“You chose a good time to come back,” the Waitrose cashier said ironically when I told her this was my first week living in the UK since 1990. That was before the queen died and the pound collapsed to a record low.
Between the cost of living crisis, communal riots in Leicester and politically inspired market turmoil, it must seem from afar as though British society is falling apart at the seams. So I risk ridicule when I say that my initial impressions of life back in Britain are overwhelmingly positive.
It is all about perspective. After the suffocating atmosphere of post-2020 Hong Kong, following its sharp turn away from liberal values and embrace of a miasma of restrictive COVID-19 policies, arrival in the UK has felt like one long exhalation. It is a relief to be once again in a place where daily life is, for want of a better word, normal.
Illustration: Yusha
What has struck me most since landing is the diversity. The driver who took me and my luggage from Heathrow to our corner of north London was from Afghanistan. Our landlord is from Romania. The business owner who sold me fitted carpets was born in Pakistan. The hairdresser I went to last week is Iranian. A man from Hungary showed me how to use the drying machines in the local launderette. When we finally tracked down the big bags of Thai rice that are a staple of supermarkets in Hong Kong, it was in a converted newsagent run by a Kenyan Indian. I could go on.
After living for decades as a member of a small — albeit privileged — minority in Asia, it is an exhilarating change. The area of London where we have settled is 61 percent white according to the 2011 census, but it does not feel like that. There is no sense of dominance by any group.
Many of the food stores that dot the high street have a Middle Eastern flavor; Chinese traditional medicine, Thai massage and Turkish barber shops jostle among the grocery sellers. The children’s playground at a nearby park on a Sunday afternoon is an ethnic and linguistic cornucopia. Last weekend, I spent some time chatting to a Chinese emigre from Tangshan. A week earlier, I overheard a woman from Hong Kong talking about how her family had to leave the city.
The second most striking aspect I have found about moving back is the general good-naturedness of people. The neighbors have been friendly and welcoming to my Anglo-Chinese family, shopkeepers have gone out of their way to be helpful and only once has a (white) driver made a V-sign at me. No one could accuse Hong Kong of being laid-back, even at the best of times. Britain is noticeably more relaxed.
At ground level, people seem preoccupied with living their lives in peace and rubbing along with their neighbors as best they can, which is not difficult when others have the same objective. From what I have seen, those who have arrived from unstable or autocratic societies are the most likely to appreciate their freedom to do that, unmolested by the arbitrary exercise of state power.
Contrast that with the situation in Hong Kong, where barely a day goes by without some fresh example of wanton dystopian nastiness. Fancy watching a football match? Get ready for the police to film you in case you boo the national anthem. Pensioners getting together to chat in a park? Be prepared to pay a fine for breaking the (unscientific and randomly applied) social distancing rules. Mourning the queen by lighting candles outside the British consulate? An officer would be along to douse them.
Forgive the judgement of a neophyte, but the UK’s cultural diversity strikes me as an immense latent strength. In the absence of ethno-nationalism or other forms of tribal loyalty, there has to be some other glue to hold society together. That inevitably means values. By virtue of its history, the UK may rightly be seen as a colonial bully in some parts of the world, but at home and at the level of ordinary people, there are certain characteristics that have long been seen as typical of British society. Among them are tolerance, kindness, decency and respect for the individual. I see these much in evidence around me in north London.
Am I too starry-eyed? Perhaps. First impressions can be superficial, without question. I live in a relatively affluent part of the capital, and remain part of a privileged socioeconomic group. Moreover, London, being one of the most diverse cities on Earth, is not representative of the UK as a whole, which is 87 percent white. I am just starting to get to know my homeland again, and may yet have to encounter more troubling undertones of Britain’s ethnic and social makeup. The Brexit vote stands as a testament to anti-immigrant feeling.
Maybe my euphoria at finally getting here — after a six-month wait for visas — is generating an aura of goodwill to which others are responding. Admittedly, on holidays in the UK in the past, I have occasionally found people to be grouchy and rude. Give it three months, one colleague advised. Wait until the nights draw in, the temperature drops and the rain becomes more persistent.
There is no question that Britain has deep and serious problems, and I would not wish to diminish the hardship of struggling citizens by suggesting everything in this country is fine. Social cohesion could be tested as winter sets in and the full impact of soaring fuel bills is felt. That is without even considering the fresh economic and market instability triggered by the tax cuts of British Prime Minister Liz Truss’ government.
For all that, this newcomer sees reasons for optimism. At times of crisis, it is common for a government minister to stand before the media and insist that the fundamentals are sound. The fundamentals of the UK really are sound, in my estimation. I do not mean the economic fundamentals, which quite possibly are not, but something even more basic: the way that people relate to each other on a day-to-day level, freely and openly, unencumbered by fear or apprehension of authorities, and — more often than not — with courtesy and consideration.
In a democracy with freedom of speech and rule of law, mistaken policies can be corrected. The UK has shown some worrying illiberal tendencies in recent years, like many countries around the world, but in the end it is still a free society. Those who have spent time in unfree societies can understand the difference.
“You can live here,” as the Algerian craftsman who came to assemble some furniture said, concluding a conversation about the pain of rising costs and the challenges the UK’s influx of Hong Kong migrants would face. I knew exactly what he meant.
Matthew Brooker is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering finance and politics in Asia. A former editor and bureau chief for Bloomberg News and deputy business editor for the South China Morning Post, he is a CFA charterholder. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS