Hong Kong military veterans who served in the British armed forces are going into battle against their former colonial ruler over their right to live in Britain.
With some locals increasingly anxious about Beijing’s encroaching influence in Hong Kong, the veterans have become the latest group to put pressure on Britain to provide an escape route.
Three Hong Kong military veterans who say they were “abandoned” when the territory was handed back to China in 1997 have applied for full British passports in a test case backed by some British members of parliament.
A petition for right of abode, which has garnered hundreds of signatures from ex-service members, has also been handed to 10 Downing Street in London, the official residence and office of the British prime minister.
“This is a right we deserve,” said 50-year-old former Royal Military Police officer Harry Wong, one of the three passport applicants. “We want to get back what is fair.”
Wong says he applied for a British passport before the handover, but was unsuccessful.
In the 1990s, 500 armed forces personnel were given British passports based on a points system, but others were left behind, with campaigners saying the lower ranks were overlooked.
Former British Army dog handler Alain Lau, 52, said he was told by a local senior officer that he would not qualify for a passport.
“They just put us down here when they left,” said Lau, who is a spokesman for the Campaign for Abandoned British-Chinese Soldiers Left in Hong Kong in 1997.
Concerns over China’s influence have grown recently, with mass protests toward the end of last year after Beijing said that candidates for the territory’s next leader would be vetted by what is perceived as a loyalist committee.
Veterans say they want an insurance policy for the younger generations of their families.
“One day, Hong Kong may not be the best for them. The political situation is quite chaotic now,” said Wong, whose daughter is five years old.
British MP Andrew Rosindell is supporting the campaign and raised the issue in the British Parliament in March, saying “it is only just” for everyone who had served in Britain’s colonial military to be granted British nationality.
“It was not the choice of those loyal people... to move to the People’s Republic of China in June 1997 — no self-determination for them, no referendum about their future,” he said in a British House of Commons adjournment debate on March 11. Adjournment debates are used to raise issues without requiring MPs to vote.
However, British Minister for Security and Immigration at the Home Office James Brokenshire said in response that it was a “long-established practice” for British nationality to be lost when a country ceased to be part of Britain’s territory.
He said that Hong Kong’s “best-qualified key people” were given British nationality through a selection program.
Before the handover, 50,000 selected Hong Kongers — mainly white-collar professionals and civil servants, but also including military personnel — were given British passports.
When contacted by reporters, the British Consulate-General in Hong Kong referred to Brokenshire’s remarks.
“This remains the position,” a spokeswoman said.
The consulate did not confirm how many passports had been given to military personnel before the handover, but Rosindell told the British Parliament it was 500.
Neither did the consulate confirm how many recipients were serving military personnel in 1997. Those military personnel granted British passports were part of a 7,000-person quota reserved for the “disciplined services” class, which also included police officers and firefighters, the consulate said.
Before Britain gave the territory back to China in 1997, it offered Hong Kongers a special “British National Overseas” (BNO) status to calm those worried about their future under Beijing’s rule.
Holders can enter the UK without a visa and get consular assistance abroad, but have no right to live in Britain.
About 400,000 of Hong Kong’s 7.3 million residents hold the BNO passport and some are now calling on Britain to allow them residency as they seek to escape rising tensions.
Various campaign groups in Hong Kong are pushing Britain for citizenship status, but the military veterans say their claims carry more weight.
“We were trained to fight. We also took an oath to pay allegiance to the Queen. We could have died for the country if there was a war,” said former British Army infantry corporal Fung Lit-kau, who unsuccessfully applied for a British passport before the handover.
Fung said that he struggled to find a new career when he was forced to quit the military in 1997, 14 years into a 22-year contract, as the force was disbanded.
He finally became a postman in the US after migrating there — thanks to his sister-in-law being a resident — but regularly returns to Hong Kong and actively supports the campaign.
“They owe us an ethical responsibility. It is shameful for them to leave us behind,” Fung, 55, said.
The history of Hong Kong-born ethnic Chinese working for Britain’s military can be traced back to the 19th century, when they were hired to build military facilities and provide logistical support for British soldiers.
They were sent on overseas missions and defended the territory during World War II. In 1962, the Hong Kong Military Service Corps was formed, making personnel recruited in Hong Kong regular soldiers of the British Army.
Tommy Poon, 74, who became a driving instructor after spending 22 years in the Royal Corps of Transport, said Hong Kong military personnel should not be treated differently than others.
“The Gurkhas also have it [British nationality] now. Why can we not?” Poon asked, referring to a celebrity-backed movement that won the right for British soldiers from Nepal to settle in the UK.
Another veteran, who preferred not to be named, expressed bitterness at their fate.
“We guarded against China along metal barricades on the border [before the handover]. And now we are part of China... The situation is always going to be embarrassing for us,” he said.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with