

雞蛋會在具有合適溫度和環境中孵化成的雞，但你不能把石頭變成雞”。

我相信，北京可能已經知悉到香港在「後佔中」經濟秩序中要做什麼，相

信會創造更多依賴高端的經濟發展模式的就業機會，如創新及科技等。也

可能比較少依賴大陸遊客、到香港購物、去制做香港的年輕人不想要的低

端的零售就業機會。

6

但是， 「佔領中環」背後的政治問題還沒有解決。 即使佔中運動的創始

人戴耀廷教授也在南華早報說: “.. .即使立法會否決 政改方案、問題也解決

不了。"

因此，英國外交事務委員會可以提供給香港的第一件事情是一個鎮靜的作

用。 為了香港的利益，下議院和 FAC 可以嘗試吞下憤慨，並試圖說服香

港和中國大陸做同樣的事。現在是開始公開理性地討論 2017 年香港行政

長官選舉辦法的時候。

第二件事: 下議院可以做的是說服英國政府增加和香港的創新科技合

作。 這種形式的「經濟援助」，對英國公司是有利可圖的。 在實際操作

層面，這將導致與中國在技術和服務貿易有所增長、和同時利用香港優越

的法律環境保護英國的知識產權與中國進行的交易。這種援助和「干涉香

港事務」的行為、可能是受北京政府所歡迎的。

第三件事就是要關注香港的決策弱點－李彭廣教授在他著的書指出的，和

民主促進會已故麥理覺曾試圖為香港所做的事情。 外交事務委員會和英國

政府應該嘗試說服北京、讓香港和英國之間增加各個層次的交流、包括立

法機構，政府和非政府組織之間的交流。

總之，民主促進會一直說香港只是一頭大狗的小尾巴 “...但這小尾巴是有

能力搖動大狗的”。 我相信英國議會和英國政府是真正希望香港好和中國

好，相信香港市民大部份必定會歡迎交事務委員會到港訪問。 我也希望您

當在香港時，也跟曾鈺成談有關毛澤東的故事，並與李彭廣教授交流英國

檔案中有關香港的事情。