Establishment of Hong Kong as a British Colony - Case Study Example

Your Instructor’s Name Course Date Establishment of Hong Kong as a British Colony Hong Kong SAR is a Special Administrative Region of China and this has been its identity since it was handed by its British colonizers to its mainland China. Ming K. Chan in Hong Kong: Colonial Legacy, Transformation and Challenge and The Legacy of The British Administration of Hong Kong: A View From Hong Kong discusses Hong Kong’s status as a colonized region and its future prospects under Chinese rule. The periodical Hong Kong: Colonial Legacy, Transformation and Challenge is a pre-1997 written periodical that discusses about the future prospects of Hong Kong under China and about the China factor that shaped Hong Kong’s policies. According to the author, Hong Kong, as a British colony, consisted of people who were dissatisfied and who did not have an adequate say in the matters of its homeland, though Britain claimed to provide it autonomy. The Chinese people in Hong Kong were dissatisfied just as people from other colonies were regardless of the fact that their colonizers had brought Hong Kong to where it was- a globally known place in which people foresee future prospects. However, there were reasons to people’s dissatisfaction. What the author brings to focus in this periodical is the fact that China, driven by its chase to bring the country together (including its lost parts), not just brought people from Hong Kong to lose their confidence in China but also to question their future standing. The author has been able to bring many points to prove this, his non-biased nature brings the incidents in Hong Kong as they were and provides the reader with a better understanding of what Hong Kong and its people went through. The second periodical, The Legacy of The British Administration of Hong Kong: A View From Hong Kong, also by Ming K. Chan is a deviation from his first periodical. Here the author is writing in a post-1997 period discussing the impact of British Colonialism on Hong Kong. The author talks about the highly ‘trumpeted’ British contributions to Hong Kong- the rule of law, the civil service, economic freedom, and democratization. The author openly questions the true merits of the rulers and in fact considers that the mentioned contributions are either too highly merited or beset with flaws. The author appears more biased in his opinions in this periodical where he almost rejects the idea of colonizers having done any good to Hong Kong and that whatever good was done it was done out of need. The two articles, though written by same author, are written in different periods and they deal with two aspects of Hong Kong - Hong Kong as a British colony and Hong Kong SAR. The author takes a good approach in Hong Kong: Colonial Legacy, Transformation and Challenge, discussing briefly the journey of Hong Kong to British Hong Kong and its subsequent development. He then explains the limits of the government saying that, “Behind the laissez-faire façade was elitist coalition of colonial officialdom and tycoon capitalism…” (Chan, Hong Kong: Colonial Legacy, Transformation and Challenge 14). There is no doubt to it that people from Hong Kong were no better than as servants to their colonizers. British knew it very well how to set up the Victorian-led government in their colonies and then use it to break the colonized people’s will to get independence. Their much praised legal and executive system were their best pawns to suppress people’s demand for justice, though at the same time they spread the word of a fair trial. Their cunningness and their role as a colonizer to squeeze out everything that a country has, is all too well known today. It was the same with Hong Kong too; Chinese people were not enjoying the standards of living that Hong Kong boasted of and that its colonizers were so proud of. It is aptly said by the author that it was a case of two communities living in one place; neither were Chinese people living a life comparable to that of a British and nor were British willing to understand locals. The author then discusses about China factor and its role in decolonization, localization, internationalization, and democratization. The author explains that China’s growing interest in Hong Kong was a result of it seeing Hong Kong as a gateway to gain economic interests (though wealth gathering and seeking were against communist’s basic ideology), but what hindered its process was democratization. China was suspicious of western democratic systems and its idea of one country, two systems only worsened the situation. China’s suspicions were fuelled by Governor Patten’s proposed electoral reforms and China’s growing intervention in Hong Kong’s matters is what made China a negative force (Chan, Hong Kong: Colonial Legacy, Transformation and Challenge). The periodical explains to its readers that after the developments in 1980s the political awareness of Hong Kong Chinese grew. This awareness also led them to a bitter truth that they were never the writers of their destiny and was “the pawn in the discord and struggle for control between two sovereign powers” (Chan, Hong Kong: Colonial Legacy, Transformation and Challenge 19). This truth infiltrated in them a sense of helplessness, this helplessness led to disbelief in China and London. This lack of faith in China was furthered by the Tiananmen Square incident of 1989, the darkest chapter in the history of China, this dark chapter shadowed the flint hope that Hong Kong Chinese had of being able to associate themselves with China as a (to be) part of it. The author explains that the democratic view of Hong Kong Chinese not just made them inapt as ‘Chinese’ but also furthered the suspicions of China about a Western infiltration and spying. The Tiananmen incident wreaked the relationship of Hong Kong and China. China grew insecure due to confidence building measures of London. This situation led the people of Hong Kong to believe that their future was not to be, witnessing huge emigrations for better prospects. The author concludes that People’s Republic of China (PRC) has a lot to achieve to be able to include Hong Kong into the mainland. The next periodical The Legacy of The British Administration of Hong Kong: A View From Hong Kong has a descriptive approach where the writer takes one point at a time and then gives his views and arguments regarding it before coming to a conclusion. He explains that the ‘rule of law’ was not much of a gift from the British colonizers. He explains that the basic flaw with the system was the language. English was the official language but the majority being local Chinese the language was foreign to them. The author goes on to explain the illegal use of power by officials in judiciary. He is right when he speaks about the need for a judicial system that provides justice in a reasonable period and is in a language known to local people. He next takes on the ‘civil service’ that British claim to be a fine method to run a State. Nobody shall doubt the civil services as a good method to run a country but the author never takes up the point. What he brings to notice is the discrimination while recruiting for civil services. The other thing that he brings to notice is the widespread corruption. He explains that though in 1980s localization of civil services was initiated but with the top positions still occupied by English people, they were still the masters. The ‘glass ceiling’ that he refers to shall be accepted by readers since never had the British colonizers allowed the colonized to reach up to their standards (Chan, The Legacy of The British Administration of Hong Kong: A View From Hong Kong 6). This is clear from the study of other colonies of Britain. Author’s reasons and his stance are completely acceptable. Economic freedom with limited government is another contribution of British government that the writer believes to be another myth. The author states that the approach of British government was far from ‘non-interventionist’. According to the author, free trade and open market did not mean fair trade and equal opportunity. He comments that Britain in its role as a protector, provider and promoter intervened not for the benefit of Hong Kong Chinese but for selfish reasons. Democracy is the other contribution that author feels has been unduly called a contribution. The author feels that the measures of British for democratization were too little and too late. “The British patronage system to recruit local elites not only perpetuated the elite-officialdom collusion that characterized much of the undemocratic elite politics of colonial Hong Kong, but also sowed the seeds of future miscarriages of democracy.” (Chan, The Legacy of The British Administration of Hong Kong: A View From Hong Kong 578). He feels that this was a deliberate attempt by British. The author concludes saying that the British administration of Hong Kong was not the best colonial rule, though not the worst either. The two periodicals were written at a time when it was the dawn of Hong Kong SAR. While the first periodical takes on the task of introducing to its readers the aspect of both China and Britain in Hong Kong, while the second is a review of Britain as a colonizer and appears to be a personal opinion. The fact that the periodicals were written at a different time by somebody who did not know what the future for Hong Kong is brings the reader to a dilemma about his own views for Hong Kong. Hong Kong, as we know it today, is a prosperous place and perhaps, if the writer had written the periodicals with the same topic he would have had a different idea. The first periodical justifies its purpose, which is to provide readers about the transformative process that lay ahead of Hong Kong. Not just the writer had been successful in providing the readers with required information but is also able to justify the worries of a transforming State. The periodical unfolds like a history chapter, providing details and reasons and not appearing biased. No one can deny the importance of getting their facts right in a periodical but the periodical should be able to connect to its reader. This is exactly what the periodical does; the reader is able to remember about Hong Kong even when he has read the periodical. The success of the periodical lies in that it enriches reader’s understanding of Hong Kong, the understanding is not just superficial but the reader empathizes with the people of Hong Kong and their state. The transformation and the challenge that lay ahead of Hong Kong have been properly addressed. Every element in the periodical works towards a common goal of providing its reader with the best information on Hong Kong, the reader does not just gather information but is enlightened by the information on Hong Kong. The other periodical is a surprise since it is written by the same author. Had this periodical been written by another writer, the sudden change of views would not have surprised the reader as much. This periodical seems to have been written by a writer who was not far-sighted and in fact appears pro-China. Again, as I have said earlier maybe a different time meant different views but the periodical is not able to connect to its reader as the previous periodical did. What perhaps worked against the periodical is that it is not a fair assessment of British rule. The writer chooses to take up the main issues (contributions) and then works to defy them as contributions. It is not that he has written without evidences but the evidences seem too loose to be considered as serious evidences. According to the author, English as an official language was a problem and there is no doubt to it but would he say the same thing today when in fact English connects the world. India, another former colony of Britain, is proud to flaunt its knowledge of English today. Maybe the author too would thank today the British for introducing English. The other thing that bothers is author’s continuous criticism of British. It seems that he lacked knowledge of other colonies of Britain. India was left worse off than what Hong Kong was left with. It is a sad thing I need to compare two colonies and bring out the one that was left better off but reading the periodical does that to you. The writer fails to explain the rule that it truly was. Had the writer chosen to introduce both the reform processes and the evil that Britain did, it would have been a better periodical. There is no denying that Britain was a ruthless colonizer but refusing to consider the developments it brought as its needs is not fair. Certainly, there were selfish reasons but is it not better than to remain undeveloped. China was not going strong at that time and in fact, Hong Kong was economically succeeding because of its colonizers. Had Britain not been its colonizer, it either would have been ruled by China or would have been a colony to Japan? Considering the condition of Taiwan, one would be forced to think that Hong Kong was in a better condition. The other thing that the writer fails to see is the cosmopolitan nature that Hong Kong today has had been developed by Britain. I am not trying to justify Britain as a colonizer but I am only trying to bring out what the writer missed out. I would again like to say that a different time would have resulted in the conclusions that the writer came up with. However, the periodical in writer’s words (for British rule) is not the best, though not the worst, assessment of British rule in Hong Kong. The two periodicals provide good information about Hong Kong. Not just do they provide information but also force the reader to think about other matters. The reader is left to wonder about a country’s role in shaping another region and about the boundaries that human draw. How different is British Hong Kong from Hong Kong SAR? The people will be same, the region will be same, and yet to some extent the people will change. It is not that they become Chinese from British but a sense of being independent (or partly independent) always brings a sense of well being and happiness. The periodicals provide a good knowledge about Hong Kong and that is why, regardless of their shortcomings, one should read them to know more about Hong Kong. Bibliography Chan, Ming K. “Hong Kong: Colonial Legacy, Transformation and Challenge.” The Annals of The American Academy Sep. 1996: 11-23. Print. ---. The Legacy of The British Administration of Hong Kong: A View From Hong Kong. The China Quarterly 1997: 567-582. Print. Read More