主權換治權| Returning Sovereignty in Exchange For the Right to Govern

【每週核心概念| Keyword of the week】

• 主權換治權| Returning Sovereignty in Exchange For the Right to Govern

曾經推動基本法二十三條立法的現任立法會議員葉劉淑儀女士在其面書上提出英人在二戰後本來就想撤離香港，她的講法是：

他們或許不知道英國於第二次世界大戰之後國勢日衰，大英帝國瀕臨瓦解，英國人早已部署撤離，並不斷修改移民條例以及國籍法例，使其殖民地子民不可以到英國定居。

葉太得講法是將英國說成早就部署撤離，置港英子民於不顧的殖民者。在不否認殖民主義（以及帝國主義）為世界帶來需要深遠和負面的影響的同時，我們亦不可能否認香港在眾多殖民地中，是一件獨一無二的傑作：繁榮的經濟、穩定的社會結構、豐厚的財富累積以及相比其他殖民地更為開放和自由的社會環境。在反殖的同時，我們也不應該罔顧歷史事實，對港英以及唐寧街政府作出與歷史事實不符的指控。

「主權換治權」的建議，是英國政府面對《展拓香港界址專條》租借界限街以北、深圳河以南的土地和離島九十九年的條款即將屆滿而衍生的方案。當時英國希望可以將香港主權歸還中華人民共和國的同時，保有英方對於香港的管治權力。後來面對中方的反對等，這個方案最終胎死腹中。

事實上，香港有很多人都知道這段歷史。舉例而言，根據香港特別行政區立法會於2004年2月6日的會議紀錄[1]，時任議員黃宜弘如是說：

我們不妨回顧一下中英談判和《基本法》起草的過程，就會豁然開朗。 當年，英國政府先後提出“重訂租約”、“以主權換治權”、“還政於民”， 目的就是想延續英國在香港的政治和經濟利益。

如果英人在二戰後已經準備部署撤離香港，又怎麼會與中國討論新界租約問題呢？其實，在1980年初接任被前港督葛量洪點名為「海外政黨的喉舌」[2] 的新華社社長許家屯在他的回憶錄中[3] 這樣寫道：

八三年七月，中英兩國第二輪談判開始後。英國代表果然提出了「過渡論」： 認為英國撤出香港，把治權轉移到港人手中實現本地化，需要過渡，距離「九七」只有十四年，時間不夠，至少需要三十至四十年來過渡，香港才會穩定。這個過渡期，可以在中國主權名義下，由英國繼續管治。

至此，一直在香港各界醞釀傳播下未公開的英國官方的「以主權換治權」謀略，終於明朗了。

不單止中方的前高層以及本地立法會前議員知曉這段歷史，甚至早在1979年，英國政府內部已經由此「主權換治權」的香港，例如根據英國解密檔案[4]，一封在1979年7月2 日寄給首相府的信件可見，英國外交及聯邦事務部（FCO）曾建議港英政府批出沒有年期的地契，並更改其他地契達至同樣效果。同時，亦應掃除其他法律障礙，以確保港督能在1997年後繼續管治新界。三個月之後，在一封英國外交及聯邦事務部寫給首相府的信函中，我們看見英國駐英大使館向中方提出上述建議但不果，並被喻為「不適當」以及「不必要」。

由此可見，英國在1979年開始觸及香港問題時早已希望乘借與中國關係良好，提出延續對香港的管治，以期達到「保持投資者信心」，而不是一早就想撤離。

後來因為種種原因，主要因為中方的恫嚇以及對於主權的執著，「主權換治權」的提案最終不了了之。可是，我們不可以否認，英國對於香港過渡方案的想像，並不是單純的一走了之，而是有更廣闊的想法。

A couple of weeks ago, Mrs. Regina Yip, who advocated the biased and controversial National Security Law in 2003, suggested that after the Second World War, the influence of British Empire was diminishing and hence she planned to evacuate (from Hong Kong). And through amending the provision of immigration and nationality law, the British Government had a ground to forbid her colonial subjects to settle in UK.

It seems that Mrs. Yip was trying to portray the British government as an unfaithful traitor who had been planning for leaving Hong Kong for long since the end of Second World War. However, that is not the truth. Although we all acknowledge the damage brought by the rise of colonialism and imperialism in the last few centuries, we should never neglect that Hong Kong is always the masterpiece of British colonialism in famous for its economic prosperity, stability and relatively liberal socio-political environment. Therefore, we must give №10 a fair comment upon this issue.

“Returning sovereignty in exchange for the right to govern” (The RSRG hereafter )is the proposed solution regarding the approaching expiration of “The Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting an Extension of Hong Kong Territory”, (The Convention hereafter ) which aimed at offering legal mandate to the British governance over New Territories after 1997. Such proposition in the late 1970s is for sure the best refutation of the aforementioned proclamation made by Mrs. Regina Yip that our former metropole had been intending to leave Hong Kong since the end of Second World War.

In reality, scores of local and western evidences manifested that such proposition is real. For example, Dr. Philip Wong, the former legislative councilor, recapped the pre-1997 negotiation when he made his comment upon the constitutional reform [1] and he said

Let us do some recap on the Sino-British negotiations and the drafting process of the Basic Law. We will then be suddenly enlightened. Back then, the British Government proposed, one after another, “a request to renew the lease”, “an offer to return sovereignty in exchange for the right to govern”, and “returning the political power to the people”. Her objective was to maintain Britain’s political and economic interests in Hong Kong.

Similarly, as suggested in the memoir of Jia-tun Xu, the former director of New China News Agency (Hong Kong), he mentioned that

After the commencement of Sino-British negotiation, the British side suggested the “transitional approach”, which emphasised that it would take time for the power transition from the hand of colonial British to the Hong Kongers’ in July 1983 and it might take 30 to 40 years for the stable power transition. As such, UK counter suggested that during the power transition, she should maintain her governance over Hong Kong under Chinese sovereignty.

In fact, the proposition of “returning sovereignty in exchange for the right to govern” is not simply well-known on the chinese side. As mentioned by the archival document [4] PREM 19/789 Future of Hong Kong (Part 1), the british government started considering the solution to the approaching expiration of the convention in 1979. As shown from the letter sent to the Prime Minister on 2nd July 1979, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office suggested

Hong Kong Government should grant leases without a fixed term and alter existing leases to the same effect. At the same time, any legal obstacle on the British side to the Governor to continuing to administer the New Territories beyond 1997 would be removed by an Order in Council. (…) These moves would make it possible for British administration to continue beyond 1997.

Three months later, another letter sent to №10 and reported preliminary reply from the chinese side, which is

The Ambassador took action on 5th July 1979; on 24 September the Chinese gave him their reply. While friendly in tone it referred to the legal steps which we had in mind as “unnecessary and inappropriate” and warned of adverse repercussion should we persist.

From the above evidences, we observed that British postulate of Hong Kong’s future was manifest and diverse that it did not simply entail the evacuation plan. Just that on account of various reasons during the negotiation, encompassing chinese intimidation and strong persistence of her sovereignty over Hong Kong, the proposition of “returning sovereignty in exchange for the right to govern” was down the drain.

參考資料| References
[1] Official Record of Proceeding, Friday, 6 February 2004 The Council continued to meet at half-past Two o’clock.
[2] FO 371/75782 Relations between China and Hong Kong. Communist activities in Hong Kong.
[3] Memoir of Jia-tun Xu (Xujiatun Huiyilu | 許家屯回憶錄).
[4] PREM 19/789 Future of Hong Kong (Part 1).