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.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations