The Chinese in Hong Kong, like those on the mainland and overseas, are all supportive of China's sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands.
Political propriety and civil etiquette demand that all media in Chinese territories should use Diaoyu and not the Japanese name, Senkaku. It is legally dubious and politically myopic to treat Diaoyu as a part of Japan's Okinawa prefecture. Okinawa is the biggest island in the Ryukyu archipelago. The Ryukyu kingdom which unified and ruled Ryukyu from the 15th century was linguistically and culturally distinguished from Japan. Like Korea, it fell under Japan's imperial encroachment in the late 19th century.
In 1945, when the Japanese nation faced disintegration, the Allies offered "utter destruction" or "unconditional surrender". Japan surrendered, confirming its acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. Clause 8 said, "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands" as the Allies (not just the US) determined. To prevent Japan's future militarisation, it was only permitted "access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials" (Clause 11). These provisions delimit Japan's sovereignty which excludes Diaoyu, Ryukyu and any natural resources found in those areas.
In 1951, while the Korean War was raging, the US acquired trusteeship over the Ryukyus from the Treaty of San Francisco which was signed with the Security Treaty between the US and Japan. These treaties were products of the cold war.
They deprived Ryukyu of self-determination and rendered the former kingdom a mere instrument in America's military ventures. Now, US bases occupy 20 per cent of Okinawa's precious land area.
China has never recognised Diaoyu as a part of Ryukyu. The metamorphosis of US trusteeship into Japanese sovereignty over the former island kingdom is bizarre and illegitimate.