In recent times, I have been closely observing the trajectories of my legal counterparts in Hong Kong, a region that, despite witnessing some of its practitioners acquiring UK practising licences, appears, at first glance, largely unscathed by the tempestuous winds of change.

Reflecting on my departure from Yung, Yu, Yuen & Co., I enquired of my erstwhile colleagues whether the firm had reaped any rewards from the much-lauded “Talent Admission Scheme.” Given that Hong Kong’s economic landscape has historically profited from the burgeoning development of mainland China, one would assume a positive correlation. Yet, to my dismay, their responses were tinged with indifference, revealing that those fortunate enough to be admitted under the scheme seldom invest in property within the territory, and many struggle to make ends meet, reliant solely on the limited incentives dispensed by the Hong Kong government. The firm’s financial viability seemed precariously balanced, barely sufficient to cover its monthly obligations. Indeed, who, amidst a flourishing business landscape, would candidly confess, “I am amassing considerable wealth”? This left me questioning whether the ostensible signs of affluence belied a more profound, structural metamorphosis occurring within Hong Kong’s socio-economic fabric.

My perception of Hong Kong remains stubbornly anchored in the vibrant scenes of five years prior. While I am acutely aware of the sluggishness that characterises its economy today, I cannot help but recall the resilience displayed during the SARS epidemic of 2003, a time of tribulation that Hong Kong ultimately overcame. Yet, the current malaise seems to plunge deeper; the present predicament is not a swift crisis but rather an insidious, creeping economic erosion intertwined with a pervasive uncertainty about the future.

Recently, I encountered a new wave of Hongkongers arriving in the UK, applying for BNO visas, and with a remarkable candour, they identified themselves as “blue ribbons”—a term denoting pro-establishment leanings. In bygone days, they may have held steadfast in the belief that alignment with Beijing would ensure Hong Kong’s continued prosperity. However, faced with the stark reality that “making a living in Hong Kong has become increasingly arduous,” they found themselves compelled to leave. Predominantly engaged in business, they lament the perceived ruin wrought by students and anti-government factions, believing that compliance and obedience are the keys to retaining an illusion of stability and prosperity. Their experiences serve as a poignant microcosm, illuminating the irony that, under political duress, economic prosperity can often be revealed as mere rhetoric.

The anticipated resurgence of tourism following the border reopening post-pandemic failed to yield the expected influx of spendthrift visitors. Historically, the arrival of mainland tourists provided a much-needed boost to Hong Kong’s economy; however, the ascent of the mainland’s economy, coupled with shifting consumer habits, has markedly diminished Hong Kong’s allure. Those who once lavished their wealth within the territory have either emigrated or, if they remain financially secure, are now seeking leisure in Japan and South Korea. While Hongkongers still indulge in consumption across the border, those who persist in Hong Kong seem increasingly inclined to depart. The motivations behind this exodus extend beyond mere economic factors, encompassing profound apprehensions regarding the political landscape of the territory.

A recent financial article caught my eye, proclaiming that Hong Kong’s legal fees are the highest globally. This revelation momentarily led me to contemplate the possibility that perhaps the economic conditions are not as dire as widely believed. After all, the fees charged across various sectors ought to serve as an indicator of economic vitality. Yet, I was soon confronted with the disheartening reality that numerous retailers in Hong Kong are lamenting their plight, accusing mainland Chinese online shopping platforms of engaging in predatory pricing strategies that dissuade consumers from patronising physical stores, resulting in closures and slashed prices. While it may appear that consumers are reaping the benefits, we must not forget the cautionary words spoken over a decade ago: the so-called promise of “fifty years unchanged” was merely a façade designed to facilitate mainland China’s ascendance over Hong Kong, a proposition that was inherently unrealistic from its inception. With a staggering 1.1 billion inhabitants in mainland China juxtaposed against Hong Kong’s mere 6 million, it was evidently far more feasible to erode Hong Kong’s living standards than to elevate those of the mainland.

One might argue that Beijing, in its quest for prestige, would be disinclined to lose face; following its assumption of sovereignty over Hong Kong, it ought to demonstrate superior governance to its British predecessors. However, this notion reveals a profound misunderstanding of the Chinese political landscape. While Hong Kong represents a crucial conduit for China’s international aspirations, the paramount concern for Beijing remains the preservation of its authoritarian regime, rather than the pursuit of global integration. A retrospective glance at history, particularly the harrowing events of the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, underscores the lengths to which the CCP will go to safeguard its dominion, often sacrificing economic advancement and international standing in the process. Consequently, even as the mainland economy continues its upward trajectory, it will inevitably necessitate the outward migration of its populace to strike a precarious balance between politics and economics. As demonstrated in the Soviet Union and the United States, a nation’s economic development cannot thrive solely on domestic self-sufficiency; it must engage in global trade to sustain growth and stability. Yet, under the oppressive weight of totalitarian rule, economic progress invariably serves as a mere instrument of political machinations.

When the populace begins to grasp the implications of “cheap goods waging war on the impoverished,” they will inevitably come to understand the authentic essence of deflation. Prices may plummet, but wages too will inevitably follow suit over time. The sight of Cathay Pacific hiring mainland Chinese pilots should prompt reflection on the impending upheaval across all sectors in Hong Kong, where its denizens are being unwittingly colonised. This shift portends the end of an era characterised by high salaries, supplanted by the encroaching mainland Chinese economy. This phenomenon transcends mere economic concerns, evolving into a profound cultural and identity crisis. Hong Kong’s once-vibrant cultural tapestry, a significant draw for global talent and investment, is steadily unraveling under the shifting political climate. The lexicon of Hong Kong culture is gradually being supplanted, local cultural expressions are facing constriction, and even the Cantonese language is teetering on the brink of extinction.

It is conceivable that the “blue ribbons” remain oblivious to the fact that everything unfolds according to a predetermined script, one that was inscribed long before the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. They may harbour the illusion that as long as they remain within the bounds of political decorum, they can continue to lead lives unmarred by turmoil. Yet, the inexorable march of history renders individual agency seemingly insignificant amidst the tide of change. Those with the foresight and audacity to resist are invariably a minority. Ultimately, they may find their attempts to defy this preordained narrative futile. Their allegiance to the identity of Hong Kong may be rooted in an expectation of economic prosperity, yet they remain oblivious to the fact that the true foundation of this identity lies in the principles of freedom and the rule of law.

To comprehend the present plight of Hong Kong, one must delve into its historical context. Following the tumult of the 1967 riots, Hong Kong prioritised education, implementing widespread reforms aimed at enhancing the populace’s quality. The unrest of 1967, stemming from labour disputes and societal discord, also served as a manifestation of the populace’s dissatisfaction with colonial governance. The British administration, recognising the necessity of fostering stability through educational advancement and social welfare, endeavoured to address these grievances.

The officials from both China and Britain during that era were astute individuals, each with their own strategic objectives. The UK sought to retain its influence in Asia post-withdrawal, whilst the CCP was eager to reclaim Hong Kong, aiming to showcase its burgeoning power on the global stage. This intricate interplay between their aspirations ultimately shaped Hong Kong’s trajectory. Regrettably, many of Hong Kong’s politicians, lacking foresight and swayed by sentiments of Greater China, may have genuinely believed that the territory could serve as a bridge connecting China to the world. They overlooked a critical truth: under totalitarian governance, Hong Kong’s distinctiveness would inevitably be extinguished. The city’s rapid transformation from a haven of corruption to an economic powerhouse occurred within a mere two or three decades; however, the pace of educational and societal development lagged behind this economic surge. Consequently, when the post-1997 generation became aware of the encroaching realities, it was already too late. The education system, fixated on rote learning, failed to cultivate independent thought and critical analysis, rendering the populace ill-equipped to mount a substantial resistance as the political climate shifted.

This disillusionment is perhaps why only a scant minority of Hongkongers consider holding the UK accountable for their current plight. Many perceive that the UK has long abandoned its former colony, viewing any attempts at accountability as a futile exercise. Such a perspective is fundamentally flawed. The older generation, grappling with confusion regarding their national identity, fails to recognise that the Sino-British Joint Declaration is a bilateral responsibility. The UK, within the framework of this declaration, pledged to uphold Hong Kong’s autonomy, along with the human rights and freedoms of its citizens. Yet, as Hong Kong’s liberties erode and its human rights situation deteriorates with alarming rapidity, one must ask: has the UK fulfilled its obligations?

The Sino-British Joint Declaration ought to serve as a benchmark for accountability regarding the human rights situation in Hong Kong; regrettably, it has devolved into a convenient excuse for the UK to evade its responsibilities towards Hongkongers. As a new generation of Hongkongers, it is imperative that we assert our stance. What are we waiting for?

Chinese version : 殖民與通縮 被遺忘的香港人 以及一場遲來的問責

📢 Join the “UK Life & Current Affairs Channel” (DOVC.co.uk) Community! 🇬🇧

👋 Want to stay up-to-date on the latest UK life information, news, current affairs, policy changes, or share experiences with fellow Brits? Welcome to join the UK Life & Current Affairs Channel (DOVC.co.uk) to discuss and share useful information together!

📌 Community Features: ✅ Real-time updates on UK current affairs and policies ✅ Exchange of information on UK life, immigration, work, study, etc. ✅ Mutual support with like-minded friends

📲 Join us now!

🔹 WhatsApp Group 👉 Click here to join 🔹 Facebook Fan Page 👉 Follow us

Welcome to join us and explore UK life together! 🎉