Letters | Hong Kong and the irony of history
Readers discuss the transformation of Hong Kong, and viewer memories of Benz Hui
I have known two Chinas. One is the giant that remembers its humiliation – a nation carved open by gunboats and unequal treaties. The other is the maritime enclave that turned that humiliation into leverage – Hong Kong, the once-lost port that became China’s bridge to the world.
As a Hong Kong schoolboy in the 1960s, the year 1997 seemed impossibly distant, yet it hovered over us like a prophecy. “One country, two systems” sounded reassuring on paper, but we wondered how it would work in practice. I remember the marches, the bombings, even the bodies drifting down the Pearl River – reminders that history, even when it sleeps, can awaken suddenly.
My father, Sir Roger Lobo, visited Margaret Thatcher in London as part of a Hong Kong delegation as the Joint Declaration was being drafted. He believed the city could be both loyal and pragmatic – Chinese at heart, global in outlook. That belief, shared by many of his generation, gave Hong Kong its quiet confidence.
The irony of history is that the 1842 Treaty of Nanking, which first ceded Hong Kong to Britain, ultimately laid the foundation for its role today. What began as a symbol of weakness became an instrument of strategy. Hong Kong now serves as China’s economic control valve, where statecraft meets global capital. Even policies aimed at curbing China’s rise have driven more mainland firms to list in Hong Kong, reinforcing its role as a financial spearhead.
Hong Kong still stands between memory and mandate. The city that once embodied lost sovereignty now powers China’s re-engagement with the world – proof that in the long tide of history, what was once taken can be transformed.