Activist Rogers’ entry denial is decolonization in action

British Conservative Party member, Catholic human-rights campaigner and former Hong Kong resident Benedict Rogers has been refused entry to Hong Kong. Many supposedly pro-establishment figures raised an eyebrow.

“I want to clarify any worries ... that this whole matter of immigration is now being taken over by the Central People’s Government. That’s certainly, definitely not the case,” Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor said in response to the question on a radio talk show as to whether former governor Chris Patten, who has criticized perceived mainland interference in Hong Kong affairs, would be the next to be barred. “The case has to be regarded and treated, and falls under what constitutes a foreign-affairs matter.”

Many Chinese language media reported that Rogers wrote in The Guardian, saying Hong Kong immigration officers saw him off “with a hint of tears” (the exact quote in English in the parenthesis is reproduced in these Chinese language accounts, maybe for making the story more realistic and dramatic). I read Rogers’ op-ed in The Guardian but could not find the quote. Strange, huh.

The usually pro-establishment local English newspaper The Standard wrote that “while the decision was made by some policymakers in Beijing, it did more harm than good to Hong Kong, because one of the special administrative region’s greatest assets is its international reputation, which makes the place distinct from other mainland cities.” No idea what that means. Is the editorial suggesting that Shanghai, for example, has no international reputation?

China’s Foreign Ministry is very clear on this matter. To avoid any misinterpretation, I will reproduce the official record of Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying’s regular press conference on Oct 12 word by word.

When asked “Did China’s central government tell the Hong Kong government not to let (Rogers) in? Has the Chinese side already discussed this matter with the British government?” Hua’s reply was: “Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China, and the central government is responsible for Hong Kong-related foreign affairs. The central government of China and the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region handle the relevant issues in accordance with law. It falls within China’s sovereignty to decide who is allowed to enter the Chinese territory and who is not.”

It is funny that people seem to think Hong Kong used to have complete autonomy as to who can or cannot enter the territory. This may have to do with the lack of history education. Let’s refresh ourselves a bit here.

In the colonial era, the British government not only prevented people entering Hong Kong, but actually deported people found to be undesirable. A case in point would be the beloved Dr Sun Yat-sen, a revered revolutionary pioneer.

Back in the day, Sun was using Hong Kong as a base for revolutionary activities to overthrow the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911). Britian then supported the Qing Dynasty and saw the revolutionary forces as against British interests. Therefore, following failure of the First Guangzhou Uprising in 1895, Sun was deported by the Hong Kong government for five years. The deportation order was renewed in 1902 and 1907 and was lifted only in 1912.

Because of the ban, when Sun passed by Hong Kong, he could only meet his comrades and supporters on boats.

Hong Kong was never entirely autonomous. It has always been organized according to some bigger interests. That is both history and the current reality, and to acknowledge this fact is nothing to be ashamed of.

Rogers of course would not have been denied entry had Hong Kong not been handed over to China in 1997. The fact that he was no longer welcome is proof that China is indeed exercising its sovereignty again.

In other words, this incident is an act of decolonization, only it is not labeled as such. Many people have never developed a clear understanding of what Hong Kong as a British colony really meant. Without this knowledge, any act of decolonization is deemed unjustified and will easily be seen as transgression on “one country, two systems”. It is time we develop a theory of colonialism properly.