The post-1945 influx of Chinese immigrants from Mainland China put a strain on colonial Hong Kong’s limited housing stock and under-developed welfare and education systems. In response, the colonial government introduced a ‘Touch Base’ policy in 1974. Thereafter, all Chinese immigrants who failed to ‘touch base’, that is, reach urban areas of Hong Kong, faced repatriation. This article examines the origins and effects of the ‘Touch Base’ policy, focusing on how Sino-British relations and the anti-immigration discourse in Hong Kong affected policy-making, and vice versa. It argues that the policy change, a product of a new form of Sino-British diplomacy, was underpinned by popular hostility towards Chinese immigrants. The article further argues that this policy shift also reinforced the emergent differentiation between the Hong Kong Chinese and Mainland Chinese immigrants amongst the Hong Kong population. Hitherto, historians have explored the issue of post-1945 immigration using archival sources from the early Cold War period, but have not traced the origins of the anti-immigrant rhetoric that continues to be felt today.

This article explores recent changes in Hong Kong’s independent documentary filmmaking during a decade of escalating protests in the territory, focusing in particular on cinema’s role in Hong Kong’s “movement field.” It focuses on Ying E Chi, an important distributor and promoter of Hong Kong independent films, the annual Hong Kong Independent Film Festival it organizes, and three recent documentaries it distributes that are relevant to the 2019–2020 protests. Drawing on participant observation at film screenings, interviews with filmmakers and textual analysis, the author argues that independent documentaries function in Hong Kong’s “movement field” in three main ways: by contributing to and providing a space for civic discourse, by facilitating international advocacy and by engaging in memory work. Its contributions to civic culture, it asserts, are reflected in the films’ observational aesthetic, which invites reflection and discussion. Public screenings and lengthy post-screening discussions are important ways in which these functions are realized.

On the eve of the Communist takeover in 1949, a considerable number of Chinese intellectuals were reluctant to live under Communist rule. They began their self-exile and the search for a new home outside China. Many travelled to places on China’s periphery such as Taiwan and Hong Kong. Others continued their journey and finally settled down in Southeast Asia and North America. Sojourning abroad, most of these self-exiled intellectuals still kept a close eye on Chinese politics and society. They were eager to promote their political ideal for a liberal-democratic China in the overseas Chinese communities. However, they were at the same time facing the challenge of assimilation into local society. This article traces the journey of the self-exiles in the 1950s and 1960s from Hong Kong to Southeast Asia and North America. It examines several representative figures and studies their activities in their new place of settlement. It argues that, although the self-exiles largely maintained a strong commitment to the future of their homeland, they varied in their degree of assimilation into their new homes. Age was not a key factor in their decision to adapt to the local community. Instead, the existence of a politically and economically influential Chinese population played a more important role in such a decision. Intellectuals who lived in Hong Kong or Southeast Asia were more willing to adjust their life to the locality, while those who went to North America were less attached to the local society.