Then & Now | The warning signs of Hong Kong localism our dozy leaders missed
The nativist movement grew in plain sight after 2003 - not that anyone was looking, writes Jason Wordie
Hong Kong's increasingly strident "nativist" or "localist" movement has become steadily more visible since last year's Occupy unrest.
Warning signs of a nascent nativist movement were apparent several years ago to anyone prepared to notice. Rising public interest in otherwise benign subjects, such as Hong Kong food culture and intangible heritage - all things that can be grasped, personalised and readily exported into the Hong Kong émigré diaspora - signposted a clear evolution of this trend.
See also: Flagging up fears over threat to Hong Kong's autonomy
In the past, any broad-based notion of Hong Kong nativism was limited. A sense of belonging was usually expressed only in personal identity terms. Until the 1960s, "nativist" issues concerned only small groups, such as the local Portuguese and Eurasian communities, and the then-tiny section of the Chinese population who consciously self-identified as Hong Kong-Chinese - people whose vested interests seldom extended beyond the city.
A brief history of the Hong Kong nativist movement is easy to track. An official policy shift towards the greater Sinofication of local society became discernable after mass protests in 2003 over Basic Law Article 23 and has steadily gathered pace over the past decade, accelerating in recent years.
Consequently, increased numbers of ordinary Hongkongers feel excluded from any significant decisions affecting them and their city. A senior government cadre comprised of staggering mediocrities nakedly in cahoots with tycoon interests, and explicitly answerable to the central government rather than the people of the place they allegedly administer, has fuelled widespread discontent - and a frightening level of genuine despair for the future among Hong Kong's young people.
To counter this trend, localist groups evolved and then fractured into splinter groups. Conspiracy theorists maintain that external forces with destabilising agendas are behind their formation but blaming outside interests remains wide of the mark.