Hello, audience, welcome to watch “The Hundred-Year Truth.”
The Cultural Revolution was a crazy era. In October 1966, just two months after the start of the Cultural Revolution, the CCP Central Committee approved “promoting Mao Zedong Thought and the Cultural Revolution” as the main task of overseas diplomatic missions.
Officially boasting, the “world has entered a new era of Mao Zedong Thought,” they spared no effort to promote the “Little Red Book” of Mao’s quotations to over a hundred countries, claiming that “people around the world love to read Chairman Mao’s book,” stating, “Holding this red treasure book is like encountering sweet dew after a prolonged drought, seeing a lighthouse in fog.”
The CCP incited left-wing movements in many countries to organize demonstrations, including Hong Kong, then under British rule. When the frenzy of the Cultural Revolution swept into Hong Kong, it sparked the “1967 Leftist Riots.”
Today, let’s take a look back at these events.
In December 1966, Macau had the “123 Incident,” triggered by tensions between the local Chinese and the Portuguese colonial government. The leftists in Macau, taking advantage of the situation, introduced the struggle tactics from the Cultural Revolution, promoting so-called “anti-colonial patriotic” activities, intensifying conflicts between the local Chinese and the Portuguese authorities.
This eventually led to the Portuguese military in Macau opening fire on protesters, killing eight and injuring over two hundred. Subsequently, the Portuguese Governor was forced to publicly apologize under Mao Zedong’s giant portrait.
Mao Zedong intended to replicate this scenario in Hong Kong to force the British to submit, thus directing a riot.
Inspired by the victory of the leftist movement in Macau’s “123 Incident,” the leftist movement in Hong Kong sought to replicate the so-called “struggle experience.”
According to the book “The 1967 Riots: A Watershed in Hong Kong’s Post-War History,” in early 1967, the Chief and Deputy Chief of the Xinhua News Agency in Hong Kong, Liang Weilin and Qi Feng respectively, declared at an internal meeting summarizing the victory in Macau that they aimed to “create a stir” in Hong Kong. Subsequently, the Xinhua News Agency in Hong Kong and the leftist camp actively sought opportunities to launch their struggle.
It is important to note that the Xinhua News Agency in Hong Kong was, in fact, the CCP’s Hong Kong and Macau Working Committee, officially known as the Guangdong Provincial Party Committee’s Hong Kong and Macau Urban Work Committee, an organization responsible for managing the underground party structures in Hong Kong before 1978. The President and Vice President of Xinhua News Agency also served as the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the Hong Kong and Macau Working Committee.
In April 1967, labor disputes erupted in several factories in Hong Kong, leading to strikes. Police enforced strict measures at the scene, clashing with workers, resulting in injuries and arrests. Leftists seized this opportunity to escalate the situation.
Workers and supporters took to the streets to demonstrate. Mimicking the practices of the Cultural Revolution in mainland China, they held Mao’s quotations book, chanting revolutionary slogans. The police used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the demonstrators, arresting over 100 people.
The labor dispute escalated into a riot. Workers confronted the police, attacking them with stones and glass bottles. Due to the severity of the situation, a curfew was imposed in East Kowloon.
Subsequently, the riot expanded gradually, with masses taking to the streets, setting fires and burning vehicles. Authorities deployed a large number of British troops and riot police to suppress the situation.
The CCP accused the British colonial authorities of “national persecution” and “barbaric fascist atrocities,” expressing support for the “Hong Kong citizens’ anti-violence protests.”
Slogans from the Hong Kong leftist camp included “Down with the British colonial rule,” “End the British colonial fascist regime,” and “The British must leave if they don’t bow down.”
At that time, the streets of Hong Kong were filled with phrases like “yellow-skinned dogs” and “white-skinned pigs.” Initially, “yellow-skinned dogs” referred to Chinese police officers in Hong Kong, later including civil servants who continued to work during the leftist-led strikes, extended to all Hong Kong Chinese who did not participate in leftist struggles. “White-skinned pigs” referred to the British.
In May 1967, pro-Communist leftists in Hong Kong announced the establishment of the Hong Kong and Kowloon Anti-British Persecution Struggle Committee, abbreviated as the “Struggle Committee.”
Under the slogan of “anti-British resistance,” the Struggle Committee, involving hundreds of pro-Communist groups, marched to the Governor’s Residence with Mao’s quotations and posted big-character posters outside.
The Struggle Committee attempted to overthrow the Hong Kong government through violent means, inciting disturbances across various districts in Hong Kong, including looting and arson.
As the situation worsened, the police launched tear gas to suppress protests, leading to bloody clashes with demonstrators.
To escalate the situation further, the CCP encouraged the Hong Kong leftist camp, openly suggesting an early return of Hong Kong to China.
On June 3, 1967, the People’s Daily called on the Hong Kong leftists to “be prepared at all times to respond to the call of the great motherland, to crush the reactionary rule of British imperialism,” providing them with a sense of impunity.
The All-China Federation of Trade Unions, led by the CCP, also transferred ten million Hong Kong dollars to the Hong Kong and Kowloon Struggle Committee, supporting the Committee in granting subsidies to leftist workers on strike and fighting.
In June, leftists incited strikes, boycotts, and class suspensions across various sectors in Hong Kong, aiming to cripple the city’s economy.
The strikes mainly affected local transportation and public utilities sectors, including the Star Ferry, Yaumati Ferry, Kowloon Motor Bus, and the China Gas Company.
The top ten professional colleges in Hong Kong also formed “Struggle Committees,” with students distributing leaflets and slogans on campuses.
Simultaneously, the CCP cooperated with the strikes and boycotts initiated by the Struggle Committee, limiting the supply of food and water to Hong Kong. They even refused to sell water to the Hong Kong government despite the dry weather conditions.
Nevertheless, the plan to cripple Hong Kong’s economy did not succeed.
According to the book “The 1967 Riots,” the initial labor dispute at the Nam Pak Hong Plastic Flower Factory in Kowloon was not baseless, as the factory’s regulations included clauses that stated, “If a worker damages the machinery, the employer will not pay wages,” and “Workers cannot take leave, and the employer will not reserve their position.” Furthermore, the Hong Kong government leaned towards the employers during the labor disputes.
However, “as the protests escalated, the leftists gradually politicized the situation, neglecting the labor welfare issues that could have garnered sympathy from the public and eventually lost the foundation of support for the struggle.”
As reported in the article “The Third Front: The ‘Economic Warfare’ in the 1967 Riots,” while the strikes and boycotts had some impact, they did not fully paralyze the Hong Kong economy. The peak number of workers on strike reached 140,000, just one-tenth of Hong Kong’s labor force at that time.
Workers who participated repeatedly in strikes and refused to go back to work were fired and replaced by new employees. Over time, the Struggle Committee could no longer afford to continue providing strike allowances.
The strikes and boycotts ended in early July, lasting only one month.
Due to the lack of response from the general public to the strikes and boycotts, the leftist camp resorted to more terrifying tactics, including bomb threats, further alienating ordinary Hong Kong residents from the radical leftists.
According to a later report in “Ming Pao Monthly,” from May to December 1967, leftists planted and threw over 8,000 suspected explosive devices across Hong Kong, with over 1,100 of them being real bombs.
One of the most horrific incidents during the 1967 Hong Kong riots was the ambush and killing of a radio host soon after criticizing the leftists on air.
Radio host Lam Ban, born Lam Siu Po, had repeatedly condemned the violent actions of the Struggle Committee in his broadcasts, denouncing leftist elements for placing bombs on the streets of Hong Kong.
On the afternoon of August 20, an eight-year-old girl playing on the street with her two-year-old brother was killed by a disguised bomb. The tragedy shocked Hong Kong society.
In his program, Lam ridiculed the terrorist activities of the leftists, condemning them as “shameless, dishonest, incompetent, filthy, sloppy, low-grade, communist scum.”
However, pro-Communist newspapers such as Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po did not report the deaths of the two children killed by the terrorists but instead published articles threatening Lam Ban. Wen Wei Po even altered Lam Ban’s name in their report, hinting at his impending death.
On the morning of August 24, while driving with his cousin Lin Guanghai to work, Lam Ban was ambushed. Individuals disguised as road workers blocked his car, splashed gasoline, and set it on fire. Lam Ban and his cousin were severely burned, and Lam Ban later succumbed to his injuries.
A few hours after the ambush on Lam Ban and his cousin, the leftist media New Evening Post published an article titled “Notice from the Anti-Evil Command Headquarters,” admitting that the incineration of Lam Ban was part of the so-called “Cleaning Evil” operation by the “Anti-Evil Command Headquarters,” labeling Lam Ban as a “national traitor, British lackey.” The murder was deemed an act of “enforcing national discipline,” with a vow to continue “sanctioning other traitors.”
In 1967, Hong Kong had no mobile phones or pagers, and even landline phones were scarce. News about Lam Ban’s ambush appeared in the newspapers just hours after the incident, offering detailed descriptions of the attack. As a result, public opinion believed that leftist groups had premeditated the murder of Lam Ban.
The perpetrators of Lam Ban’s murder remain at large to this day. Lam Ban’s relatives were relocated to Taiwan by the Republic of China government, and President Chiang Kai-shek issued a presidential order in August 1968 praising Lam Ban. The spirits of Lam Ban and his cousin were enshrined in the Martyrs’ Shrine.
The founder and chairman of Ming Pao, Jin Yong, also known as the martial arts novelist, was very clear about his stance on the “1967 Riots.” He had repeatedly expressed opposition to the Cultural Revolution and the riots instigated by the CCP.
This might be related to his family history. Jin Yong’s father, Zha Shuqing, was executed during the CCP’s anti-landlord campaign in 1951 because he was classified as part of the landlord class by the CCP.
Organizations in support of the CCP often referred to Jin Yong as a “traitor,” “lackey,” “traitor,” and “Jin the wolf,” continuously cursing and insulting him.
Leftist newspapers such as Eastern Night Post published the first list of four individuals labeled as traitors by the CCP, including Jin Yong, claiming that those listed as “traitors” would face the “highest punishment under national discipline.”
After Lam Ban’s assassination on August 24, Jin Yong was listed as the second target on a six-person assassination list drawn up by the pro-Communist groups.
Subsequently, a parcel bomb was sent to Jin Yong’s residence, but luckily, his family found the parcel suspicious, did not open it, alerted the authorities, and had it diffused by explosive experts.
Jin Yong and his family also faced assassination threats. He had to temporarily step down from the management of Ming Pao and took his family to Singapore for safety.
During Jin Yong’s absence from Hong Kong, the printing press that produced Ming Pao was vandalized, and hundreds of leftist rioters broke into the building where Ming Pao’s editorial office was located, intending to wreak havoc.
However, Ming Pao had already taken precautions by removing signs and indicators pointing to the editorial office and tightly locking the main doors. The leftist rioters spent half an hour inside the building but could not locate Ming Pao’s editorial office. Later, the police arrived, ensuring the safety of Ming Pao’s office.
After the end of the “1967 Riots,” Jin Yong returned to Hong Kong and received protection from the Hong Kong government until the late 1970s.
This was the “1967 Hong Kong Leftist Riots,” also known as the 1967 Hong Kong Leftist Riots, referred to by the Red Guards, pro-Communist groups, and the People’s Daily as the “Hong Kong Anti-British Anti-Violence Struggle.”
According to statistics, the “1967 Riots” resulted in at least 51 deaths, including 11 police officers, one British bomb disposal expert, and one firefighter, with over 800 injured, including 200 police officers.
That concludes today’s program. Thank you for watching, and we will see you next time.
Subscribe to Ganjing World Channel:
https://www.ganjing.com/channel/1f702725eeg3uz4eAgKxHgadC1kh0c
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJ0WwxWijk8NemAqLtqj4Sw
Join our Telegram Group:
https://t.me/bainianzhenxiang
“The Hundred-Year Truth” Program Production Team.