Hong Kong flourished as a British colony and became one of the richest cities in the world. But India and even their neighbors in Ireland got treated much worse than the Chinese in Hong Kong. Why was that the case?
Some historians describe Hong Kong’s situation after WWII as an “inhibited political centre” - that is, the British colonial government faced many constraints on how it could rule and maintain its legitimacy.
With the British Empire collapsing and with Communist China right across the border at Lo Wu, Hong Kong was, in fact, indefensible. If the People’s Liberation Army were to try, they could take Hong Kong in a couple of days.
Britain realised it needed two things to maintain rule over Hong Kong: (1) Support of the local population; (2) A Hong Kong that was so distinct from the rest of China that it would be difficult for the latter to take it back.
The first step to goal (1) was fostering a local identity. Before WWII, most people passing through Hong Kong were sojourners. The borders were open, and no one saw themselves as distinctively from Hong Kong. After WWII, the colonial government began to host events like the Hong Kong Festival and the Clean Up Hong Kong campaign to try and create a local identity. They more or less succeeded at this - if you look at Hong Kong today, most people below the age of 60 identify as Hongkongers first and foremost.
Now that there was a local identity, how could Britain maintain the support of the locals? This is where goal (2) came in. Massive social welfare programmes, most notably the Ten-year Housing Plan rolled out under Governor Murray Maclehose’s governorship, were introduced. Standards of living rose as public facilities and hygiene were greatly improved. Corruption was rooted out with the Independent Commission Against Corruption. High level roles in the police and government which were previously reserved for expats began to recruit from the local population.
Hong Kong’s economy boomed under the non-interference policy introduced by the colonial government. By 1997, Hong Kong’s economy was worth 20% that of the ENTIRE People’s Republic of China.
In every sense, the Hong Kong Government was trying to, and largely succeeded in, creating popular support FOR colonial rule. But that was not because they were somehow benevolent, kind folks. It was their only way of holding onto power on this tiny spit of land right next door to a hostile Communist power.
The need for local support was starkly highlighted by the 1967 riots in Hong Kong, where CCP-backed rioters attempted to overthrow colonial rule. Although Hong Kong managed to suppress the riots, a similar riot in Macau in 1966 (the 12-3 incident) resulted in defeat for the Portuguese colonial administration. The Macanese governor had to sign a public apology under a portrait of Mao Zedong, and China was, for all intents and purposes, sovereign over Macau since then. The British wanted to avoid that fate in Hong Kong at all costs.
Edit: changes in spacing and font
Personally, as a Hongkonger, I am really excited to see (presumably) foreigners get interested in Hong Kong history! Hong Kong has been handed over from UK to China for more than 21 years (making the discussion of whole span of colonial rule compliant with AskHistorians rules)
It is a shame to let the question sink so though I am not exactly qualified, I may as well seize the initiative. It is my first time answering an askhistorians question. Please feel free to point out where I made mistakes/wrote unclearly, though in-depth responses are mostly likely out of my capability.
Important Disclaimer:
I am not trained in history. Take the answer with a grain of salt
I just happened to have books and materials about HK history nearby. Thus, I will focus on HK and leave the comparison part to other experts on this subreddit.
Without further ado, let's jump into it!
This book concerns of something that no longer exists.
-Hong Kong: Epilogue to an empire, Jan Morris
Still some background information I think worth mentioning
First of all, it would be much appreciated if you can fine tune your wordings. Can you specify which period you are trying to compare? that matters since the British governing policy and attitude changed quite A LOT throughout the years. In light of your positive evaluation of British colonial rule, I assume you are referring to the stage shortly before handover in which the colonial government pushed for political reform and rapid (though still limited) liberalization.
Also, what do you mean by "better"? Different aspects of policies can come around at quite different time and depending on the time period you are referring to, economic prosperity might not be accompanied by political progress.
Second, previously confidential documents, especially those concerning the Sino-British negotiations, have recently been declassified in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act in UK. These documents can shed important light on the behind-the-scene of negotiations and I would draw reference from some of them. Given the unbearable contempt of HK gov towards historical document and record (the gov destroyed 99.7% of the documents of 14 bureau/offices within 6 months from April to September in 2011, with a total height of 1181 metres when the documents are stacked up) , one cannot rely on the government to photocopy the declassified records from the National Archives; instead the task fell on a NGO (called Decoding Hong Kong's History) . It is worth pointing out that the NGO had political bias and so whenever I used their interpretations of the documents (available from their Medium blog), I will draw attention to the sources explicitly.
Third, it is my opinion that greater historical and geopolitical context should be taken into consideration when trying to answer "WHY the British did this or that". Things like the Communist takeover of mainland China, the power dynamics between two blocs in the Cold War era, as well as the Sino-British negotiations and Tiananmen Massacre, all contributed much to the British political decisions. Actually I think these were what made HK's fate rather different from that of India or Ireland or other British colonies that suffered rather cruel treatment.
To illustrate this point, we may turn to several (possible) turning points regarding the basic attitudes of British colonial ruling policies in HK
HK was occupied by the Japanese forces during the WWII and shortly after the war ended, the governor of HK, Mark Young (who surrendered in 1941) resumed British ruling in 1946. He proposed radical constitutional reforms, including measures like increasing Chinese membership in the Legislative and Executive Councils and replacing European government officials with Chinese.
While the plan was generally supported by the Colonial Office, it is not welcomed by: the Foreign Office, some Hong Kong officials (who saw the reforms as a threat to their executive authority). and civil servants and business leaders
Young was later succeeded by Alexander Grantham, who replaced Young's plan with milder reform. Despite this time being supported by the Foreign Office, the unofficial members of the legislative and executive councils suddenly opposed any reforms. So did the British cabinet and the Secretary for the Colonies.
The exact reason(s) behind this is interesting, to quote Prof. John M. Carroll from Department of History in HKU
Although historian Steve Tsang has found that none of the declassified British documents for the 1950s and 1960s indicate that leaders of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) ever warned the Hong Kong government against any political reforms, British officials frequently used the argument that any democratic reforms would not be tolerated by China to justify Hong Kong’s lack of democratization.
Yet, a memo sent to British Prime Minister Harold MacMillan in 1958, which was recently declassified and drawn reference from by this CNN article, seemed to suggest the opposite, that contemporary Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai reportedly threatened the British not to make Hong Kong into a Singapore-like self-governing Dominon. Can we thus infer that the British had legitimate concern after all?
Whether this memo indicated a Chinese pushback against “democratization” per se or British-endorsed “HK independence” seems to be rather debatable. I have to admit that I didn’t have the specialty to answer that question.
Anyway, major political reform was dropped, for the moment.
(to be continued)
I've previously been told that there were very favourable economic opportunities (legal and non legal) with Hong Kong being the free market on the doorstep of China. These days China is far more open for business and so Hong Kong is less special in the eyes of business who might have otherwise invested there. So aside from wanting to keep the people there somewhat pro-brit they were blessed with a favourable economic situation
Edit: Give credit to the contributor of the answer in the link
btw, you may also find this answer from u/yan0134 useful, though not to discourage any other reply!