Seems like yesterday. I was living and working in Hong Kong when the news broke. It was impossible to take in, things had been looking so promising. Everything changed, just like that. The brutality, the sheer stupidity, the incredible ruthlessness. I reckon a majority of Hong Kongers immediately decided to seek a foreign passport. Who could blame them?


Commercial life was disrupted, productivity plummeted. We marched, we demonstrated. The Australian PM allowed Hong Kong students to remain in Australia. He was in tears when he made the announcement.


And here we are, again witnessing repression in the PRC, not only against the people of Hong Kong, but against the Uighurs. Where are the world's statesmen and stateswomen?

Seems like yesterday. I was living and working in Hong Kong when the news broke. It was impossible to take in, things had been looking so promising. Everything changed, just like that. The brutality, the sheer stupidity, the incredible ruthlessness. I reckon a majority of Hong Kongers immediately decided to seek a foreign passport. Who could blame them?


Commercial life was disrupted, productivity plummeted. We marched, we demonstrated. The Australian PM allowed Hong Kong students to remain in Australia. He was in tears when he made the announcement.


And here we are, again witnessing repression in the PRC, not only against the people of Hong Kong, but against the Uighurs. Where are the world's statesmen and stateswomen?

And Tibet. Lhasa is being converted to a Han majority city ever since they opened the rail line and the locals live as second class citizens. 1.3 billion vs 3 million, they don't stand a chance unfortunately

Seems like yesterday. I was living and working in Hong Kong when the news broke. It was impossible to take in, things had been looking so promising. Everything changed, just like that. The brutality, the sheer stupidity, the incredible ruthlessness. I reckon a majority of Hong Kongers immediately decided to seek a foreign passport. Who could blame them?


Commercial life was disrupted, productivity plummeted. We marched, we demonstrated. The Australian PM allowed Hong Kong students to remain in Australia. He was in tears when he made the announcement.


And here we are, again witnessing repression in the PRC, not only against the people of Hong Kong, but against the Uighurs. Where are the world's statesmen and stateswomen?

There is something wonderful about the fact that a small island in the Pearl River Delta rose to become a great trading city and commercial powerhouse of East Asia. Wonderful, but not accidental or fortuitous.

Hong Kong succeeds because its people are free. They can pursue their dreams and scale as many heights as their talents allow. They can debate and share new ideas, expressing themselves as they wish. And they live under the rule of law, administered by independent courts.

With their abilities thus released, Hong Kong’s people have shown that they can achieve almost anything. They have prospered hand in hand with China’s economic renaissance; today their home is one of the richest cities in the world and hundreds of mainland companies have chosen to list on the Hong Kong stock exchange.

So China has a greater interest than anyone else in preserving Hong Kong’s success. Since the handover in 1997, the key has been the precious concept of “one country, two systems”, enshrined in Hong Kong’s Basic Law and underpinned by the joint declaration signed by Britain and China.

This guarantees Hong Kong’s “high degree of autonomy” with only limited exceptions such as foreign affairs, defence or in a state of emergency. The declaration adds: “The current social and economic systems in Hong Kong will remain unchanged, and so will the lifestyle”, including essential “rights and freedoms”.

Yet last month, the National People’s Congress in Beijing decided to impose a national security law on Hong Kong that would curtail its freedoms and dramatically erode its autonomy. If China proceeds, this would be in direct conflict with its obligations under the joint declaration, a legally binding treaty registered with the United Nations.

Britain would then have no choice but to uphold our profound ties of history and friendship with the people of Hong Kong.

Today, about 350,000 of the territory’s people hold British National (Overseas) passports and another 2.5 million would be eligible to apply for them. At present, these passports allow visa-free access to the United Kingdom for up to six months.

If China imposes its national security law, the British government will change our immigration rules and allow any holder of these passports from Hong Kong to come to the UK for a renewable period of 12 months and be given further immigration rights, including the right to work, which could place them on a route to citizenship.

This would amount to one of the biggest changes in our visa system in history. If it proves necessary, the British government will take this step and take it willingly.

Many people in Hong Kong fear that their way of life — which China pledged to uphold — is under threat. If China proceeds to justify their fears, then Britain could not in good conscience shrug our shoulders and walk away; instead we will honour our obligations and provide an alternative.

I hope it will not come to this. I still hope that China will remember that responsibilities go hand in glove with strength and leadership. As China plays a greater role on the international stage — commensurate with its economic prowess — then its authority will rest not simply on its global weight but on its reputation for fair dealing and magnanimity.

Britain does not seek to prevent China’s rise; on the contrary we will work side by side on all the issues where our interests converge, from trade to climate change. We want a modern and mature relationship, based on mutual respect and recognising China’s place in the world.

And it is precisely because we welcome China as a leading member of the world community that we expect it to abide by international agreements.

I also struggle to understand how the latest measure might ease tensions in Hong Kong. For much of last year, the territory experienced large protests, triggered by an ill-judged attempt to pass a law allowing extradition from Hong Kong to the mainland.

If China now goes further and imposes national security legislation, this would only risk inflaming the situation.

For our part, the UK raised our grave concerns about Hong Kong in the UN security council last week; we will continue to do so in international fora. Instead of making false allegations — such as claiming that the UK somehow organised the protests — or casting doubt over the joint declaration, I hope that China will work alongside the international community to preserve everything that has allowed Hong Kong to thrive.

Britain wants nothing more than for Hong Kong to succeed under “one country, two systems”. I hope that China wants the same. Let us work together to make it so.

And also the targeted suppression of all Chinese languages that aren't Mandarin. Stripping away cultural identities and replacing them with the state identity.

Probably on the Chinese payroll.

That one is fascinating.
I was in Guangzhou for work and the guys I was working with were from Shanghai.
We'd go for dinner every night and it was a bit of a minefield with the language. Local language was Cantonese but the Shanghai guys were nervously saying they "found the accent hard to understand". Felt bad for them that they were so brainwashed.

Some of the locals were a bit French re speaking mandarin to my colleagues.
In work, it was fine. Outside, there was definitely some hostility albeit the fückers are so rude that it's hard to figure out when they are doing it deliberately.

Talking to an ethnically Chinese lady here once who acted as a go-between for American business and Chinese suppliers, she joked Cantonese was kinda like "redneck accent" and it was difficult to understand.

Bugger me. We are surrounded by experts today. Maybe, just maybe, the "ethnically Chinese" lady used the term "redneck accent" as a way of communicating a cultural, not necessarily a semantic, fact. Cantonese is looked down on, as it happens, by some, just as hillybilly language is looked down on by some.

The difference with Hong Kong is that they were under a democratic country and were handed over to an oppressive regime. They were sold out by the Brits and decision makers who put the 50 year timeframe knowing that they would've died by then. Remember this was agreed around the same time as Tianament square. The current generation were betrayed.

Do fuk off with your holier than thou bullshit.

Even though you lived in HK it appears you spent your time exclusively in expat circles.

Sit down bro.

He lived in HK for a year or something in the 80s. Give him the respect he deserves.

Speaking of experts, here he is! Back to share more wisdom.

Close to 90% of HK’s territory was under a 99 year lease that China wouldn’t extend, the terms of the handover were agreed to several years before Tiananmen, 50 years of “One Country, Two Systems” was a compromise between the British and Chinese positions. And now the UK are stepping in and promising to offer a pathway to citizenship for millions of HKers if their freedoms are taken away.

Hong Kong is the Austria of the 21st century

Taiwan is the Czechoslovakia of the 21st century

What do you think HK'er point of view is?

What colonial power seized control of Austria due to a war over drugs?

That one is fascinating.
I was in Guangzhou for work and the guys I was working with were from Shanghai.
We'd go for dinner every night and it was a bit of a minefield with the language. Local language was Cantonese but the Shanghai guys were nervously saying they "found the accent hard to understand". Felt bad for them that they were so brainwashed.

Some of the locals were a bit French re speaking mandarin to my colleagues.
In work, it was fine. Outside, there was definitely some hostility albeit the fückers are so rude that it's hard to figure out when they are doing it deliberately.

If it's just general oppression you could make a case for any nation that isn't white, and even a few white ones. Or is it just oppression after the anglo-saxons decided it was no longer acceptable, after they'd conveniently raped the planet for centuries, or just got what they wanted.

There is no such thing as a singular point of view. Yes, I am sure that a majority would like "One Country, Two Systems" to be honoured fully, and extended permanently.


But a very significant "patriotic" minority are quite happy to end up fully absorbed in the PRC. And that minority would encompass most of the rich and powerful.

A Chinese student mate of mine a few years ago told me Beijingers laugh at the Shanghai dialect as not even Chinese. He surmised it sounded Japanese to his Beijinghua ears. Ouch. That's how bar fights start.

Thats horrible. The original language spoken in Shanghai, Hu, has all but been replaced with Mandarin. So much so that when people refer to Shangainese they usually mean Mandarin spoken with a Shanghai accent.

It was leased from the Qing dynasty who were succeeded by the Republic of China who were then overthrown by the CCP. The Republic of China still exists in Taiwan.


The so the true owner is disputed. That should've been enough for the Brits to allow the people of HK to make their own decision. If China didn't like it, it should've militarise and seek support from US.

What do you think HK'er point of view is?

Your first point wouldn’t hold up because the UK and the rest of the world had already recognized the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN and in global affairs in 1971. It’s not a move I necessarily agree with but it’s how it was handled.

There was a fear at the time that China would take HK by force if Britain didn’t negotiate. Thatcher first asked for a new 50 year lease and immediately was told no with it later suggested by Deng Xioaping that China didn’t need to negotiate at all and could simply invade and take over. His quote was “I could take the whole lot in an afternoon.” So the UK saw a guarantee of 50 years of “One Country, Two Systems” as the best possible outcome. And now they are saying they will hold China to account if they don’t honor the terms of the deal.

Shaw: Is it conceivable the Hong Kong fever will spread across China's triggering social reform regardless of whether the Chinese leadership wanted them?

Thatcher: Yes. That is the hope. It is just like putting one little crystal in a big solution. You know all of the rest of the solution -in chemistry- crystallises onto the one crystal. Hong Kong: Chinese people will come to Hong Kong, they'll see and they'll say why is it different, and what is the difference? It is the same people, the same talents, but here there is a rule of law founded on the belief that each and every person matters in personal lives and they have a British administration. So they will know that if you transfer that to China, the kind of administration, the kind of rule of law, the kind of respect for the individual, they too could be a massive Hong Kong. So Hong Kong will be an example. She, I suppose, really, in a way is the flag ship of what the China people can do.

One of the main arguments in the west in favor of handing over HK was that it would cause the whole of China to embrace similar philosophies. Obviously the opposite has been true with regard to civil liberties and over time they have tried to make HK more like China.

Thatcher expressed that hope in an interview in 1997:



You keep saying they were betrayed but it’s been proven that Britain had no choice but to exit, they arranged the best deal for HK that they could in doing so, and now when the HK people are in a time of need they are standing with them and offering them a way out.