Staff Writer Julien Yuen reflects on the treatment of Hongkongers by the UK Government amidst plans for visa reforms that threaten existing agreements.
Context
In 2020, China promulgated the National Security Law in Hong Kong. The then Conservative British government introduced a visa scheme for holders of British National (Overseas) (BNO) passports and their families, putting them en route to British citizenship in as fast as six years. Five on the BNO visa and one on indefinite leave to remain (ILR). BNO passport holders are British nationals without the right of abode in the UK or full citizenship. These passports were granted to millions of Hongkongers before the handover.
Now, Keir Starmer is trying to increase English language requirements and double the amount of time immigrants need to live in the UK before being eligible for settled status. Hongkongers in Britain wonder if these new rules will apply to both existing and future BNO visa holders. Some 107,000 of them signed a petition asking the government to exempt BNO visa holders from the proposed immigration changes, but the government dodged answering whether the proposed changes will apply to current visa holders.
I am one of these Hongkongers.
We Never Asked For This: Taxation without Representation and the Three-Legged Stool
A few years ago, when the BNO citizenship route had just been announced, I was midway through ‘East and West‘ by Chris Patten (the last British Governor of Hong Kong). Lord Patten evoked the three-legged stool metaphor: one leg of the stool represents China, one stands for Britain and another for Hong Kong. You need at least three legs for a stool to properly balance. That is how some believe it should have been for the handover negotiations: Hongkongers should have been given real decision-making power in the handover negotiations, not just the Chinese or the British. The reality was that neither Britain nor China ever proposed to let Hongkongers negotiate their own fate.
I’d like to take a more radical stance: neither Britain nor China should have been allowed to decide on behalf of Hongkongers. I am not advocating for Hong Kong independence, for that is so very much illegal in Hong Kong. So before I continue the piece, I’d like to make it clear to Hong Kong authorities that I believe if Hongkongers were to decide for their fate, it would always result in the one right, correct, and patriotic decision. I digress. My point is that it is flat-out wrong to colonise, rule, and then tax a group of people without giving them any weighted representation in deciding their own future.
What’s a Promise?
Look, it’s painfully ironic that Britain is calling out China for not upholding her promise on leaving Hong Kong alone for 50 years after the handover whilst simultaneously trying to take back her word on giving citizenship to Hongkongers.
You might say, “Oh, it’s only an extra five years. If Hongkongers are committed to being British, they shouldn’t complain; it won’t make any difference. It’s not like they’re gonna skedaddle once they get their citizenships, right?”
I’m not here to argue the ethics of leaving a country once you receive the benefits of citizenship. I know it’s not a good look, but it’s a right nonetheless. What’s worrying is that an extra five years today could be another decade tomorrow. Another decade tomorrow could be deportation the day after.
It’s about certainty and upholding your promise. A person who does not uphold his promises is not a good person to be friends with. A business that does not uphold its promises is not a good business to deal with. A governing party that does not uphold its promises is not a good party to vote for.
British to Begin With
I want to end my rant on Starmer’s immigration proposals with a super mini manifesto: Hongkongers are British to begin with. We have the same road markings, road signs, streets named after monarchs, double-decker buses, Protestant churches and schools, and even the classism. But these are just brownie points. We are British to begin with because Britain was our sovereign. That’s all there is to it.
At the same time, it doesn’t matter if it was Thatcher or Starmer; Britain robbed us of our rights. So what’s it gonna be? Stay “firmly committed” to Hong Kong or keep us out? Make up your mind, Britain.
For further analysis relating to Hong Kong, click here.
About the author
