I thought it might be interesting to learn more about the 1967 riots, another period of prolonged anti-government protest, and try to compare and contrast, as they say, or used to say, in exam questions. I have been reading Hong Kong’s Watershed – The 1967 Riots by Gary Ka-wai Cheung.

In case you’re not familiar with it: From May to December 1967, HK was racked by anti-British riots, a spillover from the Cultural Revolution. In eight months, 51 people were killed. The protests were apparently instigated by local communists and by mainland officials posted here at the New China News Agency, who thought they were doing what Peking wanted; the officials also thought they had better do it, to show that they were ‘politically reliable’. At the time, the central government was weakened and divided by the Cultural Revolution. In response, it blew hot and cold; it was sometimes able to control events in HK, sometimes not.

Among the reasons why the riots ended: The leftists finally lost whatever support they had because they started planting home-made bombs which killed – 17 people – and injured indiscriminately, and because they murdered a popular radio journalist who was an outspoken opponent. And the central government, in particular Chou En-lai, managed to exert control.

Some things were almost the same as in 2014.

• There were allegations of foreign interference: “political oppression orchestrated by spies close to the United States and Chiang Kai-shek”.
• A left-leaning newspaper editor recalled advice he gave to the editor of a communist newspaper: “I think the Governor is about to take action. He has tolerated for several days and it seems his patience has been exhausted. I hope you will consider stopping such massive protests. We have won victory because the British have not dared to take actions in the past few days. Shouldn’t you consider a tactical retreat?”
• A policeman recalled that the demonstrators “did everything they possibly could to provoke us into an unwise or stupid move.” However, the leftists were much more violent than the Umbrella Movement.
The South China Morning Post wrote: “Central district is the heart of this huge trading and industrial community. Those who are out to clot its arteries are no good to Hong Kong, no good to fellow citizens. They must be treated with exemplary firmness.”

Many things were different. I will mention two.

• The protestors were trying to weaken the economy and stressed how much damage they were causing. But the government said, “In spite of the strident claims in the communist press, the efficiency of the colony has been surprisingly little disturbed.” Now it is exactly the other way round.
• It almost slipped my mind. The present crisis is not over, and no-one knows how it is going to end.

According to the author, the riots were a watershed because when people saw that they had a choice between the Chinese communists and the British colonialists, it was not hard to choose. It made them aware of HK’s distinct character, and they began to regard it as home.

The government realised that the trouble was partly caused by social discontent, and made some major reforms in housing, education, and labour law – which might have been made later, or never; so HK became a better place. I will mention two things, one major, one minor.

• In December 1967, the government reduced the maximum working hours for women and young people to 57 hours a week, against the wishes of the employers. They were reduced to 48 in 1971.
• In the offices of the electricity company CLP, there were three grades of toilets, one for the British, one for the Portuguese, one for the Chinese. A new Australian general manager after the riots scrapped this arrangement.

Something not mentioned in the book: the Hang Seng Index rose from a low of about 60 in 1967 to a high of over 1,700 in 1973, before the oil shock. It was, I have read, the greatest bull market in history, anywhere.

However.

The lasting impression I get from the book is something I, and almost everyone else, already knows. From the beginning in 1949, the People’s Republic had had a pragmatic policy toward HK. The formula used in 1967 was “long-term deliberation and making full use of Hong Kong”. This policy was even maintained, somehow, through the craziness of the Cultural Revolution. Now it has been ditched, and that is the cause of all our troubles.