One of the most arresting and moving sights during Monday’s occasionally violent demonstration in Hong Kong was that of the Union Flag being held aloft by student protesters as they stormed into the Legislative Council building.

The hoisting of our flag symbolised Hong Kong’s enduring ties to Britain — enduring, at least, in the eyes of protesters — and served as a provocation to its Chinese overlords.

We are often told by Leftists that the British Empire was in every way bad, and that almost nowhere in our former colonies are we remembered with any fondness, or much respect.

One of the most arresting and moving sights during Monday’s occasionally violent demonstration in Hong Kong was that of the Union Flag being held aloft

But here was powerful proof to the contrary. The Union Flag is evidently seen by these students, in a territory ruled by the British until 1997, as standing for freedom.

This is in opposition to the increasing repression meted out by the Hong Kong authorities acting in concert with the Chinese government.

I wish this were the only reflection engendered by this latest bout of riots, but unfortunately it’s not. We may have a lot to be proud of. I’m afraid there is also cause for shame.

Arrogant

If the protesters believe that by waving the Union Flag they will elicit feelings of solidarity within the British government, they are tragically mistaken.

For at least a half a century, British attitudes to the Chinese over Hong Kong have been characterised by cringing deference. Although it’s clear Beijing no longer observes the Joint Declaration under which it acquired control of Hong Kong in 1997, the Government has barely raised a whimper of protest.

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has said that recent unrest makes it ‘even more important’ for the Chinese government to respect Hong Kong’s rights

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has said that recent unrest makes it ‘even more important’ for the Chinese government to respect Hong Kong’s rights. Hardly a ringing denunciation from a prospective prime minister! Back came Beijing’s contemptuous response that ‘Britain should know its place’. The Joint Declaration is an international treaty signed by both countries in 1985, so Britain does not merely have a right but a duty to the citizens of its former colony to ensure the terms of that agreement are observed. Beijing’s response is as outrageous as it is arrogant.

I realise, of course, that China is an emerging economic and military superpower, and that Britain is a somewhat diminished medium-sized power, obsessed with Brexit, which happens to have an insatiable appetite for Chinese investment. The Government nonetheless has an obligation to make its objections plain — calmly but firmly — and should do so now.

Right is entirely on the side of the demonstrators. They object to a bill that would allow the extradition of critics of Beijing to the Chinese mainland, and deprive Hong Kong of the separate legal arrangements supposedly guaranteed by the Joint Declaration, which was intended to offer the territory a measure of autonomy from China.

Protestors object to a bill that would allow the extradition of critics of Beijing to the Chinese mainland

Following demonstrations, Hong Kong’s chief executive, Carrie Lam, has agreed to suspend the bill. But there is no assurance that it will be withdrawn, and protesters fear that, under pressure from Beijing, it could reappear.

Needless to say, the justness of the protesters’ cause does not excuse the violence of a small minority, though it has been suggested that police abandoned the Legislative Council building so as to lure rioters into trashing it, thereby undermining their case.

Kowtowing to the Chinese by the British has a long history. We bear a heavy responsibility for failing to hand over the colony to Beijing with anything resembling parliamentary democracy.

While the British can congratulate themselves for establishing the rule of law in Hong Kong and presiding over spectacular economic growth from the Sixties onwards, we failed to create lasting democratic institutions.

We bear a heavy responsibility for failing to hand over the colony to Beijing with anything resembling parliamentary democracy

This was not out of absence of mind. In other Asian colonies — India, Malaya and Singapore — Britain fostered, admittedly late in the day, embryonic legislative bodies that were capable of flourishing after independence.

Violence

But not in Hong Kong. This was largely out of fear of the Chinese government. As long ago as 1958, the Chinese premier Zhou Enlai warned that China would view in an unfriendly light any attempt by the British to confer self-governing status on Hong Kong, as they were doing in Singapore.

Even though China was then dirt-poor, introverted, riven with internal violence and unlikely to inflict damage on other powers so long as they respected its borders, the Foreign Office was anxious not to provoke Beijing.

Such fears were even more developed by the Eighties, when the Thatcher government entered negotiations over the handover of Hong Kong, which resulted in the Joint Declaration.

Almost certainly there was no alternative. Our 99-year lease on the New Territories was due to expire in 1997, and Mrs Thatcher rightly accepted that Hong Kong Island and Kowloon (over which Britain had absolute sovereignty) were not viable by themselves.

So Britain handed over a Hong Kong bereft of effective democratic institutions, though between 1992 and 1997 Lord Patten, the last Governor, had introduced limited reforms. These modest improvements enraged the Chinese government.

Of course, there is no way of knowing whether Beijing would have respected democratic institutions in Hong Kong had they been firmly established. Possibly not, though it would have attracted international opprobrium if it had destroyed them.

At all events, it is shameful that our rulers have acquiesced over such a long period of time in Beijing’s determination that the territory should never have the opportunity even of sampling democracy.

The Chinese government understands that democracy is contagious, and it doesn’t want the contagion to spread to the mainland and undermine the vice-like grip of the Communist Party. Until yesterday, all mention of demonstrations in Hong Kong had been excised by the state-controlled Chinese media.

Perhaps China’s loutish behaviour will have a good effect if it persuades politicians in Britain that Beijing is bullying, oppressive and sometimes malign. And yet this regime is being encouraged to invest in some of our most sensitive industries.

Control

China General Nuclear (CGN), the country’s state nuclear giant, wants control of Britain’s nuclear power stations. It has acquired a third of the £20 billion Hinkley nuclear power station in Somerset, which is under construction.

In 2014 the Cameron government agreed that CGN will be allowed to design, own and operate a new generation of nuclear power stations in Britain. Can this extraordinary arrangement really be in our national interest?

I fear most for Hong Kong, and those students movingly waving the Union Flag. I fear that, sooner or later, the authorities will savagely crack down on protesters, and that China will repudiate the Joint Declaration, which one of its top diplomats has already dismissed as ‘void’.

And I strongly suspect that, whether Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt or indeed (God forbid) Jeremy Corbyn becomes prime minister, the British Government will murmur watery complaints at Beijing while continuing to welcome its investments.