What the 1967 disturbances actually were
Despite the wording of the title, the events of 1967 in Hong Kong were not a pro-democracy movement. They were a wave of strikes, demonstrations, clashes and bombings organised mainly by left-wing groups, many of them led by pro-Beijing trade unions and newspapers, against British colonial rule. The agitation drew inspiration from the Cultural Revolution on the mainland, and its slogans were often drawn from Mao Zedong’s writings. The protesters were not asking for elections or representative government; they wanted to challenge and weaken the colonial administration, and some hoped to force concessions on labour rights and living conditions.
The unrest lasted roughly from May to December 1967. Calls for democratic reform in Hong Kong came later, in the decades before the 1997 handover, and belong to a different story.
Background: a colony under strain
Hong Kong in the mid-1960s was crowded, with a large refugee population, long working hours, low wages and limited social provision. Many families lived in squatter huts or very small flats. Labour protection was thin, and the colonial government had little direct contact with ordinary Chinese residents. An earlier outbreak of rioting in Kowloon in April 1966, sparked by a fare increase on the Star Ferry, had already shown that frustration was widespread, though that disturbance was not directed by Beijing’s supporters.
Political tension also came from across the border. In December 1966 there had been serious unrest in neighbouring Portuguese Macau, and the Portuguese authorities there ended up making concessions to pro-Beijing groups. Hong Kong’s left-wing organisations took note.
May to December 1967
The Hong Kong disturbances began with a labour dispute at an artificial-flower factory in the San Po Kong area of Kowloon in spring 1967. A disagreement over pay and working conditions escalated into clashes with the police, and by early May the conflict was being described by left-wing newspapers as a struggle against colonial oppression. Demonstrators carried copies of the Little Red Book, chanted slogans and demanded the release of those arrested.
Over the following weeks the unrest spread. There were strikes, marches, street fights and attempts to disrupt transport and services. The government, led by Governor Sir David Trench, responded with arrests, curfews, emergency regulations and the closure of some left-wing newspapers. The police, backed by the army, were often under heavy pressure.
From the summer the tactics turned more dangerous. Homemade bombs were planted in streets, many of them crude or fake, though a number were real, and some killed or injured passers-by, including children. Reports at the time and since put the total number of devices in the thousands, with many being hoaxes designed to cause fear. In August a popular radio commentator who had spoken out against the left, Lam Bun, was killed in an arson attack along with a relative. The deaths of police officers and bystanders during these months turned many residents against the militants.
Events outside Hong Kong made things worse. In August a crowd attacked and burned the British mission in Beijing, and a number of journalists and others were detained on both sides in retaliation. As in other crises of the period, it was unclear how closely local militants were following orders from the mainland. By late in the year, Beijing, which reportedly did not want to lose the economic benefits of Hong Kong as a trading port, signalled that the campaign should end. By December the bombing had largely stopped, and the disturbances faded out.
Why the unrest failed
Several things limited the movement. Most Hong Kong residents, including many working-class people, were more interested in jobs and housing than in revolution, and the violence alienated them. The police largely remained loyal, and the colonial government kept control of the city. Beijing’s own leadership, wary of being drawn into a direct confrontation with Britain, did not give the militants the support they had hoped for. The colony’s economy kept functioning, and the left-wing leaders found themselves increasingly isolated.
The death toll over the period is often given at around fifty, a figure that includes civilians, police officers and protesters, though sources differ and the number should be treated as approximate.
The aftermath and the MacLehose reforms
The disturbances left officials with a sense that the colony could not remain a place where the authorities knew little about ordinary people’s lives. Some reform steps began quickly in the late 1960s, including efforts to bring officials closer to local communities through district offices and a gradual strengthening of labour legislation.
The larger changes came in the 1970s under Governor Sir Murray MacLehose, who took office in 1971. His administration launched a major public housing programme, expanded free education, extended social services and set up the Independent Commission Against Corruption in 1974 after a major corruption scandal. Chinese was recognised as an official language alongside English in 1974. Historians debate how much of this was a direct result of 1967 and how much resulted from other pressures, such as economic growth, rising expectations and the colony’s changing role. But the MacLehose reforms are commonly seen as part of a longer response to the sense of vulnerability that the unrest created.
Place in the wider year
British officials were also thinking about the empire’s limits. The Aden withdrawal and sterling’s troubles, culminating in the pound devaluation of November 1967, reinforced a sense that Britain’s global role was shrinking, though Hong Kong remained under British administration until 1997. The 1967 Hong Kong riots, as they are often called, are now usually studied as a local episode with a mainland cause, and as a reminder that “protest” does not always mean a campaign for democracy.