Déjà vu

"Applicants for Ozzie citizenship must pass 'the character test, the national security test and the like.' Australian Immigration Minister Alan Tudge"

It's with a sense of Déjà vu that I'm following the debate around the national security law and whether people should leave Hong Kong. This well-worn path we trod during the 1997 lead up. I had to make my own decision, although the circumstances were somewhat different. 

Deciding to remain or go is intrinsically a very personal choice, with an abundance of factors at play. It is not an easy process for anyone. In my case, the challenge was to find my way through the uncertainty to make the most informed decision possible. Then, like now, horrors stories, dire predictions and baneful noise filled the air. Martyr Lee told the BBC he'd face jail immediately after the handover or disappear. It didn't happen. 
​
Many indeed departed before 1997. Getting accurate data is problematic, but approximately 600,000 Hong Kongers emigrated before and around 1997 with migration at its height in 1992 when about 66,000 left. Then after 1997, an estimated 35% to 40% came back. Meanwhile, the population went from some six million in 1997 to approaching eight million today. Granted some of that is due to new arrivals from the Mainland. 

This data doesn't capture the complexity of these movements. Some returnees left families overseas and became 'astronauts' (太空人, tai hung yan) flying back and forward from Hong Kong to adopted countries. Likewise, some split their time between Hong Kong and overseas. Press reports fail to capture these subtle details that reveal a much more convoluted story than people merely leaving.

Likewise, the media trope that millions are exiting Hong Kong because of the NSL is untrue. Last time I checked the airport remains under-utilised thanks to Covid-19. Much of the hype around departures comes from consultants looking for some business. A few cheeky individuals, when questioned on their plans to migrate, responded with "I'm waiting for a better offer." That statement sums up the attitude of many. They want a passport in their back pocket as a safeguard, while they also want to keep their options open. 

With grim inevitability, the NSL has sparked all this discussion. Perceived fears that the new law will limit freedoms is the driver. And, yes if you are calling for independence by violent means, plus the freedom to trash MTR stations and beat-up other citizens expect to face the law. Likewise running off to Washington to demand sanctions on Hong Kong places you in jeopardy. 

Then again as the Australian Immigration Minister Alan Tudge asserted any applicants for Ozzie citizenship must pass "the character test, the national security test and the like." Although I'm told, the character test consists of hosting a barbie while drinking Fosters and wearing your new R M Williams. Pull that off, and you are halfway in. 

Wait a minute, Alan! What's that, a national security test? Indeed. You see Australia has national security laws not dissimilar to those enacted for Hong Kong. That includes no bail for certain types of cases and a prohibition on sedition. It's worth pointing out that most nations have similar laws, including the UK and USA. All this begs the question, why is China not allowed to have such rules for Hong Kong? After all, the Basic Law agreed by the UK said we needed to enact these laws.

I suppose the critics will retort that China's judicial system and practices are incompatible with Hong Kong's common law system. And indeed that is true. Yet, the NSL takes heed of that issue, although the details and practices will need resolving. I surmise that having now seized the initiative, and calmed the violent protests, Beijing will step with care to keep 'one-country, two systems' intact. 

Of course, it suits China's opponents to try to establish a narrative of Hong Kong 'crushed'. Had China wanted to 'crush' Hong Kong, undoubtedly the ideal opportunity arose when the mob trashed our parliament on 1 July 2019. Instead, Beijing held back. At the time the Western media, in a feeding frenzy, peddled reports of Beijing about to 'invade' Hong Kong. 

An over-excited journalist sent me a video clip of PLA vehicles moving in Kowloon. She convinced herself the moment had arrived. I then noted a police motorcycle in the clip that dated the footage from before 1999. Her cognitive dissonance was palpable. 

Meanwhile, as I predicted, a backlash is building in the UK over its offer of citizenship. Boris Johnson's rush to grant a route to citizenship isn't playing well with various think tanks. Besides, the grassroots are beginning to wake up. They recognise that taking thousands of people, never-mind millions, won't be easy.

​In response, the UK government is playing the 'this will boost the economy' card to win support for the arrivals. Yet with unemployment about to surge, and public infrastructure lacking, one commentator asked, "Where are we going to put all these people?" It's a fair question. 

In truth, I don't see that many will opt for the UK. To qualify, you need a job, five years of residence — without access to the NHS — and will be paying UK tax rates. In Hong Kong salaries tax is 17% maximum and we have no VAT, as against 45% tax for high earners in the UK plus 20% VAT. Thus this package isn't that tempting to the majority. If you are going to put your family through the upheaval of migration, higher taxes and settling in a foreign culture, I'm inclined to think that Canada, Australia and New Zealand have more appeal. 

And I suspect that Boris has gambled on that thinking. Never forget the offer of citizenship made in 1989 was under-subscribed. The UK never filled the allocated quota. Accordingly, Boris can make his charitable gesture, appease a few critics and then do nothing. None of this would have been necessary if a churlish UK had not removed 'nationality' in 1981.

In the end, some will go, but most will remain, and a few will come back. And so life goes on. This weekend the 'crushed' people came out for a ballot on the Pan Dem primary. Simultaneously, a vigorous discussion continues in the media about the NSL. What exactly is 'crushed' is not evident to me, except the violence.