I agree all the countries who support the HK protestors and their cause, especially UK, should grant asylum to all HK protestors and permanent residents wants to move. Since if UK treated them similar to UK citizens and granted them similar status in 1997, this situation will not arise. Given brexit, if UK allow asylum for HK permanent resident, it might help them ride out the economic fallout.

This is really put the hands where the mouth is, instead of words and criticism show support by action.

In 1997 Singapore allowed HK permanent resident to get permanent residence in SG, follow the same. Also there was a large exodus of people to Canada, some to USA. But many returned back.

Whilst I agree the UK should allow residency, and given history it would be appropriate, the politicians who wanted Brexit have whipped up immigration into such a ridiculous issue that giving entry to any extra group seems inconceivable. There's overt racism in the UK to an extent I can't remember for decades. It started to come back right after the referendum.

It feels like the seventies or eighties again in terms of the stupid, and inconsistent attitudes. Some people think it's OK to be visibly racist again.

I used to read Dominic Cumming’s blog. He is a very bright guy, obsessed with the right tail of human capital, which Hong Kong has a disproportionate amount of.

He is in a position of huge influence in the new government, which I think some people underrate. A great admirer of Bismarck, I very much doubt he cares much for the policy opinions of the people he pandered to to get power.

Morally, the British people owe the people of Hong Kong citizenship. Economically, it makes a great deal of sense, especially as those who move will most likely be younger people.

It will be interesting to see what he does. Though no Bizmark, he has a sort of hacker mindset to politics that is unusual in this day and age.

From an outsiders perspective, I like free trade and free movement of people, but I hate stultifying bureaucracy.

Or to put it another way: I like it when governments compete for citizens and capital. I dislike it when they have the capacity to coordinate against same.

So I consider the EU as something of a mixed bag.

> Morally, the British people owe the people of Hong Kong citizenship.

Problem is you can make that same moral argument for all of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.

> the politicians who wanted Brexit have whipped up immigration into such a ridiculous issue that giving entry to any extra group seems inconceivable

Idunno man, I don't think hardly anyone would have a problem with tens or hundreds of thousands of largely civilized, decent, educated people entering Britain; provided it was not in addition to what they're used to from other places. At least, this is what I gather from speaking a lot with Brexiters and marginal remainers.

This is what Britain should have done back in 97. Instead, they spent the time trying to stop Portugal from offering citizenship to the people of Macau so that Hongkongers wouldn’t try to ask for it.

What Britain should have done, long before '97:

(1) Made recognition of PRC conditional on PRC agreeing to an indefinite extension of lease on New Territories, such that no handover of HK was required

(2) Threaten that, if PRC didn't agree, UK would return New Territories to ROC instead, with British troops deployed to defend it

(3) Make clear to PRC that any military action against UK-controlled (or ROC-controlled) HK would result in a war between two nuclear weapon states (UK vs PRC)

(4) Give HK real democracy back in the 50s/60s/70s/80s, rather than waiting until 5 years before handover

(5) Build nuclear-powered desalination plants to remove HK dependency on mainland water

Please don't keyboard warrior on complex topics -- nothing you have outlined was even remotely possible or sensible.

And yet, quite compelling. It would be fascinating to read a point by point rebuttal.

> It would be fascinating to read a point by point rebuttal

China’s army bigger, China’s army bigger, China’s army bigger.

The only hope in hell for Britain would have been in Clinton. Given American optimism at the time, that would have been fruitless.

> China’s army bigger, China’s army bigger, China’s army bigger.

UK has nukes. PRC has nukes. Did PRC want a shooting war with another nuclear power?

> The only hope in hell for Britain would have been in Clinton. Given American optimism at the time, that would have been fruitless.

You are talking about the 1990s. If you read my original comment, I was talking about the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s. If at the height of the Cold War, Communist China had attacked a British colony, how would America have responded?

> If Communist China had attacked a British colony, how would America have responded

Probably with fascinated interest. America was pressuring the UK to decolonise, and had been since 41. HK was not as strategically significant as Berlin or Korea, besides Korea had both China and the USSR supporting the invasion.

I visualise something nearer Suez than Korea 2.

Okay, then imagine if the UK had granted Hong Kong independence or given them to the ROC. Still counts as decolonization, right?

That's maybe a significant "what if" too far, but I'll play.

HK independence in the 50s would have been difficult as most of the land area - 100x smaller than Taiwan - was leased. Not sure how ignoring that lease would play out internationally, but I suspect more provocation to CCP China than solution. HK island is just a few square miles, the rest - the leased portion - is part of the Chinese mainland. Taiwan is a few tens of thousands of square km of defensible island.

Giving to ROC? I heavily suspect had that been an option at the time the US would have damn near insisted on picking it up, just as had happened with a number of the tiny naval and air bases. So it would probably have stayed as British territory, leased to the US.

Actually passing to ROC would have to wait until after Chiang Kai Shek achieved some measure of stability. The US spent much of the 50s expecting Taiwan and Chiang Kai Shek to fall. By the 60s HK is developing in its own right, but Eisenhower had started to support Taiwan militarily. Now it's getting trickier.

It wouldn't be giving to ROC, but returning. I am not sure how many people know this fact: the Chinese copy of the Treaty of Nanking is currently in Taiwan (the treaty that ceded Hong Kong to the UK.)

> China’s army bigger, China’s army bigger, China’s army bigger.

Not back in the mid 80s, when the agreements were struck.

The UK can’t even handle being a member of the EU, do you really think the UK is capable of handling that?

The original post was about the UK back in the '50s to '90s.

China is too close.

UK is too far.

UK's war claim on basically Chinese soil is laughable.

>China is too close.

>UK is too far.

The UK whacked Argentina pretty good.

While obviously China would have been able to put up a much better fight the UK can project force on the other side of the world if they need to.

Not quite point by point, but will this do?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20826375

The UK did try to democratize HK governance in the 60s but China immediately threatened military invasion.

> The UK did try to democratize HK governance in the 60s but China immediately threatened military invasion.

Not really due to fear of military invasion, but due to fear of economic fallout on UK and giving up some luxury for its own citizens for a right cause. Lavish lifestyle funded by colony's money is more important for UK than fight for the rights of the people of its colonies.

They have milked every one of their colonies resources until the very last minute they left. Also before leaving they always sow seeds of division and failure. That's what they did for Hong Kong too.

So saying they wanted to give democracy to HK is outlandish.

in reality consider other western countries which attempted to stop decolonization and protect their citizens in those lands. French Algeria, Portuguese Goa - they lost the military fights and had to give up.

The PRC fought the combined UN forces to a standstill in the Korean war in the 1950s, and the British empire had already fallen apart and was in no shape to fight China then in the context of the cold war.

UK didn't fall apart for 150 years, still they couldn't offer any democracy to Hong Kong. Also China had a lost decade in cultural revolution after 1962. So again if you look at the facts and history, it's laughable to even suggest that British wanted democracy for Hong Kong.

It's the same old story of old British empire in every colony, where they will promise but never keep it. They were just hypocrite, the main intention was always that colony should not prosper or challenge British empire in future, after they leave.

When Britain decolonized their other colonies in the 1940s-60s they did take efforts to leave them with democratic governments (many of these did fall apart and become dictatorships or have other political issues as the countries were not developed enough for democracy to be viable.)

Your dislike of the UK seems to be blinding you to historical facts? Or do you have sources that prove these statements incorrect? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Ho...

“Records declassified in 2014 show discussions about self-government between British and Hong Kong governments resumed in 1958, prompted by the British expulsion from India and growing anti-colonial sentiment in the remaining Crown Colonies. Zhou Enlai, representing the Communist Party of China at the time, warned, however, that this "conspiracy" of self-governance would be a "very unfriendly act" and that the Communist Party wished the present colonial status of Hong Kong to continue. China was facing increasing isolation in a Cold War world and the party needed Hong Kong for contacts and trade with the outside world.[19][20][21]

1960s Edit China's leaders explicitly wanted to "preserve the colonial status of Hong Kong".[21] Liao Chengzhi, a senior Chinese official in charge of Hong Kong affairs, said in 1960 that China "shall not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories liberated" should the status quo (i.e. colonial administration) be changed. The warning killed any democratic development for the next three decades.[22]“

Not sure why this was downvoted when it's a statement of fact: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pu...

In the 1950s, when swathes of refugees were starting to give HK its transition from dusty backwater with a successful duty free transhipment port to the financial powerhouse we know in modernity, the UK tried. Prior to revolution there were few in HK, and nearly all were there for the port or base. China threatened to invade in 1960 if the moves to democratise didn't stop.

We'd just had the Korean War, Britain alone wouldn't have won a rerun, the West might. Support for doing it again, without hostility from the other side first is just about unthinkable. Britain might have been able to achieve better terms on Kowloon and New Territories a hundred years previously during Pax Britannica, but those territories were only there as uninhabited military buffer zone for the transhipment port, naval base and coaling station. So when Britain could, no one thought it important, there was no one there.

Development and them mattering came much, much later. Only really after the Chinese revolution started to provide an endless stream of well educated workers and families with a dislike of Communism. Now the UK started moves to democratise - there was getting to be a population that cared, and which fit with the policy of majority rule before independence, in the post war decolonisation era.

> China threatened to invade in 1960 if the moves to democratise didn't stop.

And the UK gave in to PRC's threats. Was PRC really willing to start a war with the UK? Or were they bluffing, and the UK fell for PRC's bluff? Or maybe, the UK was never really that keen on HK democracy, and PRC's threats were just a convenient excuse to avoid doing something they weren't very keen on doing anyway?

> We'd just had the Korean War, Britain alone wouldn't have won a rerun, the West might

The Korean War is not exactly comparable. Neither North Korea nor South Korea were nuclear armed states (during the 1950s), although they both had nuclear powers as allies. A war between UK and PRC in the 1960s would have been a shooting war between two nuclear powers. Would the PRC really had been willing to risk such a thing? Especially given the state that PRC itself was in (millions of deaths in the Great Leap Forward, followed by the chaos of the Cultural Revolution, its isolation the Sino-Soviet split, an economy vastly weaker than it has today, etc.)

Not convenient excuse if you read the history of the region over the period. The timeline is pretty clear, especially now the relevant diplomatic papers of the period are open.

Err, there were 5x more Chinese troops in the Korean War than North Korean, and Soviets flying air cover. It would be directly comparable, if there were a Communist invasion, except I really doubt there'd have been support from the Western Allies without that invasion first. Even then I'm not sure - there were repeated concerns Korea could have escalated into WW3.

Is the Korean War really the comparable event, or is the Berlin Airlift more apt?

Depends how your alternative timeline plays out. ;p

A HK airlift would be logistically challenging to say the least, and I don't believe it would have had similar chance of being successful. Look at Kai Tak, and its famously awkward mountain avoiding approach back in the 1950s. Berlin was universally acknowledged as strategically important in the newly hatched Cold War. The East and West had been nose to nose militarily in Germany since 45. Berlin was served by multiple source airfields, several air corridors and flying boats onto the lakes. HK would probably have had to be entirely sourced from Taiwan.

Yet Berlin succeeded as much from the counter blockade, that actually turned out to be surprisingly damaging to the East, as the huge scale of the sustained air lift. I can't picture a HK airlift around the same era as being nearly as successful.

That's not what I meant, I meant the UK "democratizing" HK, an ostensibly humanitarian effort, which China gets mad at, is akin to the Berlin airlift more than what caused the Korean War.

Ah I see, yeah you have a point. It might start out that way, but probably tip to a failed airlift. Yet the scenario OP was trying to paint of a bankrupt post-WW2 UK militarising the New Territories whilst threatening to go nuclear is pushing it much nearer Korea 2, becoming WW3 in the aftermath. We hadn't enough troops since 45 demob to build adequate numbers without dropping some NATO Cold War commitments - Germany etc.

I just don't see it playing out OP's way at all. Events would rapidly turn it to something very different and dangerous.

In wondering how, I end up with only lots of unanswerable questions. Cut half our presence in Germany so soon after the Airlift? Cut the naval and air shadowing of Moscow? Move a couple of carrier groups to HK? What;s the USSR going to do in response in Europe? How to work the nuclear threat? Polaris didn't arrive until the end of the 60s. So move all our 50s nuclear deterrent, which was only ready mid to late 50s, to Malaya with then Communist inclined rebels maybe? I think Victors, Vulcans and Canberras needed more runway than Kai Tak then had. They weren't carrier capable. So where you going to put them? Taiwan? Except Taiwan was predicted at risk of falling through the 50s, which is why US military support didn't come until the end of the decade. Besides, that starts to look like the West mobilising for WW3. A robust response becomes more and more likely.

OK I can't make this novel's plot work. :)

Many are moving to Taiwan. The process is not difficult but expensive.

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/hong-kong-immigr...

Ironically, it’s good the Hong Kong curriculum started to teach Mandarin, as it will be needed in Taiwan.

What do they speak in Hong Kong?

Even though many would say Cantonese (Even HK people do) It's actually HK variant of Cantonese with many HK unique phases The Cantonese in Guangzhou is quite different

But I guess no one call it HongKongese yet

I am not sure why you have such assertion, all the people speaking Cantonese dialect whether from China (including Hong Kong and Guangdong Province), or from Malaysia, Singapore or Indonesia can communicate and understand each other. There isn't any significant difference. [1]

If you really want to talk about varieties of Chinese then its quite a complex topic.

"Classifications of Chinese varieties in the late 19th century and early 20th century were based on impressionistic criteria. They often followed river systems, which were historically the main routes of migration and communication in southern China. The first scientific classifications, based primarily on the evolution of Middle Chinese voiced initials, were produced by Wang Li in 1936 and Li Fang-Kuei in 1937, with minor modifications by other linguists since. The conventionally accepted set of seven dialect groups first appeared in the second edition of Yuan Jiahua's dialectology handbook (1961):

1. Mandarin

2. Wu

3. Gan

4. Xiang

5. Min

6. Hakka

7. Yue

The Language Atlas of China (1987) follows a classification of Li Rong, distinguishing three further groups:

8. Jin

9. Huizhou

10. Pinghua

Some varieties remain unclassified, including the Danzhou dialect of northwestern Hainan, Waxiang, spoken in a small strip of land in western Hunan, and Shaozhou Tuhua, spoken in the border regions of Guangdong, Hunan, and Guangxi. "

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_Chinese

It's true that the language enunciation is very close for Cantonese speakers, but it's the phrases used that are quite different.

Mainland Mandarin vs. Taiwan Mandarin for example ~ there are a ton of phrases, especially for modern things like "credit card", "take out"..., that people use different words/phrases for. This is also the same for HK Cantonese vs. Cantonese used on the mainland where there was no British influence.

It's like UK english vs. US english.

No one calls it HongKongese b/c it is not that different, you're exaggerating. Not all people in Guangzhou can speak Cantonese and those who can, even if they are native speakers, might not accent-savvy enough to tell an HKer if he/she tries to avoid some unique phases.

HK Cantonese has a regional accent (e.g turning the "n" sound into "l") and its own slang but every language has regional accents.

Cantonese

Cantonese

I could also imagine Singapore as a destination.

Yes only for Hong Kong billionaire's. SG has surpassed Hong Kong both in human capital and progress despite rules similar to China when it comes to freedom and protests. I doubt if predominantly Cantonese population will be easily able to adjust to multi-racial society of Singapore.

So probably the better place for Hong Kong people is to look to UK to grant asylum or citizenship if they care about HK.

That's an interesting thought. I can see that and I'd be for it.

I believe I have seen pictures of Hong Kong protesters waving American flags, so would imagine many might accept the idea. The flag caught my attention especially after I was shown pictures of protestors from Portland, Oregon waving Soviet flags. That contrast is just mind-boggling to me, especially growing up hearing stories about families who were sent to Siberian labor camps by the Soviet government and never to be seen again.

Just for the record, the few US flags you see are there for a couple of reasons:

Rightly or wrongly, the US is still seen as a bastion of freedom and democracy by many around the world, and that's what the protesters are fighting for. More specifically, they are asking for support from western peoples and governments for a struggle that they believe free people can identify with. Seen after last week's "Hong Kong Way" event: https://photos.app.goo.gl/ARht6bNnEGTBFmnw9

Also, there's been a few right-wing/alt-right USians who've tried to hijack the protests for their own agenda, thinking they're among anti-commie friends. They don't represent anything mainstream, and they're not particularly welcome...

The people waving the US flag are a tiny minority though. I would be very wary of extrapolating that as a marker for what the general population feels.

True, it was just one or two, but that was still interesting to see.

"There is so much talent there that likely doesn't want to be there when the CPC truly uses its long arm"

Lack of talent is one of the problem with HK. There are lots of lack of talent about HK in the news for the recent years.

Because most of talent of HK knew the day will come, they left HK maybe about 10 year ago.

Hong Kong residents should stay there & put pressure on the CPC. With the trade war, the CPC is under extreme stress. They will be forced to either open up to reform which exposes their corruption & sabotage or face massive economic disruption when their exports & tech transfers collapse.

https://youtu.be/nxyVZh_fVVw

Also note food issues with pork diseases & the army worm ravaging their crops. The CPC is facing an existential crisis.

Note: I think the CPC can & should reform. Same with the US government. All citizens of the world would benefit from transparent governance & overall wealth, health, & prosperity will increase for all. I just want to point out the apparent issues that the CPC faces & the game of international chicken being played.

There's a pretty long track record of CCP using violence, coercion and manipulation of public opinion in order to quell unrest, successfully, at the expense of great trauma on its people. I don't think Hong Kong stands a chance long term against that current. HK has always been completely dependent on mainland China for survival, starting with water and power. It has no Independent army. It is no longer as critical to China's economy as the gateway that it once was. It is no longer as critical to Western businesses either so very unlikely to be militarily defended by US. The CCP completely controls the domestic media narrative about the protests, including social media, and paints the protesters as violent agents of foreign influence - rousing wide popular scorn among mainlanders. I think we can admire the protesters for their restraint and persistence but if I were a HKger today I'd be looking for exits.

You have to think big picture. Hong Kong plays a major role in getting western capital into China. China relies on western capital & forced technology transfer to run their businesses. If Hong Kong goes on lockdown, the CPC kills their golden goose. Don't forget that many of the CPC high officials own significant property in Hong Kong, which will devalue their portfolio.

The CPC is relying on increasing totalitarianism, which puts internal pressure within their regime. All of this surveillance tech & concentration camps need to be paid for somehow. If there is an embargo against their organ harvesting, they lose the ability to profit from harvesting organs from people. If there are increased tariffs, they cannot finance all of their services such as rail systems or food production. The CPC is communist so there is heavy central planning. They use & don't follow the rules of international markets, but if the international markets reject this behavior, the CPC is running a centrally planned government which will quickly collapse.

There are plenty of people in the US government who are aware of the CPC's threat. The CPC has even impinged on the sovereignty of the US, including exporting Fentanyl into the US and compromising government & corporate officials. This is war & the US is forced to take action if it intends on protecting it's sovereignty.

The CPC can also reform & follow the rules of international trade & human rights; with action, not just promises. That would be the best case for everybody & would be the best chance to fulfill the "mandate of heaven".

Sure and what about those not “talented” enough for the economy? They deserve to choose too.

Aussie PM Bob Hawke did this for all protestors after Tiananmen Square.

I agree, we need to evacuate all of the freedom loving people from Hong Kong.

When they are in the middle of trade negotiations I don’t think the Chinese would appreciate a thorn in their side. They wouldn’t take it kindly —I don’t think. In other words mr Xi isn’t Castro. He’s not going to allow a Mariel type exodus.

Agreed. And then what? Destroy China?

And this asylum will overwhelmingly attract people towards the lower end of the skill ladder, because they have less to lose. You'll not get much of the skill you're looking for, because those people are probably working and have a ton of stuff that tie them to HK.

The skilled and wealthy will be the first ones out. They have made and financed detailed plans many years ago, and will head for the US, Canada, Australia, UK.

Oh they did, except they got their permanent residency/citizenship and moved right back. 300000 Canadians lives in HK, and out of those who emigrated, practically none went through by being an asylee

The point of this gesture would be to protect them from a tyrannical government not our pecuniary gain. We didn't ask for payment after Omaha Beach.

And did America fight Germany because it must bring freedom to oppressed people? Or is it because Japanese bombed Pearl harbor and Hitler gladly declared war on the US right after that?.

I'm not sure I understand the point that you're making, or for the poster that you're replying to?

Are we disputing or disagreeing with the human right of seeking asylum? Or discussing the economic pro's and cons of asylum seekers?

I think the dispute is whether the US (as a proxy for western nations) have historically based their actions on humanitarian reasons or realpolitik, and whether they should base their decisions more heavily on one or the other.

The Chinese government openly blames the US on these "riots". Their propaganda machine frames the protestor as western manipulation to hold back China. If the US grants HK protestor asylum, that would create more fodder.

There are a few student protestor who were back home in HK over the summer and came back to the US to continue their graduate program. They are the poster child for the Chinese government on how the US sends people to HK, stir up trouble and then give them protection. They are labeled as cowards for abandoning HK and how they themselves do not believe in the movement because they fled. The Chinese media airs this to discredit the protestor and remove support.

IMHO at this stage, it would cause more harm than benefit to their cause.