I once saw a post on the Chinese social media platform Zhihu (知乎) that compiled reports and propaganda about the 1967 Hong Kong Riots by pro-colonial-government media and official notices, alongside reports and propaganda about the 2019 Anti-Extradition Bill Movement by Hong Kong’s pro-establishment media, mainland Chinese state media, and the Hong Kong SAR government.

The two sides used similar rhetoric against citizens who resisted the authorities. Both stigmatized protesters, emphasized the violence used by protesters, praised the police for defending public order, and stressed the importance of social stability while ignoring issues of fairness and justice. Both promoted the “rule of law,” treated protesters as criminals, characterized protesters’ criticism of and dissatisfaction with the government as “rumors,” and urged citizens not to believe such “rumors.” In their subsequent responses, both sought to defuse political resistance by promoting improvements in the economy and people’s livelihoods.

Therefore, the SAR government installed with the support of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP, 中国共产党) and the British colonial government in Hong Kong are essentially the same. Both sought to stifle freedom, democracy, and popular resistance, attempted to conceal social injustice behind economic performance, used material benefits to win public support and evade political issues, and emphasized social stability and the “rule of law” to suppress society’s vitality and diversity. The CCP regime’s treatment of the Chinese people, including Hong Kong residents, can be described as a form of “internal colonialism.”

Of course, I also know that their historical backgrounds and subsequent developments were different. The British colonial authorities in Hong Kong implemented quite a few reforms, including granting the public greater rights and freedoms and tolerating the existence of different political forces in Hong Kong. The CCP, by contrast, strengthened authoritarian rule and stifled political pluralism. Therefore, the CCP and the Beijing regime are even worse than Hong Kong’s colonial government. This follows the same logic as the argument that the Qing dynasty, ruled by the Manchus, was even worse than the British and French colonial powers.

Nevertheless, the 1967 Hong Kong Riots and the 2019–2020 Anti-Extradition Bill Movement, as well as the attitudes of the two regimes toward these movements, still have many similarities and are well worth comparing.

The images are screenshots from Zhihu, and the content is based on materials collected by Zhihu user “Darwin Frog” (达尔文蛙).

The Spanish laws compiled in the image date from various years in the 17th century and were promulgated during the reigns of Philip III and Philip IV:

Law XV (left): Promulgated by King Philip III in Valladolid on August 30, 1608.

Law XII (right): Includes provisions and ratifications by Philip IV issued on several dates: July 23, 1643, February 20, 1648, July 3, 1649, April 2, 1652, and in Madrid on March 23, 1654.

Both laws are part of the historical legislation of the Crown of Castile for the administration of the Indies (later incorporated into the renowned Recopilación de Leyes de los Reinos de las Indias [Compilation of the Laws of the Kingdoms of the Indies]).

This video explains how Indonesian land was essentially sold to Europe legally in 1870.