“Hong Kong has changed” is a lament often heard from those who have left the city in pursuit of the apocryphal greener grass elsewhere in the world. Some of these were political activists, escaping possible retribution for their role in the violence which rocked the city in the anti-China riots of 2019-20. Others were enticed by the rather dubious economic prospects of becoming immigrants in immigrant-hostile places like the United Kingdom or the United States. Others were Western expatriates escaping the economic and social disruption of the riots immediately followed by the strict COVID-19 pandemic measures of 2020-22. Many among these disparate groups still feel the psychological need to justify their decision to leave Hong Kong by lamenting the fact that it has “changed”.
In his latest six-monthly report on Hong Kong, British foreign secretary, David Lammy, seems to have been unduly influenced by the thinking of such self-imposed exiles. In his introductory comments, he states: “The Prime Minister and I have met these individuals and heard about the wider chilling effect that transnational repression is having on the Hong Kong diaspora.” Presumably, he is referring to those individuals who have fled to Britain to escape criminal charges in Hong Kong. If so, these are hardly the most objective or reliable witnesses when they assert that Hong Kong has changed.
Nevertheless, they are right. Hong Kong has indeed changed — along with everywhere else in the world. Nowhere remains static. The ancient Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, is credited with the idea that the only constant in life is change. Only fragments of his writings remain, the most famous one being: “Everything changes and nothing remains still; and you cannot step twice into the same stream.” It’s not really surprising that Hong Kong is no exception to this rule. The only way to cope with an ever-changing world is to accept and even embrace the change, rather than lamenting the loss of a previous reality, often viewed nostalgically through rose-tinted spectacles.
The regular negative Western media reports on a “changed” Hong Kong are a classic case of nostalgia for an idealized version of the city that never really existed. This Western narrative focusing on political change, sees recent years as a regressive period, during which the democratic rights, freedoms and rule of law bequeathed by Britain in 1997 have been so eroded that Hong Kong is now an autocracy, with all decisions dictated by Beijing. The policy of “one country, two systems”, giving Hong Kong a high degree of autonomy, is now regarded as a “sham”. The city is portrayed as no longer allowing freedom of speech or peaceful protest, and imposing “draconian” security laws to create a “police state”, with government critics facing imprisonment.
This Western narrative of negative change is based on a mythologized version of life in Hong Kong under British rule. The reality is that under British rule, Hong Kong was never a democracy. It was run by a colonial and business elite primarily focused on its own interests. Governors were all appointed by British prime ministers without ever consulting Hong Kong people. Notably, the last governor, Chris Patten, was appointed only because he lost his UK parliamentary seat (and Conservative Party chairmanship) in the 1992 general election. The Hong Kong executive was never democratically elected. Similarly, during the 150-plus years of British rule, the Legislative Council was not fully elected until 1995, just two years before the handover. Prior to this last-minute, unilateral and temporary democratization, the colonial legislature was dominated by unelected government officials and appointees. So condemning the current political situation in Hong Kong ignores the inconvenient truth that the city is more democratic now than for almost all the time when British governors were in charge.
Similarly, to maintain that the new security laws have changed Hong Kong by destroying its freedoms, ending “one country, two systems”, and undermining the rule of law is a huge distortion. Under the security laws, “two systems” remains intact, with Hong Kong still retaining a high degree of autonomy over its internal affairs. The rule of law remains a cornerstone, with the judicial system still based on British procedures and principles of common law. Hong Kong residents still enjoy freedom of association, movement, religion, assembly and speech, so long as the intent is not to subvert the government, promote secession from China, or undertake terrorist activities. This is no different from security laws in most democratic countries. So, logically, anyone who condemns Hong Kong’s security laws should also condemn the similar laws in the UK, US and other Western states.
Despite the wild exaggerations about political change in Hong Kong, it’s still true, however, that the city has changed significantly since the 1997 handover. For one thing, it certainly feels a lot more civilized than when I first moved here in 1990. Spitting in the street, littering, queue-jumping, shoving onto the MTR, street-sleeping and begging were all far more commonplace then. Attitudes toward animals were also more shocking. Dogs were more likely to be kept as security guards rather than as pets, and children often seemed to recoil in terror when they encountered even a small dog being walked on a lead. I can also recall my revulsion at seeing civet cats being kept in tiny cages outside a small restaurant, on display for customers to select. The contrast with the kinder, pet-friendly, more civilized Hong Kong of today could not be starker.
The city’s quality of life has also changed since the handover. The high cost of housing and great disparities in wealth remain key challenges for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government but its success in expanding the cheap and efficient public transport system, improving educational facilities, and developing more sport, cultural and leisure opportunities have all contributed to a better quality of life for ordinary people. The city is also healthier than it was in the 1990s. Not only has high quality and efficient medical provision improved for all residents, but Hong Kong is also far less polluted than it was previously, especially on the roads. Trucks, taxis and cars billowing black smoke from their exhausts are no longer an everyday health hazard for motorists, pedestrians and residents. Green energy is in the ascendancy and recycling has cut down on waste going to landfill sites.
Hong Kong has retained its British era “East-meets-West” character and remains one of the world’s most vibrant, cosmopolitan cities. However, there has also been a notable change here. The arrogant, privileged, colonial attitudes of too many expatriates were unfortunate features of life here when I first came to Hong Kong. The sense of entitlement and feeling of Western superiority over Chinese people were by no means universal among my compatriots, but there were enough old colonial types here to make the rest of us squirm with embarrassment at their patronizing and sometimes rude attitudes toward local people who actually formed the backbone of the city. The disappearance of this anachronistic, self-styled “elite” after the 1997 handover definitely comes under the category of positive changes.
So yes, Hong Kong has changed, but not in the negative way so often portrayed in the West. It has generally changed for the better, while still preserving its best traditional characteristics, including its vibrancy, efficiency, “can do” work ethic, family values, commitment to the rule of law, respect for the elderly, valuing of education, and belief in harmonious relationships. It is also one of the safest cities anywhere in the world and a place we can all be proud to call our home.
The author is a British historian and former principal of Sha Tin College, an international secondary school in Hong Kong.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
