WI: UK and Portugal refuse to cede HK & Macau

Lusitania

Donor
Suppose that that wasn't true, perhaps there's a Nixon related POD or the Sino-Soviet split never occurs. Given what Lusitania said:

Do you think that the scenario I laid out in post #53 is a realistic outcome of a 1970s seizure of Macau and HK?

Ok I am not sure what you are asking, in 1999 the Portuguese did offer the people of Macau Portuguese nationality and it would of had no problem accepting them into the country, not that it would not of been socially hard but my question was what happens to the 6 million people of Hong Kong?

I do not see a reason the people of Macau would go to Rhodesia? Are we talking about the 1970s? I did not even realize we discussing the return back then? iOTL the Portuguese did offer Macau to China then but communist China refused because they did not want to fuck the hand over of Hong Kong in 1997. That was the real prize.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Ok I am not sure what you are asking, in 1999 the Portuguese did offer the people of Macau Portuguese nationality and it would of had no problem accepting them into the country, not that it would not of been socially hard but my question was what happens to the 6 million people of Hong Kong?

I do not see a reason the people of Macau would go to Rhodesia? Are we talking about the 1970s? I did not even realize we discussing the return back then? iOTL the Portuguese did offer Macau to China then but communist China refused because they did not want to fuck the hand over of Hong Kong in 1997. That was the real prize.

so reading your #53 with China taking the Macau back right after the end of the revolutionary wars would not resulted in the Macanese population migrating on mass to Rhodesia. Some would of moved to Portugal, others would of followed many Portuguese migrants from Africa and moved to Brazil, with Hong Kong and rest of world accepting many. How many would of remained not sure. Anything bad happening to Macau and those remaining would of greatly impacted Hong Kong integration.
 
Ok I am not sure what you are asking, in 1999 the Portuguese did offer the people of Macau Portuguese nationality and it would of had no problem accepting them into the country, not that it would not of been socially hard but my question was what happens to the 6 million people of Hong Kong?

I do not see a reason the people of Macau would go to Rhodesia? Are we talking about the 1970s? I did not even realize we discussing the return back then? iOTL the Portuguese did offer Macau to China then but communist China refused because they did not want to fuck the hand over of Hong Kong in 1997. That was the real prize.
My apologies, I know it's sort of confusing the way I asked it, since it's a different POD than the original post. I was thinking about where it would make sense to resettle the Chinese refugees.
The ones from HK will have very anti PRC sentiment, as well as a feeling of having been sold out by the Brits. They'd probably prefer to stay together rather than be dispersed like OTL Syrians.
Rhodesia:
  • Has enough land to resettle the displaced HK residents comfortably (much more land than Northern Ireland would)
  • Speaks English
  • Feels like it's been sold out by the Brits
  • Is fighting a communist PRC puppet, ZANLA
  • Needs manpower to protect it's now dangerous border with Mozambique
HK refugees would feel like they have something in common with the rhodies, and would probably be much more welcome there than in Ireland during the Troubles. If Rhodesia admits and naturalizes these HK refugees, then it would make sense to do the same for those from Macau.

These Macau refugees could be used to help win the Mozambique Civil war. Once a government allied with Rhodesia and Portugal is put back into power, the Macau refugees can settle there, as they speak the same language.

Solving the Mozambique problem is essential to Rhodesia's stability, and 6,400,000 anticommunists from would be huge help. And culturally they should fit in pretty well since they were both colonies of the same countries.
 

Lusitania

Donor
My apologies, I know it's sort of confusing the way I asked it, since it's a different POD than the original post. I was thinking about where it would make sense to resettle the Chinese refugees.
The ones from HK will have very anti PRC sentiment, as well as a feeling of having been sold out by the Brits. They'd probably prefer to stay together rather than be dispersed like OTL Syrians.
Rhodesia:
  • Has enough land to resettle the displaced HK residents comfortably (much more land than Northern Ireland would)
  • Speaks English
  • Feels like it's been sold out by the Brits
  • Is fighting a communist PRC puppet, ZANLA
  • Needs manpower to protect it's now dangerous border with Mozambique
HK refugees would feel like they have something in common with the rhodies, and would probably be much more welcome there than in Ireland during the Troubles. If Rhodesia admits and naturalizes these HK refugees, then it would make sense to do the same for those from Macau.

These Macau refugees could be used to help win the Mozambique Civil war. Once a government allied with Rhodesia and Portugal is put back into power, the Macau refugees can settle there, as they speak the same language.

Solving the Mozambique problem is essential to Rhodesia's stability, and 6,400,000 anticommunists from would be huge help. And culturally they should fit in pretty well since they were both colonies of the same countries.
No country would accept 6 million refugees, especially in Africa with its internal social and economic problems. The Whites in Rhodesia and blacks in Mozambique would not accept that and there be war, plus the people from Hong Kong not want to go there.

No if Portugal hands Macau back to China in 1970s then we would get dispersion of the people from Macau as I indicated. Honk Kong is not going to be handed back till 1997, unless China invades. Then that a different story.
 
My apologies, I know it's sort of confusing the way I asked it, since it's a different POD than the original post. I was thinking about where it would make sense to resettle the Chinese refugees.
The ones from HK will have very anti PRC sentiment, as well as a feeling of having been sold out by the Brits. They'd probably prefer to stay together rather than be dispersed like OTL Syrians.
Rhodesia:
  • Has enough land to resettle the displaced HK residents comfortably (much more land than Northern Ireland would)
  • Speaks English
  • Feels like it's been sold out by the Brits
  • Is fighting a communist PRC puppet, ZANLA
  • Needs manpower to protect it's now dangerous border with Mozambique
HK refugees would feel like they have something in common with the rhodies, and would probably be much more welcome there than in Ireland during the Troubles. If Rhodesia admits and naturalizes these HK refugees, then it would make sense to do the same for those from Macau.

These Macau refugees could be used to help win the Mozambique Civil war. Once a government allied with Rhodesia and Portugal is put back into power, the Macau refugees can settle there, as they speak the same language.

Solving the Mozambique problem is essential to Rhodesia's stability, and 6,400,000 anticommunists from would be huge help. And culturally they should fit in pretty well since they were both colonies of the same countries.
Isn't Rhodesia that state thar was super racist to anyone who wasn't White? Why would they accept a bunch of non white people?
 
No country would accept 6 million refugees, especially in Africa with its internal social and economic problems. The Whites in Rhodesia and blacks in Mozambique would not accept that and there be war, plus the people from Hong Kong not want to go there.

No if Portugal hands Macau back to China in 1970s then we would get dispersion of the people from Macau as I indicated. Honk Kong is not going to be handed back till 1997, unless China invades. Then that a different story.
Maybe 6 million is unrealistic, that's a good point. I was just putting myself in the shoes of somebody who is really mad about what happened to their hometown, and is given a choice of where to resettle.
Option 1 is some first world country where I'll live in a chinatown and it will be relatively boring.
Option 2 is the frontier of civilization where I'm being offered the opportunity to exact revenge on the forces that wronged me, and receive government land grants in the beautiful African countryside as a reward for my service.
I guess I'm projecting a little bit but I could totally see a lot of them picking option 2.

Isn't Rhodesia that state thar was super racist to anyone who wasn't White? Why would they accept a bunch of non white people?
While racism did play a large role in Rhodesian politics, Rhodesian security forces were majority black. It was a country of blacks and whites fighting together against communist terrorists, albeit they were a few decades behind the US in terms of civil rights.

And yeah, I'm sure white Rhodesians' first choice wouldn't be having a large asian minority in their country, but if it meant survival I'm sure they'd accept them. It's not like the asians would side with the communist blacks against the whites and capitalist blacks.
 

Attachments

  • hqdefault (1).jpg
    hqdefault (1).jpg
    14.6 KB · Views: 45

Lusitania

Donor
Maybe 6 million is unrealistic, that's a good point. I was just putting myself in the shoes of somebody who is really mad about what happened to their hometown, and is given a choice of where to resettle.
Option 1 is some first world country where I'll live in a chinatown and it will be relatively boring.
Option 2 is the frontier of civilization where I'm being offered the opportunity to exact revenge on the forces that wronged me, and receive government land grants in the beautiful African countryside as a reward for my service.
I guess I'm projecting a little bit but I could totally see a lot of them picking option 2.


While racism did play a large role in Rhodesian politics, Rhodesian security forces were majority black. It was a country of blacks and whites fighting together against communist terrorists, albeit they were a few decades behind the US in terms of civil rights.

And yeah, I'm sure white Rhodesians' first choice wouldn't be having a large asian minority in their country, but if it meant survival I'm sure they'd accept them. It's not like the asians would side with the communist blacks against the whites and capitalist blacks.
Did not Rhodesia and South Africa gave same politician system that excluded all non whites from voting and political power in the 1970s. I know South Africa only provided limited political powers to mixed racecabd Asians in the 1980s. So that why I not sure they would be willing to accept them.

Also the issue was that China had no reason to act against Hong Kong in the lead up to the 1997 hand over. So I can’t see them moving against the British and invading Hong Kong.

So we need a different scenario for example let’s take my lusophone TL that has a surviving Portuguese federation and let’s suppose (not saying there is) a traditional communist China still in late 1990s and people in Hong Kong start getting anxious about hand over to full communist country. Then you would see a large number of people from Hong Kong fleeing or migrating to Commonwealth countries as well as others like the Portuguese federation that might or might not include Rhodesia.

PS I have only posted my TL till end of 1930 do there lots of time before we get to the 1990s.
 
Last edited:
Did not Rhodesia and South Africa gave same politician system that excluded all non whites from voting and political power in the 1970s. I know South Africa only provided limited political powers to mixed racecabd Asians in the 1980s. So that why I not sure they would be willing to accept them.

Also the issue was that China had no reason to act against Hong Kong in the lead up to the 1997 hand over. So I can’t see them moving against the British and invading Hong Kong.

So we need a different scenario for example let’s take my lusophone TL that has a surviving Portuguese federation and let’s suppose (not saying there is) a traditional communist China still in late 1990s and people in Hong Kong start getting anxious about hand over to full communist country. Then you would see a large number of people from Hong Kong fleeing or migrating to Commonwealth countries as well as others like the Portuguese federation that might or might not include Rhodesia.

PS I gave only posted my TL till end of 1930 do there lots of time before we get to the 1990s.
Your TL sounds interesting, I'll have to check it out.
As for voting rights in Rhodesia, Blacks were excluded in the 1970s. According to wikipedia:
"Prime Minister Ian Smith justified this setup on the grounds that the vast majority of black Rhodesians had no experience with the democratic system. White Rhodesians feared that rapid transition to majority rule might yield similar hardships to those experienced by the other newly independent African states such as Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda, and Nigeria. Smith proposed a gradual inclusion of Africans, increasing as the African population got to understand the system." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Southern_Rhodesia#Electoral_qualifications)
I suppose the same excuse could be used for the Chinese refugees, as the colonies they come from aren't really democratic until Chris Patten in the 90s in OTL.
It seems like the intention would be to have their voting rights phased in over time, and likely their cities would be segregated from the whites.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Given how close Jinchen is to the mainland, is there any way to hand HK and Macau over to the RoC instead?
I wonder if that possible but the ROC had to evacuate in the 1950s several islands close to mainland that were being shelled by the communists. How would they hold the two territories. It’s notvkike communist China accept their transfer.
 
Maybe 6 million is unrealistic, that's a good point. I was just putting myself in the shoes of somebody who is really mad about what happened to their hometown, and is given a choice of where to resettle.
Option 1 is some first world country where I'll live in a chinatown and it will be relatively boring.
Option 2 is the frontier of civilization where I'm being offered the opportunity to exact revenge on the forces that wronged me, and receive government land grants in the beautiful African countryside as a reward for my service.
I guess I'm projecting a little bit but I could totally see a lot of them picking option 2.


You have clearly never been to Hong Kong or met a Hong Konger, and yes you certainly are projecting your politically motivated decisions on an incredibly apolitical people. The reason why the Umbrella Protests were such a surprise in 2014 was that up until then, Hong Kongers had no political identity or convictions whatsoever. They were simply interested in commerce and private enterprise and ultimately saw themselves as Chinese people living successfully under a British system. There is absolutely no way any Hong Konger would emigrate to Rhodesia, a country that they have likely never even heard about, to be an ethnic minority in a white-dominated country in Africa that was going through a civil war and experiencing international sanctions. Most likely they would try to immigrate to Canada, Australia and Singapore, which is historically what they did in the run-up to the handover in 1997. Most Chinese would rather live a quiet life in a Chinatown and make money instead of pursuing ideological fantasies. Literally no one would pick option 2. What would the Northern Ireland Chinese do during the Troubles? They would pay more insurance premiums for their restaurants.

With regard to your scenario in post #53, that is equally implausible. The Portuguese community in Macau never numbered more than a couple of hundred people. There was hardly a Lusophone community. Please do not conflate colonial outposts with settler colonies. Macau =! Angola and HK =! Rhodesia. Most inhabitants of former colonies have almost zero identification with their former colonial master since, apart from the settler colonies like Algeria, Australia etc. the colonial elite was a tiny upper crust that ran the show through intermediaries without the majority of the natives ever seeing a white man. I come from Singapore and literally no one sees themselves as remotely British despite the fact that we all speak English. Nobody wanted to stay part of the empire in the 50's and the only people who emigrated after independence were the direct employees of the colonial government.
 
Last edited:
Maybe 6 million is unrealistic, that's a good point. I was just putting myself in the shoes of somebody who is really mad about what happened to their hometown, and is given a choice of where to resettle.
Option 1 is some first world country where I'll live in a chinatown and it will be relatively boring.
Option 2 is the frontier of civilization where I'm being offered the opportunity to exact revenge on the forces that wronged me, and receive government land grants in the beautiful African countryside as a reward for my service.
I guess I'm projecting a little bit but I could totally see a lot of them picking option 2.
Lol what? Do you want to try reading that out loud to yourself to see how daft it sounds?

We have extensive historical experience of how populations move when they have any possibility of choosing between “live in a Third World warzone” vs “live in a peaceful developed country”. People will do almost anything to escape the former for the latter.
 
You have clearly never been to Hong Kong or met a Hong Konger, and yes you certainly are projecting your politically motivated decisions on an incredibly apolitical people. The reason why the Umbrella Protests were such a surprise in 2014 was that up until then, Hong Kongers had no political identity or convictions whatsoever. They were simply interested in commerce and private enterprise and ultimately saw themselves as Chinese people living successfully under a British system. There is absolutely no way any Hong Konger would emigrate to Rhodesia, a country that they have likely never even heard about, to be an ethnic minority in a white-dominated country in Africa that was going through a civil war and experiencing international sanctions. Most likely they would try to immigrate to Canada, Australia and Singapore, which is historically what they did in the run-up to the handover in 1997. Most Chinese would rather live a quiet life in a Chinatown and make money instead of pursuing ideological fantasies. Literally no one would pick option 2. What would the Northern Ireland Chinese do during the Troubles? They would pay more insurance premiums for their restaurants.

With regard to your scenario in post #53, that is equally implausible. The Portuguese community in Macau never numbered more than a couple of hundred people. There was hardly a Lusophone community. Please do not conflate colonial outposts with settler colonies. Macau =! Angola and HK =! Rhodesia. Most inhabitants of former colonies have almost zero identification with their former colonial master since, apart from the settler colonies like Algeria, Australia etc. the colonial elite was a tiny upper crust that ran the show through intermediaries without the majority of the natives ever seeing a white man. I come from Singapore and literally no one sees themselves as remotely British despite the fact that we all speak English. Nobody wanted to stay part of the empire in the 50's and the only people who emigrated after independence were the direct employees of the colonial government.

Lol what? Do you want to try reading that out loud to yourself to see how daft it sounds?

We have extensive historical experience of how populations move when they have any possibility of choosing between “live in a Third World warzone” vs “live in a peaceful developed country”. People will do almost anything to escape the former for the latter.

Ok, ok, I see that I've jumped the shark on this one. You guys are probably correct, and I am definitely projecting quite a bit on these refugees. I still don't think it's crazy that some of the hundreds of thousands leaving these cities would choose this opportunity were it offered, but yeah... kinda asb
As far as Mildseven's point about them not wanting to be a minority in an African country, there are large amounts of Chinese people nowadays living and working in Africa. Granted, they are mostly there to do construction projects for their government, and not to settle.

And as far as the option 1 / option 2 thing, I guess I'm sort of basing that off of Texas history. Volunteer soldiers came in from all across the US to fight for Texas, with the intention of living there after the war. Texas was in a financially similar situation to Rhodesia (they were not recognized by many countries, and trade was difficult, though this was due to piracy and not sanctions) so soldiers were paid in bonds or land grants. And these soldiers/sailors were not even refugees, they left their lives and careers behind to start a new life in TX.

Not saying my idea was good, just trying to show where I was coming from. Obviously 1830s US is culturally very different than 1970s Hong Kong.

I appreciate hearing y'alls opinions
 

Attachments

  • rtr3q420.jpg
    rtr3q420.jpg
    199.9 KB · Views: 49
  • 5a2a45d8a3101a51fd414051.jpeg
    5a2a45d8a3101a51fd414051.jpeg
    60.5 KB · Views: 48
Hong Kong was too important to the PRC economically, as even since pre-reforms it served as the transshipping center for Mainland goods and a gate to the mainland and had long been influenced by the Communist Party.
Macao had been de-facto controlled by the PRC since the 12-3 incident in 1966.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Ok, ok, I see that I've jumped the shark on this one. You guys are probably correct, and I am definitely projecting quite a bit on these refugees. I still don't think it's crazy that some of the hundreds of thousands leaving these cities would choose this opportunity were it offered, but yeah... kinda asb
As far as Mildseven's point about them not wanting to be a minority in an African country, there are large amounts of Chinese people nowadays living and working in Africa. Granted, they are mostly there to do construction projects for their government, and not to settle.

And as far as the option 1 / option 2 thing, I guess I'm sort of basing that off of Texas history. Volunteer soldiers came in from all across the US to fight for Texas, with the intention of living there after the war. Texas was in a financially similar situation to Rhodesia (they were not recognized by many countries, and trade was difficult, though this was due to piracy and not sanctions) so soldiers were paid in bonds or land grants. And these soldiers/sailors were not even refugees, they left their lives and careers behind to start a new life in TX.

Not saying my idea was good, just trying to show where I was coming from. Obviously 1830s US is culturally very different than 1970s Hong Kong.

I appreciate hearing y'alls opinions

If the scenario were different where both Mozambique, Rhodesia and South Africa were well to do countries not the countries that existed iOTL and there was a huge displacement of Chinese out of Hong Kong fleeing upcoming handover to Communist China, we could see thousands or tens of thousands of Chinese from Macau going to Mozambique and from Hong Kong to Rhodesia and South Africa. The problem with South Africa and Rhodesia was that they limited immigration from Europe so as to not dilute the power of the Afrikaners and existing whites so we need a different mindset to invite Chinese settlers.

FYI the recent increase in Chinese workers in Africa are conditions of the Chinese financing and support to the infrastructure by China.
 
Ok, ok, I see that I've jumped the shark on this one. You guys are probably correct, and I am definitely projecting quite a bit on these refugees.

And as far as the option 1 / option 2 thing, I guess I'm sort of basing that off of Texas history. Volunteer soldiers came in from all across the US to fight for Texas, with the intention of living there after the war. Texas was in a financially similar situation to Rhodesia (they were not recognized by many countries, and trade was difficult, though this was due to piracy and not sanctions) so soldiers were paid in bonds or land grants. And these soldiers/sailors were not even refugees, they left their lives and careers behind to start a new life in TX.
I think you are getting a bit caught out by the difference in motivation between refugees and volunteers/adventurers.

Refugees are being forced out of their homes by politics, economics or unrest. They typically want to get somewhere safe and stable where they can support their families. They usually want LESS adventure not more, even if they have to undertake risky journeys to get there.

Your volunteer/adventurer types are more likely driven by ideology or profit/risk seeking than by dramas at home. Conceptually they are no more likely to be common in HK than in any other population. So you can ask yourself- how many foreign volunteers of any kind ended up in Rhodesia, and statistically how many might I find from HK? My WAG is that basically there were near enough no foreign volunteers to Rhodesia and the majority of the few that did turn up were white mercenaries/veterans from Europe and commonwealth countries looking for a chance to shoot people. So I’d expect basically no-one from Asia at all, never mind HK specifically.
 
We did not have to give Hong Kong back at all the New Territory’s were the subject of the lease.

If we said to China go away you can not have the Island back just the New Territory’s I am sure China would have cut the power put a blockade in etc. Would we fight for them most probably not even if we did we would have been slaughtered and running to America would have gotten no where did we help in Vietnam when asked no we did not. I was posted to Hong Kong for two long amazing years in the very late 80s I miss it and always will.
 
I was posted to Hong Kong for two long amazing years in the very late 80s I miss it and always will.

Hong Kong is a magical place....

Anyway, to respond more constructively to OP's question (I apologise if my tone was a bit acerbic), a continued colonial commitment to HK would only be possible if there was a strategic military rationale behind it. Unfortunately, HK is not Gibraltar and it was taken in the first place not for its military value but for its economic value. Even with the New Territories, it's not particularly defensible and the only way I can see things changing with a post-1900 POD is a continuation of the warlord era. Another poster made a good point about a POD whereby the Gang of 4 takes power after Mao's death instead of Deng Xiaopeng. While this would certainly raise tensions, the economic mismanagement of the Gang of 4 might encourage them to be more hawkish regarding HK. It would be easier for them to use this long-running colonial shame to distract the populace instead of embarking on meaningful reform to improve the standard of living in China.

The problem with maintaining HK beyond 1997 is that HK is very much unsustainable without the New Territories and Britain would find it hard to repudiate an international treaty, especially one negotiated on unequal terms in its favour, and at the same time be part of a Western bloc which espouses the rule of law in international order. The only thing it had going for it was the fact that most Hong Kongers did not want to be part of China.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Hong Kong is a magical place....

Anyway, to respond more constructively to OP's question (I apologise if my tone was a bit acerbic), a continued colonial commitment to HK would only be possible if there was a strategic military rationale behind it. Unfortunately, HK is not Gibraltar and it was taken in the first place not for its military value but for its economic value. Even with the New Territories, it's not particularly defensible and the only way I can see things changing with a post-1900 POD is a continuation of the warlord era. Another poster made a good point about a POD whereby the Gang of 4 takes power after Mao's death instead of Deng Xiaopeng. While this would certainly raise tensions, the economic mismanagement of the Gang of 4 might encourage them to be more hawkish regarding HK. It would be easier for them to use this long-running colonial shame to distract the populace instead of embarking on meaningful reform to improve the standard of living in China.

The problem with maintaining HK beyond 1997 is that HK is very much unsustainable without the New Territories and Britain would find it hard to repudiate an international treaty, especially one negotiated on unequal terms in its favour, and at the same time be part of a Western bloc which espouses the rule of law in international order. The only thing it had going for it was the fact that most Hong Kongers did not want to be part of China.

These are valid points, and I agree with the analysis that to keep Honk Kong after 1997 would not be a defensible position. The point you referred to about the Gang of 4 was made by me but I did not specify that UK and Portugal keep the territories but was to arguing that an economic mismanaged China would be unappealing to majority of people from Hong Kong and Macau. So as 1997 approached and no special deal was offered by China there would of been demonstrations and even a referendum rejecting unification. With a strong anti-unification vote would the British follow Portuguese lead and offer the residents of Hong Kong ability to migrate.

While Portugal could handle 200-400,000 people from Macau (estimate over 50% want to leave. Not sure all)
No way the British could absorb 4-6 million. What would happen. If no organized immigration process was established then it would be in many ways like a much bigger Vietnam refugee problem with millions fleeing Hong Kong ahead of handover. How would saw Canada and US handle hundreds of ships full of Hong Kong refugees sailing towards them? Or Australia and New Zealand?
 
No way the British could absorb 4-6 million. What would happen. If no organized immigration process was established then it would be in many ways like a much bigger Vietnam refugee problem with millions fleeing Hong Kong ahead of handover. How would saw Canada and US handle hundreds of ships full of Hong Kong refugees sailing towards them? Or Australia and New Zealand?

Middle Class Hong Kongers had been making backup plans since the late 80's. Many of them had secured permanent residency in other Anglophone countries like Singapore, Canada and Australia. I'm not sure how many had the means to do that and certainly it would still leave millions of HK'ers stranded in an uncertain future.

While Vietnam has a long coast line, it would be far easier for foreign navies to interdict HK refugee boats at the source. Maybe they start stowing away on cargo ships, since HK is a major port. My guess is if they were that desperate, they would sail first to the South East Asian countries. Singapore and Malaysia already have large Chinese populations and the majority of Malaysian Chinese even speak Cantonese as their first language. The Philippines and Thailand also have large Chinese minotiries; successfully integrated in Thailand's case. Indonesia might still be an option given that this is before the 1998 unrest that resulted in much anti-Chinese violence, though of course the influx of Chinese refugees might just spark the violence earlier. They could also possible go to Taiwan as well. In fact I foresee that ITTL, the HK exodus might be the 3rd big wave of Chinese migration to SEA after Zheng He's voyages and the coolies who left in the late Qing Dynasty. I think that the fundamental difference between HK and Vietnamese boat people is that the HK'ers would find an existing community in SEA that they could comfortably assimilate in.
 
Top