Then & Now | Hong Kong independence – why it is a conversation we need to have, Junius Ho
Instead of trying to suppress all talk of it, the contentious topic must be discussed and debated, so those advocating for it see why it is impossible
In the years before the 1997 handover, a tediously frequent topic of dinner-party conversation revolved around the question: why does Britain have to hand Hong Kong back to China? Surely, the Treaty of Nanking, signed in 1842, had ceded the island of Hong Kong to Britain in perpetuity.
Likewise, the Treaty of Tientsin, signed in 1858, yielded the Kowloon peninsula to Boundary Street, along with Stonecutters Island. Yes, we understand that the New Territories was only leased for 99 years, under the 1898 Convention of Peking, so, naturally, that has to go back in 1997. But why, people plaintively asked, must Hong Kong Island and Kowloon be returned, too?
Depending on an individual’s attachment to Hong Kong, and his feelings of ethnic or national superiority (or inferiority), these discussions could become subjective and emotional.
Counter-arguments ran the gamut from Hong Kong’s dependence on both New Territories and mainland reservoirs for its very existence to the fact that Hong Kong, given its small size, population density, rugged terrain and limited water supplies, was completely indefensible for more than a few weeks at most. The 1941 Japanese invasion had categorically proven this final point.
Most importantly, Chinese national sentiment had made it politically impossible for any government in China to “extend the lease” – either in the early 1980s, when the Sino-British negotiations on the future of Hong Kong were under way, or at some earlier time.
