The State-Sanctioned History of Hong Kong and Chinese History Subject

Within the political and historical context of China, historical writing has long been closely intertwined with political legitimacy, with history serving as a key resource through which ruling authorities seek to legitimize their governance. Successive Chinese dynasties placed great importance on the compilation of official historical records, paying particular attention to the writing of the preceding dynasty’s history, through which the incumbent regime could assert its inheritance of legitimacy (Wang Reference Wang2012, 42). Although China’s imperial system has long since ended, the contemporary Chinese state continues to attach significant importance to historical writing as a means of constructing and sustaining its historical legitimacy (Pang Reference Pang2024, 1-8). In recent years, the PRC has even prohibited the publication of Qing history volumes compiled by official academic institutions, citing their reliance on Western historiographical perspectives (Wong Reference Wong2024). This incident underscores the Party’s heightened sensitivity toward historical writing and its central role in constructing and safeguarding historical legitimacy.

From the perspective of Chinese nationalism, Hong Kong’s historical experience has often been framed as a symbol of “national humiliation.” In both traditional China and the contemporary Chinese political context, history has long functioned as a crucial instrument for legitimizing political authority. Within contemporary Chinese nationalist discourse, Hong Kong is frequently portrayed as bearing a form of “historical original sin,” leading many mainland intellectuals to reject or disparage local historical narratives. This perspective persisted after the founding of the People’s Republic of China, as academic and public discussions of Hong Kong’s past remained framed through a nationalist lens (Lok Reference Lok and Wong (黃大業)2016, 26). For Chinese nationalists, the 1997 handover represented a moment of profound symbolic significance, interpreted as the rectification of a century-long historical humiliation caused by foreign imperialism and as a marker of China’s national revival (Sinkkonen Reference Sinkkonen2025, 1001–17).

This study demonstrates that, following the handover, Chinese history textbooks used in Hong Kong have adopted mainly the historical perspectives promoted by the PRC, resulting in Hong Kong history sections that are firmly grounded in nationalist interpretations. At the core of this approach is the PRC’s long-standing effort to construct a cohesive “national narrative” from the state’s standpoint (Wong Reference Wong2000, 51). For example, Chinese historical narratives have consistently emphasised that the name “Hong Kong” first appeared in Ming dynasty documents. However, such accounts often overlook that, in these sources, the term “Hong Kong” referred only to a village, whereas it was the British colonial government that formally established “Hong Kong” as a legal and administrative designation. This narrative has been mobilized to reinforce the PRC’s historical legitimacy in governing Hong Kong. Historical accounts produced by state-sanctioned scholars in mainland China emphasize Hong Kong’s connection to China “since ancient times,” frequently citing archaeological or administrative evidence to assert that Hong Kong has been subordinate to China throughout history, including in prehistoric periods.

In narratives of modern history, these texts deliberately stress that Hong Kong’s prosperity was rooted in “Chinese factors,” such as support from the mainland government, while downplaying the role and contributions of British colonial administration. As Wang observes, the underlying logic of this discourse is that Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity depend on resources supplied by the Chinese government — such as water and food — that are provided at costs far below international market prices, thereby enabling the city to sustain its capitalist system (Ibid., 205).

Such framing produces a partial and highly selective account of Hong Kong’s modern historical development. For example, Kwong (Reference Kwong, Cheung, Leung and Chan2017, 11–14) notes that Chinese nationalist historians often marginalize the contributions of the British government and military to resistance efforts during the Second Sino-Japanese War. Instead, they portray the Hong Kong and Kowloon Independent Brigade 港九獨立大隊, affiliated with the PRC, as the primary force in Hong Kong’s resistance against Japanese occupation, using this narrative to underscore the alleged incompetence of the colonial government. Similarly, Lok (Reference Lok and Wong (黃大業)2016, 110–19) shows that mainland Chinese scholarship on Hong Kong history published after the 1980s frequently attributes the territory’s rapid economic growth since the 1950s to the purported “Chinese qualities” of local entrepreneurs — such as thrift and diligence — portraying these traits as decisive drivers of Hong Kong’s economic success. Such interpretations tend to obscure the structural and institutional contributions of British colonial rule to Hong Kong’s modern socio-economic development (Rao Reference Rao and Gongwu(王賡武)1997, 371–416).

After the 1997 handover, this state-sanctioned narrative of Hong Kong history became the dominant framework within secondary-level Chinese history textbooks. These textbooks seek to instill a particular understanding of Hong Kong’s past that closely aligns with broader Chinese national identity. By situating Hong Kong’s history within the narrative of national rejuvenation, Chinese nationalist historians emphasize themes of historical rectification and intrinsic national belonging. In doing so, the textbooks aim to foster patriotism and a sense of identification among Hong Kong students, reinforcing the notion that their local identity is fundamentally embedded within the overarching narrative of the Chinese nation. Although these historical interpretations remain contested within historiography and lack an established scholarly consensus, they have nonetheless been incorporated into textbook narratives.

History education, Hong Kong identity crisis, and the Chinese history subject

History education has long been seen as central to processes through which national identity is constructed. Foster (Reference Foster2011, 5–20) argues that governments seek to cultivate national identity among young people, positioning this objective as a foundational purpose of history education and a means of mediating the state’s dominant narrative. Jackson (Reference Jackson2021, 92–93) observes that different political regimes frequently mobilize history education to legitimize prevailing social structures and consolidate the authority of the nation-state. Modern governments often rely on historical narratives to construct and sustain political legitimacy; the central function of history education is to legitimize existing political systems (Wertsch Reference Wertsch and Wagoner2018, 259–83).

In recent decades, history education has undergone significant transformations in many parts of the world. In several Western democratic contexts, including Finland and the UK, curricular goals have gradually shifted away from an exclusive focus on national narratives toward the development of students’ historical thinking and analytical skills (Seixas Reference Peter, Stearns, Seixas and Wineburg2000, 19–37).

However, the development of history education in East Asia has not necessarily followed the same trajectory as in the West. Since the 1990s, Singapore has placed increasing emphasis on using history education to cultivate national identity among young people. Chia (Reference Chia2012, 191–207) argues that Singapore’s history education has constructed a “Singapore Story” narrative, emphasizing the multiple challenges faced by modern Singapore from neighboring countries and the wider global environment. Within this narrative, citizens are encouraged to accept strong state authority as necessary for ensuring national survival and stability during periods of crisis. Chia further criticizes this approach for continuing to treat history education as a pragmatic instrument serving contemporary political and economic survival. Similarly, China’s history education system continues to prioritize nationalist inculcation. Textbook narratives are constructed in line with the Chinese Communist Party’s preferred interpretations, frequently employing victimhood and savior frameworks to foster students’ identity formation and sense of national belonging (Qian, Xu, and Chen Reference Qian, Xu and Chen2017, 199–212).

It is important to note that the social and educational environments of China and Hong Kong have been markedly different. Under British colonial rule, Hong Kong’s education system was intentionally “depoliticized,” avoiding explicit engagement with issues of civic and national identity, which were only reintroduced after the 1997 handover (Leung and Ng Reference Leung and Shun‐wing2004, 43–60). Consequently, compared with mainland China, Hong Kong’s education system has exhibited a less politicized environment, with teachers generally avoiding overtly politicized discourse in their teaching. Ye (Reference Ye, Zajda, Tsyrlina-Spady and Lovorn2016, 197–214) demonstrates that Hong Kong teachers tend to minimize political language when teaching historical figures, for instance, by avoiding references to Communist Party governance. Similarly, Ye (Reference Ye2024, 815–33) finds that in the domain of moral and national education, teachers do not simply reproduce mainland Chinese teaching materials.

Instead, they exercise significant pedagogical agency by actively adapting and reconstructing these resources to align with the local context, thereby mitigating their ideological intensity. While post-handover education reforms have increasingly emphasised Chinese national identity, existing studies suggest that local Hong Kong identity endures, coexisting and interacting with national identification in complex, negotiated ways. This situation highlights the complexity of national education in Hong Kong as a “Special Administrative Region,” where implementation must account for the territory’s distinct social and educational realities.

In the post-handover era, the Chinese History subject has been positioned by Hong Kong government officials, political actors in both Hong Kong and mainland China, frontline teachers, and the wider public as a crucial site for the construction of Chinese national identity among Hong Kong youth (Vickers, Kan, and Morris Reference Vickers, Kan and Morris2003). Even before the handover, local publishing associations, following consultations with the PRC, became aware that certain politically sensitive content — such as history textbooks referring to Taiwan as a country — could generate political controversy after 1997. Consequently, publishers undertook large-scale textbook “rectification,” revising such content and publishing new editions in advance of the handover (Hong Kong Publishing Professionals Society 2018, 127–29).

At the same time, the question of identity among Hong Kong residents has posed a persistent challenge for both the Hong Kong and Chinese central governments. Through multiple channels, including education and political communication, both authorities have sought to foster a sense of Chinese national identity and political identification with the Chinese state (Tse Reference Tse2007, 231–48). These efforts, however, have achieved only limited success. During the 2010s, a series of major social movements rooted in identity-related disputes emerged, including the 2012 Anti-National Education movement, the rise of localist identity consciousness, the 2014 Umbrella Movement, and the 2019 Anti-Extradition Movement. The Hong Kong and Chinese governments have often attributed governance challenges during this period to the perceived failure to cultivate a strong sense of Chinese identity among the population, particularly among young people (Carrico Reference Carrico2023, 768–83).

Public opinion data further underscores this gap. According to surveys conducted by the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute (2019), a majority of respondents identified primarily as “Hongkongers” (78%), while only a small minority identified as “Chinese” (22%). Within pro-Communist political circles, such findings have reinforced the view that deficiencies in Chinese history education are partly responsible for weak national identification.

These assumptions were articulated prominently during the Umbrella Movement. Lo, Mantuen盧文端 (Reference Lo2014), a member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, argued in a newspaper commentary that the emergence of the movement reflected shortcomings in Hong Kong’s Chinese history education, which he claimed had driven young people to participate in anti-government protests He asserted that the purpose of Chinese history education was to enable students to “understand China’s history, appreciate its long-standing culture, establish a Chinese identity, and cultivate humanistic values.”

Lo’s argument reflects what this study identifies as a prevailing “myth” among Hong Kong and Chinese officials: the belief that the primary reason for Hong Kong youth’s limited political identification with the Chinese state lies in inadequate instruction in Chinese history and culture. From this perspective, officials contend that Chinese history education can provide historical “evidence” demonstrating Hong Kong’s longstanding inclusion within China, thereby countering anti-government and separatist discourses. On this basis, they advocate reorganizing and strengthening Chinese history education to foster political compliance and a robust Chinese national identity among younger generations.

This logic played a central role in subsequent debates over making Chinese history a compulsory subject at the junior secondary level. Proponents frequently emphasized the perceived benefits of Chinese history education in cultivating national identity. For instance, a senior Chinese history teacher publicly argued for a compulsory junior secondary Chinese history subject by highlighting its role in strengthening students’ national consciousness (Wong Reference Wong2016). Another senior educator similarly observed that both political authorities and educational professionals in Hong Kong had long treated Chinese history education as a panacea, assuming that strengthening the subject could realign public political identity with the government’s vision (Hui Reference Hui2017). Drawing on this rationale, the Hong Kong government formally designated Chinese history as a compulsory junior secondary subject in 2018, with a new syllabus introduced the following year.

Following the outbreak of the Anti-Extradition Protest—the most significant social movement in Hong Kong’s history — in 2019, the Chinese central government enacted the National Security Law for Hong Kong in 2020, profoundly reshaping the city’s political and educational landscape. The replacement of Liberal Studies by the Citizenship and Social Development curriculum in 2020 reflected a broader shift toward explicitly fostering students’ identification with the Chinese nation (Edward Vickers Reference Vickers2023, 138–58). The stated aims of the curriculum emphasise the “transmission of traditional Chinese culture” and the deepening of students’ understanding of, and identification with, Chinese nationality and Chinese citizenship, with the expectation that students will become “informed and responsible citizens of society, the nation, and the world” (Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council 2021, 5). The core content of the subject centers on the modern political, social, and economic development of Hong Kong, China, and the wider world. In its treatment of Hong Kong’s political development, the curriculum emphasizes that China has historically exercised sovereignty over Hong Kong and that British rule was established through “unequal treaties,” thereby invoking a narrative that legitimizes China’s contemporary governance of the territory (ibid., 9–10).

Within this political climate, updated editions of Chinese history textbooks were officially published. Their content, particularly in sections on Hong Kong history, exhibits heightened political awareness, emphasizing the territory’s “close relationship” with China in modern history and explicitly seeking to foster a sense of Chinese national identity among Hong Kong youth.

Curriculum divergence: Chinese history vs. history

Since the 1950s, secondary-level history education in Hong Kong has been institutionally divided into two separate subjects: Chinese History and History. The role and orientation of the Chinese History curriculum have evolved, reflecting shifts in the political objectives of educational authorities. During the colonial period, the Chinese History curriculum functioned not only as a vehicle for transmitting knowledge of Chinese history and culture but also as an indirect means of fostering social and political stability. The overarching aim of Chinese Language and History education during this period was to construct a “distant and unfamiliar” Chinese identity among Hong Kong residents (Luk Reference Luk1991, 650–68).

Although Chinese Language education also played an important role in shaping cultural and national identity during both the colonial and post-handover periods, Chinese History occupied a more explicitly political and ideological position within the curriculum. Unlike Chinese Language education, which primarily focused on linguistic competence alongside selected elements of traditional culture and literature, Chinese History directly institutionalized official narratives concerning sovereignty, historical continuity, and political legitimacy. As a result, Chinese History functioned not merely as a cultural subject, but as a key curricular mechanism through which the state articulated and reproduced particular understandings of nationhood, Chineseness, and the historical legitimacy of political rule. In both the colonial and post-handover eras, the subject therefore assumed a distinctive role as a central site for the pedagogical construction of national identity and political authority.

At the same time, the Chinese History subject community has long emphasized what it regards as the subject’s “distinctive attribute” — its role in cultivating students’ appreciation of Chinese cultural heritage and national identity. This orientation has been accompanied by resistance to deep curricular and assessment reforms comparable to those implemented in the History subject (Kan Reference Kan2007, 148–149). Significant differences therefore exist between Chinese History and History in terms of both instructional objectives and curricular content. At the junior secondary level, the History curriculum includes a dedicated component on Hong Kong history. Unlike Chinese History, the objectives and content of the History subject do not prioritize fostering identification with Chinese history or national identity. Instead, the curriculum is oriented toward enhancing students’ understanding of global and local historical contexts and developing historical skills such as source interpretation and critical analysis.

The Hong Kong history component within the History subject examines the territory’s historical and cultural development across different periods, including the colonial era. In contrast to Chinese History, it offers a more detailed and critical treatment of British colonial governance, highlighting the pluralistic nature of colonial society in Hong Kong. It also introduces a range of postwar social reform policies implemented by the colonial government, including public housing and free education, reflecting the expansion of the colonial welfare agenda after the Second World War (Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council 2019, 10–33).

By contrast, the Hong Kong history sections of the Chinese History curriculum and textbooks prioritize interpreting the “historical relationship” between Hong Kong and China, with China positioned as the central subject of the narrative. The present study examines this contrast in detail through a systematic analysis of textbook content.

Research Method

This study primarily adopts a discourse analysis approach grounded in the principles of critical social research. Apple (Reference Apple, Apple and Christian Smith1991, 5) argues that textbooks and curricula are products of hegemonic power struggles, while also emphasizing that dominant social groups shape textbook content to use formal education as a vehicle for disseminating ideology. Textbooks construct a framework of knowledge through which students come to understand the world, transmitting particular interpretations and values into their consciousness. Textbooks reflect the views of socially powerful groups regarding legitimate knowledge and culture, thereby functioning as a form of “cultural capital.” Through textbooks, such knowledge is transmitted and inculcated into students. The state or ruling authorities approve and promote this form of knowledge within schools as a means of social control.

Within this framework, textbooks are conceptualized as part of the ideological state apparatus, and meaning is understood not as an individual cognitive process but as emerging through social practices (Nicholls Reference Nicholls2005, 25-35). Bock and Fuchs (Reference Bock, Fuchs, Fuchs and Bock2018, 57–70) further argues that discourse analysis treats textbooks as hybrid texts composed of multiple, intersecting sub-discourses, thereby revealing the underlying structures of social and educational power and the mechanisms through which knowledge and authority are produced.

This article situates representations of Hong Kong history in Chinese history textbooks within the broader socio-political context of identity debates in Hong Kong over the past two decades. The study argues that, through curriculum design and the teaching of Hong Kong history, the Hong Kong government has appropriated an official Chinese historical narrative that marginalizes Hong Kong’s historical subjectivity — what this paper terms a “Mainland-oriented Hong Kong historical perspective.” Within this discourse, textbooks consistently emphasize that China and Hong Kong have maintained a close relationship “since ancient times” and that China’s sovereignty over Hong Kong is historically continuous. This narrative seeks to instill a sense of “historical legitimacy” for Chinese governance over Hong Kong among young learners, ultimately normalizing the idea that “Hong Kong has always been a part of China” and shaping students’ national identification as Chinese.

Empirically, this study analyzes four sets of junior secondary Chinese history textbooks designed for Forms 1 to 3 students and used in Hong Kong after the 1997 handover. These textbooks were compiled in accordance with the Secondary School Curriculum Guide: Chinese History (Forms 1 to 3) (1997) and the Curriculum Guide for Chinese History (Secondary 1 to Secondary 3) (2019), and all appear on the Applicable Textbook List issued by the Hong Kong Education Bureau.Footnote ³

As all publishers are required to produce textbooks in accordance with official curriculum guidelines and subject them to government review, the content of different editions is generally highly standardized with relatively minor variations. Accordingly, this study focuses on the most widely used textbook editions. The selected materials were published by three major textbook publishers: Ling Kee Publishing,Footnote ⁴ Modern Educational Research SocietyFootnote ⁵, and Hong Kong Educational Publishing Company Ltd.,Footnote ⁶ whose textbooks have been adopted by the majority of secondary schools in Hong Kong. Specifically, the study examines two sets of textbooks from Ling Kee Publishing (2002 and 2020), one set from the Modern Educational Research Society (2009), and one set from Hong Kong Educational Publishing Company Ltd. (2021). (Please refer to the attached table entitled List of Textbooks Used in the Article.)

Although different commercial publishers produce textbooks in Hong Kong, all must be submitted to the Education Bureau for review before inclusion on the “Recommended Textbook List,” from which schools make their selections (Lam Reference Lam2008, 29–44). Fok (Reference Fok2019, 71–93) suggests that, following the handover, textbook publishers have faced increasing constraints in content development and review, with limited autonomy in the compilation process due to the requirement to adhere closely to official curriculum guidelines.

Compared with other school subjects, textbooks occupy a particularly central position in the teaching of Chinese History. For many years, Chinese History education in Hong Kong has been characterised by a firm reliance on textbooks, with classroom teaching often driven by them. As a result, the content and ideological orientations embedded in textbooks are frequently directly transmitted to students through classroom instruction.

This pattern has been noted by Leung (Reference Leung2009, 43), a former Curriculum Development Officer for Chinese History at the Hong Kong Education Bureau, who observed that Chinese History teachers have long shown limited engagement with curriculum development and rarely approach teaching through a curriculum-conscious perspective, let alone conduct scholarly inquiry into the curriculum itself. As Leung remarked:

In this context, textbooks function not simply as pedagogical resources but as authoritative curricular texts that mediate the selection, structuring, and normalisationFootnote ⁷ of historical knowledge and national narratives in classroom practice. The ideological assumptions embedded within textbooks therefore assume heightened significance, as teachers are less likely to be subjected to critical interrogation or reinterpretation in everyday teaching.

“Hong Kong has always been a part of China”: The 1997 curriculum

Following the 1997 handover, Carroll (Reference Carroll2007, 147–48) observed that the Chinese government sought to reconstruct the historical relationship between Hong Kong and China after more than a century of separation. Vickers (Reference Vickers and Müller-Saini2011, 85–112) similarly notes that a central objective of the post-handover education system was to cultivate a sense of Chinese national identity among Hong Kong residents, giving rise to “national education” as a key policy concern within the educational framework. At the same time, Morris and Vickers (Reference Morris, Vickers, Morris, Shimazu and Vickers2013, 148–69) found that some textbooks increased their coverage of the PRC’s role in Hong Kong’s historical development. For example, these textbooks introduced the historical activities of PRC-affiliated guerrilla forces in resisting Japanese occupation in Hong Kong. Textbooks sought to encourage students to commemorate guerrilla fighters who died in the conflict.

Beyond the “correction” of historical perspectives, Hong Kong history was formally incorporated into the Chinese history curriculum in 1997 as an element of extended learning. During the colonial period, Chinese history curricula contained no content on Hong Kong history. By contrast, the post-handover curriculum documents explicitly assigned a political mission to the newly added Hong Kong history component. This mission was framed as supporting the historical and political context of Hong Kong’s “return” to China by emphasizing that Hong Kong had always been an integral part of China (Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council 1997, 8). The stated aim was to underscore China’s sovereignty over Hong Kong and to foster students’ identification with the Chinese nation, effectively positioning Hong Kong history as an instrument of national education.

A teaching compilation issued by the Education Bureau made this intention explicit, stating that the inclusion of Hong Kong history in the Chinese history curriculum was designed to strengthen students’ recognition of Chinese history and national identity. Ting, Sunpao 丁新豹, then Chief Curator of the Hong Kong Museum of History, argued that incorporating Hong Kong history into the Chinese history curriculum was essential for enabling young students to develop a “correct” understanding of the relationship between China and Hong Kong (Hong Kong Education Bureau 1998, 14). Together, these statements underscore the curriculum’s explicit role in shaping students’ historical consciousness and identity within a national framework.

Accordingly, the curriculum emphasized that significant events in Chinese history were closely connected to Hong Kong, encouraging teachers to integrate relevant local historical developments into broader national narratives (Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council 1997, 4–5). Compared with the colonial-era syllabus — which required only a general understanding of Chinese history and culture (Hong Kong Curriculum Development Board 1982, 6) — the 1997 curriculum clearly identified the cultivation of Chinese national identity as the primary objective of Chinese history education. Kan (Reference Kan2007, 113–37) argues that these changes were closely tied to shifts in Hong Kong’s political context, particularly the need to establish national identity and support the implementation of the “one country, two systems” framework.

Under the 1997 curriculum, Chinese history textbooks were required to incorporate a dedicated section on Hong Kong history as part of the so-called “extended learning.” To standardise and delimit this inclusion, the curriculum provided an official “Chronology of Hong Kong Historical Events,” spanning from 4000 BCE to the modern era. While presented as a neutral reference tool, this chronology performed a clear narrative function by selectively identifying historical moments that could be mobilised to demonstrate Hong Kong’s long-standing incorporation into China.

Key entries included the Qin dynasty’s military expedition to pacify the Baiyue 百越 peoples, the Qing dynasty’s maritime ban, and Hong Kong’s portrayal as a crucial revolutionary base in modern Chinese history (Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council 1997, 67–71). Through this carefully curated sequence of events, the curriculum retroactively projected contemporary political claims onto antiquity and modern history alike.

Rather than offering a pluralistic or locally grounded account of Hong Kong’s past, the chronology functioned as a discursive device that anchored Hong Kong firmly within a linear, state-centered narrative of Chinese history. By privileging episodes associated with imperial expansion, administrative control, and revolutionary nationalism, the curriculum marginalised alternative historical trajectories and interpretations, reinforcing a teleological understanding of Hong Kong as an inherently and continuously “Chinese” territory. In both textbooks examined, Hong Kong-related historical content was placed in supplementary sections, typically following discussions of each major historical period. Vickers (Reference Vickers2002, 587–602) argues that presenting Hong Kong history as an appendix reflects the Chinese History subject’s treatment of traditional Chinese history as “orthodox” and Hong Kong history as “subsidiary,” thereby marginalizing Hong Kong’s distinct historical and cultural status. The following analysis examines how textbooks construct Hong Kong’s history across different historical periods.

Neolithic Period

Textbooks introduce Hong Kong’s history from the Neolithic era, linking local archaeological discoveries to the broader narrative of Chinese civilization. Both textbooks highlight artefacts found in Hong Kong — such as those in Deep Bay 后海灣 — that resemble discoveries in the Pearl River Delta 珠江流域 (Tam et al.2009(1), 29 and Chen et al. 2002(1), 22). One of the textbooks, the discussion questions implicitly lead students to the conclusion that these similarities indicate a close historical relationship and shared cultural origins between Hong Kong and China (Chen et al. 2002(1), 22).

Qin Dynasty

Both textbook versions emphasize that after Qin Shihuang 秦始皇 unified the six states, he dispatched troops to pacify the Baiyue, thereby incorporating Hong Kong into China. This event is portrayed as a decisive turning point, marking Hong Kong’s transformation into an “indivisible part” of Chinese territory and reinforcing the historical legitimacy of Chinese rule. One of the textbooks further suggests that this incorporation enabled the diffusion of advanced Chinese culture into what was described as a previously “barbaric” region. The textbook highlights migration into the Lingnan 嶺南 region — including Hong Kong — driven by warfare in the Central Plains, portraying subsequent interaction and assimilation between migrants and indigenous peoples as central to Hong Kong’s historical development (Tam et al. 2009(1), 114).

Both textbooks explicitly state that after the Qin annexation, Hong Kong’s history became part of Chinese history, emphasizing reciprocal influence between the two. One of the textbooks notes: “From this year onwards, Hong Kong officially became a Chinese territory. Events occurring in China could affect Hong Kong, and events in Hong Kong could also be found in Chinese history books” (Chen et al. 2002(1), 87). In addition, both textbooks employ familial metaphors, likening the relationship between China and Hong Kong to that of a mother and child, reinforcing emotional bonds of unity and belonging within the Chinese nation. Notably, mainland Chinese-language textbooks also use a mother-child metaphor to frame the historical relationship among Hong Kong, Macau, and the mainland (Lee and Wang Reference Lee and Wang2023, 187–202). This indicates a discursive convergence between the historical narratives in Hong Kong Chinese History textbooks and those promoted in mainland China. Within this curriculum and textbook framework, Hong Kong’s historical narrative is largely deprived of independent subjectivity. Instead, it is subsumed into a monolithic national teleology, functioning as a subsidiary component of a broader story of Chinese civilizational continuity.

Tang and Song dynasties

In subsequent periods, both textbooks continue to link Hong Kong’s local history to broader Chinese developments. Textbooks highlight archaeological sites in Tuen Mun 屯門 and documentary references from the Sui 隋 and Tang 唐 dynasties to demonstrate Hong Kong’s role in maritime transport and regional culture. This framing presents Hong Kong as a significant node within Chinese dynastic history rather than a peripheral settlement whose importance emerged only during British colonial rule (Tam et al. 2009(2), 50 and Chen et al. 2002(2), 35). After that, textbooks also emphasize the visit of Song Emperor Bing 宋帝昺 to Hong Kong, portraying it as a symbol of the territory’s importance to the Chinese state and commemorated through sites such as the Song Emperor’s Platform (Tam et al. 2009(2), 124 and Chen et al. 2002(2), 87).

Ming and Qing dynasties

For the Ming dynasty, both textbooks cite the Guangdong Coastal Map in Yue Da Ji 粵大典 as the earliest recorded appearance of the name “Hong Kong,” asserting that the name originated within Chinese historical records rather than being imposed during British colonization (Tam et al. 2009(2), 174 and Chen et al. 2002(1), 87).

Despite acknowledging the Qing dynasty’s cession of Hong Kong to Britain, one of the textbooks emphasizes the territory’s enduring emotional ties to the “motherland” and depicts Hong Kong as actively supporting revolutionary movements against colonial rule. Indigenous resistance to British governance, particularly during the leasing of the New Territories in 1898, is framed as part of broader national suffering (Tam et al. 2009(3), 98).

Ling Kee’s textbook employs particularly explicit nationalist rhetoric in describing Hong Kong’s “return” to China, portraying it as evidence of China’s transformation from weakness to strength. One passage states: “When the British occupied Hong Kong, they were aggressive because the Qing government was weak; when they left, they were polite because today’s Chinese government is powerful” (Chen et al. 2002(3), 195). This framing directly links national strength to international status and reinforces pride in the Chinese national identity.

Overall, the analysis reveals that textbooks consistently emphasize the “historical relationship” between Hong Kong and China from the Neolithic period onward, highlighting Chinese cultural relics discovered in Hong Kong and portraying the territory as governed by successive Chinese dynasties, including the Qin, Tang, Song, Ming, and Qing. Through this narrative construction, students are presented with the purported “historical fact” that “Hong Kong has been part of China since ancient times.” This approach seeks to persuade students to internalize a Chinese national identity and to accept the legitimacy of Chinese and Hong Kong government authority.

Historical “intimacy” between China and Hong Kong: The 2019 curriculum

The Curriculum Guide for Chinese History (Secondary 1 to Secondary 3) (hereinafter referred to as the 2019 Curriculum Guide) explicitly situates the teaching of Hong Kong history within the broader framework of Chinese dynastic history. It emphasizes that “the revised curriculum content will align with the development of Chinese history, covering relevant aspects of Hong Kong’s history, allowing students to understand Hong Kong’s role in the process of national development” (Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council 2019, 5). Among the seven curriculum objectives, the fourth, fifth, and sixth explicitly foreground the cultivation of Chinese national identity:

1. 4. Study significant events in Hong Kong’s development related to Chinese history and understand Hong Kong’s developmental trajectory and its relationship with the nation’s progress.

2. 5. Through understanding the development of Chinese society and culture, ethnic interactions, cultural exchanges between China and the world, and scientific inventions, appreciate and inherit the inclusive and innovative spirit of Chinese culture, while cultivating students’ emotional connection to the Chinese nation and culture, and respecting cultural diversity.

3. 6. Learning about historical figures and events nurtures students’ moral character and develops their sense of identity, belonging, and responsibility toward the nation, ethnic group, and society.

The 2019 Curriculum Guide thus clearly articulates the educational value of Chinese history as a vehicle for constructing Chinese national identity among Hong Kong youth. Under the revised curriculum, Hong Kong history is formally integrated as a substantive component of Chinese history education, accounting for approximately 10 per cent of total curriculum content and instructional hours. While retaining the teaching principles established in the 1997 curriculum, the revised syllabus introduces new themes that emphasise interactions between Hong Kong and China in modern history. These themes consistently frame the relationship between the two as historically intimate, mutually influential, and inseparable.

The revised curriculum not only inherits the primary objective of the 1997 syllabus — namely, the cultivation of Chinese national identity—but also places stronger emphasis on informing students about the close political, economic, and social interactions between modern China and Hong Kong. The 2019 Curriculum Guide states:

“The history of Hong Kong allows students to understand the situation of Hong Kong in different historical periods of the country and its interaction with the country, thereby recognizing the close relationship between Hong Kong and the country and establishing a sense of national identity” (Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council 2019, 23).

In line with this objective, the revised syllabus introduces several new historical modules focusing on Hong Kong’s role in modern Chinese history, including:

1. 1. The role of Hong Kong in revolutionary movements

2. 2. The relationship between the Mainland and Hong Kong in the 1920s

3. 3. Hong Kong’s resistance activities during the Japanese occupation

4. 4. The relationship between the Mainland and Hong Kong since the establishment of the People’s Republic of China

5. 5. The role of Hong Kong in the reform and opening-up policy

These additions aim to position Hong Kong firmly within a national historical narrative and to highlight its historical significance and contributions to China’s development (ibid., 18–19).

The role of Hong Kong in revolutionary movements

Both textbooks portray Hong Kong as maintaining a close relationship with China even after British occupation following the Opium War, emphasizing its pivotal role in the late Qing revolutionary movements. One of the textbooks identifies four major functions performed by Hong Kong during this period. First, Hong Kong is presented as the origin of revolutionary thought, where Sun,Yatsen 孫中山 encountered Western ideas, expanded his social networks, and organised revolutionary activities. Second, Hong Kong functioned as a base for revolutionary operations, facilitating fundraising, arms procurement, coordination with overseas Chinese, and recruitment. Third, it served as a center for revolutionary propaganda. Fourth, owing to its geographical location and transport links, Hong Kong became a refuge and transit point for revolutionaries following failed uprisings, thereby contributing significantly to the Chinese revolutionary cause (Yu et al. 2021(3), 16–18).

The relationship between the mainland and Hong Kong in the 1920s

This section highlights Hong Kong’s support for national causes and portrays local social movements as expressions of patriotic sentiment. The Canton–Hong Kong The strike of 1925 is presented as a prominent example of solidarity with the Mainland. As one of the textbooks notes, “In the 1920s, a series of strikes and boycott movements occurred in Hong Kong, among which the Canton–Hong Kong Strike had the greatest impact. This event reflects the interaction between Hong Kong and China at that time” (Yu et al. 2021(3), 70). Such narratives reinforce the interpretation that Hong Kong’s labor and political movements were closely embedded within national struggles.

Hong Kong’s resistance activities during the Japanese occupation

Both textbooks emphasise Hong Kong’s contributions to China’s resistance against Japan, particularly highlighting the Hong Kong and Kowloon Independent Brigade affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party. Textbooks describe widespread support from the Chinese community prior to the fall of Hong Kong, including anti-Japanese film production and financial assistance. One of the textbooks points out that the Brigade is consistently portrayed as the leading force in resistance activities, credited with conducting guerrilla warfare, anti-Japanese propaganda, intelligence exchange with Allied forces, and the rescue of prisoners of war (Yu et al. 2021(3), 100-02).

Another textbook further reinforces this claim by citing sources that state: “Without the assistance of the Brigade, the Allies could not have accomplished anything” (Zhang et al. 2020(3), 109). In contrast, the British Army Aid Group (BAAG) receives only brief mention, suggesting a selective historiographical emphasis that privileges PRC-affiliated narratives over alternative accounts.

The relationship between the Mainland and Hong Kong has been marked since the establishment of the PRC

The newly published textbooks attribute Hong Kong’s post-1949 prosperity and social stability primarily to support from the PRC government. Both textbooks argue that political changes in China from the 1950s onward enabled Hong Kong to attract entrepreneurs, capital, labor, and technology from the Mainland, facilitating industrialisation and economic transformation. One of the textbooks attributes Hong Kong’s industrial success to reliance on immigrant labor from China and the provision of inexpensive raw materials, capital, and technological support from the Mainland (Zhang et al. 2020(3), 164-66). Additionally, another textbook emphasizes China’s provision of essential resources—such as water and food—as a crucial factor in maintaining social stability in Hong Kong during this period. (Yu et al. 2021(3), 162). This narrative closely mirrors state-sanctioned historical accounts produced in Mainland China. It largely overlooks the role of British colonial governance. It ignores broader geopolitical and international factors that contributed to Hong Kong’s postwar development, presenting a one-sided explanation centered almost exclusively on Chinese support.

The role of Hong Kong in the reform and opening-up policy

Both textbooks depict Hong Kong as a critical contributor to China’s reform and opening-up, highlighting a mutually dependent relationship. One of the textbooks identifies four major roles played by Hong Kong: investment by Hong Kong business elites, the exemplary function of Hong Kong-invested enterprises, Hong Kong’s role as a transshipment hub in international trade, and its position as a financial center facilitating capital flows and renminbi internationalisation (Zhang et al. 2020(3), 189-90). In addition, another textbook emphasizes charitable contributions by Hong Kong residents to Mainland China, citing figures such as Tin, Kaping 田家炳 and Pao, Yuekong 包玉剛, as well as collective fundraising efforts such as the 1991 flood relief concert (Yu et al. 2021(3), 195). These examples reinforce a narrative of moral obligation and emotional attachment between Hong Kong and the nation.

Finally, both textbooks underscore Hong Kong’s reliance on the Chinese government following the establishment of the HKSAR, highlighting measures such as the Individual Visit Scheme introduced in 2003 as crucial to economic recovery (Zhang et al. 2020(3), 201-02 and Yu et al. 2021(3), 200).

In summary, analysis of the modern history content under the revised curriculum reveals that textbooks consistently adopt a state-sanctioned discourse on Hong Kong history. Within this framework, several historically contested issues are presented as settled facts. These include the historical significance attributed to PRC guerrilla forces during resistance against Japanese occupation, and the privileging of “Chinese factors” in accounts of Hong Kong’s post-Second World War economic development. However, these issues remain the subject of ongoing debate within Hong Kong historiography and lack a definitive scholarly consensus. More significantly, the curriculum and textbooks operate through a logic of discursive closure, offering a singular, authoritative account while marginalising alternative interpretive frameworks and causal explanations. For instance, analyses of post-war economic development give limited consideration to the role of British and colonial governance, the structuring effects of Cold War geopolitics on Hong Kong’s industrialisation, or the agency of Hong Kong society in negotiating economic transformation (Carroll Reference Carroll2007, 152–204). The resulting narrative thus functions less as a pluralistic historical account than as a pedagogical technology for shaping national consciousness.

Conclusion and Discussion

The representation of Hong Kong history within the Chinese history curriculum can be broadly divided into two distinct phases. During the first phase (1997–2019), Hong Kong history was not a compulsory component of the curriculum. In this period, historical narratives consistently emphasised the claim that “Hong Kong has belonged to China since ancient times,” thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of Chinese sovereignty over the territory from antiquity to the modern era.

A significant shift occurred with the introduction of the 2019 curriculum, which formally incorporated Hong Kong history into the syllabus as a mandatory element. Under this revised framework, greater emphasis was placed on the “historical intimacy” between Hong Kong and mainland China, particularly in the context of modern history. At the same time, key historical events — such as the Anti-Japanese War and post-war reconstruction — were increasingly interpreted through narrative frameworks aligned with those of the PRC. These portrayals strengthened the image of Hong Kong and China as historically intertwined and mutually influential, reinforcing a teleological narrative of national unity.

An examination of the representation of Hong Kong history in Chinese History textbooks suggests that their narrative structure is oriented less toward historical inquiry than toward the discursive construction of a “historical relationship” between Hong Kong and China. Drawing on a teleological and state-centered historiography, the textbooks situate Hong Kong within successive Chinese dynasties or regimes, thereby incorporating the territory into a continuous national historical narrative. Through this discursive strategy, the claim that “Hong Kong has belonged to China since ancient times” is naturalised, and China’s sovereignty over Hong Kong is rendered as historically self-evident rather than politically contingent, producing what may be understood as a form of state-sanctioned “historical legitimacy.” Consequently, the portrayal of Hong Kong history becomes a key discursive foundation for the PRC’s claim that “Hong Kong has always been part of China,” a narrative that has been instrumental in countering separatist and anti-government discourses since the 2010s.

However, this study focuses strictly on curriculum documents and textbooks rather than classroom enactment; therefore, it cannot empirically determine how teachers and students negotiate these narratives in practice. Examining the extent to which educators exercise pedagogical agency to counter or recontextualize these state-sanctioned texts will require further research in curriculum studies, critical pedagogy, and classroom ethnography.

Theoretically, the article advances debates on nationalism and identityFootnote ⁸ politics by conceptualizing the Hong Kong Chinese history curriculum as a mechanism of “discursive closure” and “historical legitimacy,” showing how an ethnic‑civilizational model of Chineseness is pedagogically produced in a contested post-handover context. By distinguishing Chinese History from the more skills‑oriented History subject, and situating textbook representations within the post‑2010s identity crisis and National Security Law era, the paper illuminates how schooling in Hong Kong operates as a technology of state‑led nationalist socialisation that collapses the boundary between historical interpretation and political obligation — thereby offering a nuanced, context‑specific extension of classic “imagined communities” arguments into an authoritarian, post‑colonial city undergoing rapid regime consolidation.

The politics of history education in post-handover Hong Kong should also be understood within a broader postcolonial context. The reconfiguration of historical narratives does not simply involve the promotion of Chinese national identity, but also the reinterpretation, marginalisation, or selective incorporation of Hong Kong’s colonial past (Tam Reference Tam2024, 169–77). The transformation of Chinese History education in post-2019 Hong Kong, therefore, reflects more than a simple process of nationalisation. Rather, it reveals ongoing struggles over historical interpretation, political legitimacy, and identity formation within a postcolonial city marked by competing local, national, and global orientations. Chinese History textbooks function not merely as pedagogical materials, but as discursive sites through which the relationship between Hong Kong, China, and the nation is continually reconstructed and contested.

Furthermore, following the enactment of the Hong Kong National Security Law in 2020, the Hong Kong government has further intensified its control over education and broader social institutions, prioritising political stability and ideological conformity. It is therefore likely that future developments in the Chinese history curriculum will continue to emphasise the cultivation of political and national identity among Hong Kong youth as a central educational objective. According to recent reports, future Chinese History textbooks will adopt more official Chinese state terminology, describing Britain as having “forcibly occupied” Hong Kong Island and “forcibly leased” the New Territories (Sing Tao Daily 2026). This suggests a further alignment of textbook narratives with officially sanctioned historical discourse in mainland China. Given recent trends in mainland China toward restricting minority cultures, languages, and education (Leibold and Chen Reference Leibold and Chen2025, 983–1000), Hong Kong is unlikely to be exempt from this broader pattern.