• Fri
  • Dec 19, 2014
  • Updated: 5:18am
Column
PUBLISHED : Saturday, 03 November, 2012, 12:00am
UPDATED : Tuesday, 06 November, 2012, 4:42pm

Welcome back … to a town torn by anti-mainland anger

It turns out the fury vented at Beijing is not against national education but a sense that the city is no longer in control of its own destiny

I have been away from Hong Kong for a year. Yes, I have read about the growing resentment against mainlanders. But I never expected a welcome home party on Stanley beach to turn into a complaint forum.

At the party are my girls' classmates and their parents. This is a group that you would least expect anger from.

George is typical of them. He is a self-taught certified accountant. He is no hot head.

He runs his own accountancy firm that employs 50 people. He doesn't have to worry about losing his job or business to highly competitive mainlanders.

George is a beneficiary of the mainland's booming economy. Business is good enough to allow him to pick up his son every day from school at 3pm. The value of his handful of apartments has more than doubled in the past few years.

His wife stays home to take care of their single child. Rising food bills and rents fuelled by mainlanders' buying sprees are not their concern.

They don't have to compete with mainlanders for hospitals beds or milk formula. Their seven-year-old is studying in a local school.

These people have little economic reason to dislike the mainlanders. Yet they call the mainlanders qiang guo ren, which is literally translated as "people of the strong country" for their pushiness (mentally and physically).

They call Tsim Sha Tsui "the invaded zone". They miss the good old days when they could stroll with their kids at Ocean Park without having to fight the queue jumpers.

They complain of corner-cutting in the work place and being told that "this is the way it is in the mainland".

They said they would leave the city for good if the subject of "national education" was forced on their kids. "China kills its own people," said one of the dads.

Basking in the sun while the children built sand castles, they warned of the eventual "fall" of Hong Kong. "Why didn't you stay in Britain?" asked one mother.

It must be the frustration over the national education thing, I told myself, trying to make sense of their sentiment.

I was wrong. On October 1 we gathered again, this time for the fireworks. "Toast to the moon, not to the National Day," said one of the fathers. "Well said," was the echo. That was two weeks after the government shelved the plan for the curriculum.

If this is what the "winners" of the system are saying, it isn't surprising to see a best-selling political commentary, the Hong Kong Polis, equating the integration of Hong Kong and the mainland to a dirty old man trying to fool his little granddaughter into bed.

Its author, Chin Wan, advocates autonomy for Hong Kong and restoration of the lion and dragon colonial flag. He says Beijing will not retaliate because it needs "a city of integrity" to deal with the world.

Most of my English-speaking colleagues found this pique difficult to understand. If the French could tolerate the noisy Americans and now the noisy Chinese on the Champs-Élysées, why can't the Hongkongers put up with the crowds of mainlanders?

The quick answer is the Americans and Chinese don't have a say over France's political, social and economic matters. The longer answer is in our history.

In the colonial days, Hong Kong was so cut off from the mainland that a policeman needed approval to cross the Lo Wu Bridge. The Tiananmen massacre and the country's backwardness was the first glimpse of China for most of us.

We were then thrown into the hands of a total stranger. That's fine because the stranger was the one in need. We poured in our money and knowhow.

By late 1990s, the country was rich enough to hire our regulators and managers for their "international edge". Yet, most of them were soon sent home because "they don't understand the country".

It hurt a bit, but not too much. The majority saw this as a conflict between our civilised rules and their uncivilised one, not a denial of our values.

Then in 2003, we suddenly found ourselves becoming the needy, begging for the surgical masks, stock issuers and tourists from the "uncivilised relatives". That hurt.

If it's for a better life, the pride can be swallowed. Yet, the better life has not come. The have-nots struggle to pay rising bills while the haves see a worsening living environment.

Many have warned Hongkonger's against this ill-feeling against the mainland, with some calling it an independence move. They say Beijing will not cut off the water supply, but what chance would Hong Kong have without Beijing's trust.

These warnings, however well-intended, have missed the crux of the resentment. To these bitter citizens, what is the point of keeping quiet in the hope of a prosperous Hong Kong if it is no longer owned and shared by Hongkongers.

  • This is Shirley Yam's first column since her recent return to Hong Kong after a year in Britain.

shirley.yam@scmp.com

Share

For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive
 
 

 

17

This article is now closed to comments

USA_IS_BEST
China needs HK.
HK does not need China.
HK is one of Brittains few successes.
pierremartin
A sound and intelligent column, finally. Thank you Shirley, and welcome back !
likingming
Despite the intangible core values of democracy, freedom and rule of law, HK got the followings
- High Suicide Rates (no better than that of China even with no self immolation in HK)
- Lower Birth Rate (lower than that of China even with no forced abortion)
- Higher Rate of Mental Disorder
- Fewer number of SMILING FACES on streets in HK
(dirty statistics but could be witnessed by anybody who has experiences of living in both places)
Who is making an INDEPENDENT HONG KONG ? HK Govt together with China !
China gave HK the following privileges :
- Seperation of the 1.67m HK descendants mainlanders from uniting with HK families
- Hong Kong Land for HK people only
- No freedom of movement of mainlanders across HK borders
- Use of HK currency
All these privileges breed anti-mainlander sentiment and ALIENATE Hong Kong from China
likingming
For obvious economic reasons, poor places for the poor and rich places for the rich. It would be terrible to see poor majority living in the Peak or the Replusive Bay. Similarly, HK is a rich financial centre and is a place for the rich as a whole while China is the appropriate place for the poor majority of HK people.
shouken
What is the point of “a prosperous Hong Kong if it is no longer owned and shared by Hongkongers”? Wow! What a scathing question! If HK is not owned by HKers, is it owned by entry-permit wielding mainland visitors who mostly do not even stay overnight? I understand the frustration. I guess a New Yorker will complain too if in less than 10 years, the number of non-NY Americans and int'l visitors increased many folds. Too many and too soon seems to capture the crux of the problem. The answer can only be restricting the total number of mainland tourist inflows. This the HK government can do.
However, what is a HKer? The same question can be posed differently: what is a New Yorker or Shanghaier or Beijing-er? Vast numbers of "non-residents" invade these giant cities on a daily basis as well. I am sure old-timers there complain too about huge numbers of tourists and "newly minted" residents. The fight between the "natives" and the "new arrivals" (土客争端)is perpetual, very ancient story, and will doubtless endure. But many of the "natives" were not natives until 10-50 years ago. ("Old" Beijing-ers's protection against new comers would be 户口.) Nobody likes to see their pie being sliced.
pierremartin
However, what is a HKer? The same question can be posed differently: what is a New Yorker or Shanghaier or Beijing-er?
Sorry, but it seems to me it is not exactly the same question... Hong Kong is not precisely a Chinese city yet. And that's precisely the crux of the matter here...
spunkyjj
I think the attempt to force "national education" onto the Hong Kong people is the last straw. Indeed, a parent who calls himself politically indifferent came out the first time to join a march against the national education program because, in his words, "they are now coming after my son". Whichever way you put it, if the national education lesson plan requires a child to get emotional on seeing the raising of China's flag, it is brain-washing in action. China should (if they could) stop believing that Hongkongers are "poisoned" by our colonial past and must therefore be "corrected" through thoughts education. The simple truth is that Hongkongers know their rights and are not afraid to stand up for them. If China genuinely wants to gain Hongkongers' loyalty, they must first stop threatening (turning off water supply and what not), stop humiliating (more goodies will buy Hongkongers' obedience), and stop meddling in Hong Kong's internal affairs, as stated in the Basic Law.
doctorh
National Education is not an issue - I think it should be advocated. It's the content that must be reviewed and deemed to be impartial.
Denying people any education is in itself a terrible mistake.
pierremartin
As there is no consensus on which nation Hong Kong people belong to, it will be a hard task to come up with impartial content !
jandajel
Welcome back!

Pages

 
 
 
 
 

Login

SCMP.com Account

or