Jiang Zemin Reveals Details of Hong Kong's Handover: Rejecting a £1 Billion Lease Extension for Hong Kong, Saying He Would Never Be Like Li Hongzhan

[ety]

"Jiang Zemin" Reveals Details of Hong Kong's Handover: Rejecting a £1 Billion Lease Extension for Hong Kong, Saying He Would Never Be Like Li Hongzhang​

Written by: Xu Qi'an
publishing: 2026-08-16 11:51 renew: 2026-08-16 12:03

The ninth episode of the CCTV documentary series "Jiang Zemin," titled "The Vastness of China," devoted more than half of its content to detailing the undercurrents and contests between China and Britain in politics, economics, and law on the eve of Hong Kong's return to China in 1997.

The documentary revealed a detail: someone had planned to invest £1 billion in an attempt to continue leasing Hong Kong after 1997. Faced with this offer, Jiang Zemin remained resolute, stating, "Don't mention £1 billion, even if it were £10 billion or £100 billion, I would not sell out Hong Kong. I will never become a second Li Hongzhang."

CCTV-1 will broadcast a documentary about Jiang Zemin from August 11 to August 16. (CCTV)

Margaret Thatcher sent a special envoy to pressure Jiang Zemin, who firmly refused in person.​

The documentary reveals that after the spring and summer of 1989, Western countries imposed so-called "sanctions" on China, and Britain also attempted to create obstacles to the smooth transition of Hong Kong. Lu Ping, then director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council, recalled in the film that this period was the most difficult stage of work in Hong Kong and the most intense struggle with Britain.

Britain attempted to obstruct a smooth transition in Hong Kong, marking the most difficult period and the most intense struggle with Britain in Hong Kong. (Screenshot from documentary)

The documentary points out that on December 4, 1989, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sent a special envoy to China in secret, delivering a formal letter to Jiang Zemin requesting an increase in the number of directly elected seats in the Hong Kong Legislative Council, making this a prerequisite for the restoration of Sino-British bilateral relations. Jiang Zemin immediately rejected this request. He clearly stated that China hoped to achieve a smooth transition in Hong Kong before July 1, 1997, but the Chinese nation would never succumb to any external pressure.

On September 11, 1991, Jiang Zemin met with former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse. (China News Service)

Chris Patten's proposal, deemed "three violations," prompts China to decide to "start from scratch."​

In July 1992, shortly after taking office, the newly appointed Governor of Hong Kong, Christopher Francis Patten, put forward the so-called "political reform plan" in an attempt to change the executive-led system that had been practiced in Hong Kong for a long time.

The documentary quotes Zhou Nan, then head of Xinhua News Agency's Hong Kong branch, as saying that during Britain's century and a half of rule over Hong Kong, democracy was never practiced; the Governor was appointed by the British monarch, and all members of the Legislative Council were designated by the Governor. Chris Patten's actions were intended to continue manipulating Hong Kong's politics through the Legislative Council after 1997.

Governor Chris Patten sat down with his legs crossed among the crowd. (Photo courtesy of the University of Hong Kong Library)

The documentary points out that the proposal seriously violates the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the principle of being consistent with the Basic Law, and the understandings and agreements between China and the UK, making it a typical "triple violation" proposal.

The documentary mentions that after the breakdown of political negotiations that lasted eight months and consisted of 17 rounds, the Party Central Committee proposed the policy of "taking the initiative as the main focus while preparing for both possibilities," deciding to "start afresh." In July 1993, the Preparatory Working Committee of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Preparatory Committee was established in Beijing; in January 1996, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Preparatory Committee was formally established, firmly grasping the initiative in Hong Kong's return to China.

In July 1993, the Preparatory Working Committee for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region was established in Beijing, and Jiang Zemin delivered a speech. (Screenshot from documentary)

"Even if it's 10 billion or 100 billion, I won't sell out Hong Kong."​

Furthermore, at 6 minutes and 40 seconds into the documentary, a detail of the Sino-British conflict before Hong Kong's return to China is revealed: someone had considered spending one billion pounds to continue leasing Hong Kong after 1997. Jiang Zemin firmly stated, "Don't mention one billion, even if it were ten billion or one hundred billion, I would not sell out Hong Kong. I will never become a second Li Hongzhang."


The documentary also mentions that in addition to political clashes, economic competition was equally fierce. In October 1989, without consulting with the Chinese side beforehand, the Hong Kong British authorities unilaterally announced that they would spend more than HK$100 billion to build a new airport complex, and that the repayment period for most of the loans would be extended to after 1997.

The documentary quoted Lu Ping, then director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council, as saying that the plan would essentially burden the future Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government with heavy debt. Jiang Zemin then vividly criticized this approach as "you treat, I'll pay."



China immediately took countermeasures. Since banks must obtain guarantees from the Chinese central government to issue long-term loans, China insisted on advocating for the rights and interests of Hong Kong people, forcing the British side to return to the negotiating table. After nine months of arduous negotiations, China and the UK finally signed the Memorandum of Understanding on the Construction of the New Hong Kong Airport and Related Issues, thus resolving the debt crisis.

"Hong Kong people are fully capable of governing Hong Kong well."​

At midnight on July 1, 1997, the five-star red flag and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region flag were raised at the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre. The documentary points out that between 1997 and 2002, Jiang Zemin visited Hong Kong four times. He said that facts have proved that "one country, two systems" is completely feasible, the Special Administrative Region government has the ability to manage complex situations, and the people of Hong Kong are fully capable of governing Hong Kong well.

 

[ety]

Lol, the British really thought the time was still like in the 19th century after the Opium War, they could get away with a new lease of Hong Kong just before 1997 handover. They thought Chinese leaders and gov were fools would sell out HK to Britain for few pennies. The sun had long set on the infamous British Empire. BTW, the British never made any payments on the 99 years lease of HK.

 

[retaxis]

Lol, the British really thought the time was still like in the 19th century after the Opium War, they could get away with a new lease of Hong Kong just before 1997 handover. They thought Chinese leaders and gov were fools would sell out HK to Britain for few pennies. The sun had long set on the infamous British Empire. BTW, the British never made any payments on the 99 years lease of HK.

China militarily was still pretty weak in 97, we still had like 155mm artillary on ships etc because we didn't have proper weapon systems. But regardless of how militarily weak china was compared to today, it will never allow westerners to steal land again.

 

[retaxis]

I still remember I had a patient back in 2015 who was from Hong Kong (he had some dementia ). He was telling me how HK will never ever return back to Chinese rule. I was like uhmmm should i break it to him? nah

 

[ety]

China militarily was still pretty weak in 97, we still had like 155mm artillary on ships etc because we didn't have proper weapon systems. But regardless of how militarily weak china was compared to today, it will never allow westerners to steal land again.

China's military might be backward before 1997. But a war with China on Chinese land like Hong Kong esp involving PLAGF the British and even the Americans dare not to undertake. The Americans learned that bitter lesson in the Korean and Vietnam wars.

 

[retaxis]

China's military might be backward before 1997. But a war with China on Chinese land like Hong Kong esp involving PLAGF the British and even the Americans dare not to undertake. The Americans learned that bitter lesson in the Korean and Vietnam wars.

Land war was out of the question since Korea

In fact ROC was meant to do some sort of re invasion of mainland while america marched in through NK in Korean war but that never eventuated.

 

[ety]

I still remember I had a patient back in 2015 who was from Hong Kong (he had some dementia ). He was telling me how HK will never ever return back to Chinese rule. I was like uhmmm should i break it to him? nah

These people from HK are brain washed by the British education in HK, lol.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

China militarily was still pretty weak in 97, we still had like 155mm artillary on ships etc because we didn't have proper weapon systems. But regardless of how militarily weak china was compared to today, it will never allow westerners to steal land again.

China didn't even retreat from the absolute US navy and air force dominance in the 1996 Taiwan Strait crisis.

China was preparing for a massive casualty but it would have to inflict massive damage to the two US supercarrier battlegroups.

The Clinton administration chose to deescalate as well because China wasn't a primary concern to the US before the 2010s.

 

[retaxis]

China didn't even retreat from the absolute US navy and air force dominance in the 1996 Taiwan Strait crisis.

China was preparing for a massive casualty but it would have to inflict massive damage to the two US supercarrier battlegroups.

The Clinton administration chose to deescalate as well because China wasn't a primary concern to the US before the 2010s.

Yes it was always about trading massive amounts of Chinese lives and infrastructure for little return and hope its enough.

Lucky we are not in that situation anymore where we buy time with lives.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

These people from HK are brain washed by the British education in HK, lol.

Well, patriotic HKers are super smart like this gentleman.

https://www.youtube.com/@mrquestion2010

Whereas those unpatriotic HKers are not.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Yes it was always about trading massive amounts of Chinese lives and infrastructure for little return and hope its enough.

Lucky we are not in that situation anymore where we buy time with lives.

Because China was obviously an underdog in the 1990s but it would act like Iran not backing down, some US elites also didn't want the US to get hurt in brawling battle with the underdog China.

Since some European elites in the 1990s also wanted to cozy up with Russia to form the new super Europe, and that coalition would be a much bigger threat than the 1990s China to the US.

You can see why the US since the 2010s has created so many rifts between Europe and Russia.

Even today, the US still doesn't want Europe to merge with Russia despite facing a China with peer power level.

If Europe has merged with Russia, the US can no longer control Europe, and fewer blood bags for them like Japan/South Korea/Taiwan.

 

[retaxis]

Because China was obviously an underdog in the 1990s but it would act like Iran not backing down, some US elites also didn't want the US to get hurt in brawling battle with the underdog China.

Since some European elites in the 1990s also wanted to cozy up with Russia to form the new super Europe, and that coalition would be a much bigger threat than the 1990s China to the US.

You can see why the US since the 2010s has created so many rifts between Europe and Russia.

Even today, the US still doesn't want Europe to merge with Russia despite facing a China with peer power level.

If Europe has merged with Russia, the US can no longer Europe, and fewer blood bags for them like Japan/South Korea/Taiwan.

Yes it is widely known within American circles that a German-Russian alliance is the primordial threat to American existence.

US bomb nordstream, Europe and Germany now pay 3 or 4x more for energy and create rift between Germany and Russia.

 

[ety]

Because China was obviously an underdog in the 1990s but it would act like Iran not backing down, some US elites also didn't want the US to get hurt in brawling battle with the underdog China.

Since some European elites in the 1990s also wanted to cozy up with Russia to form the new super Europe, and that coalition would be a much bigger threat than the 1990s China to the US.

You can see why the US since the 2010s has created so many rifts between Europe and Russia.

Even today, the US still doesn't want Europe to merge with Russia despite facing a China with peer power level.

If Europe has merged with Russia, the US can no longer control Europe, and fewer blood bags for them like Japan/South Korea/Taiwan.

It would be insane for US to create a super state consists of Europe and Russia. US would have no control of it. It probably going to be the new hegemon of the world replacing US that certainly doesn't want to see.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Yes it is widely known within American circles that a German-Russian alliance is the primordial threat to American existence.

US bomb nordstream, Europe and Germany now pay 3 or 4x more for energy and create rift between Germany and Russia.

Before China's transcension, it was indeed the German-Russian alliance that could encompass a territorial influence from Lisbon to Vladivostok a primary threat to the US.

From the US establishment point of view, it is better to keep the weaker Germany like a big blood bag for the US like Japan, and a weakened but rogued Russia keeps acting as the boogeyman that provides a reason for the US to stay and control Europe.

So they can focus their energy to tackle against China when both Europe and East Asia are in their thrall.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

It would be insane for US to create a super state consists of Europe and Russia. US would have no control of it. It probably going to be the new hegemon of the world replacing US that certainly doesn't want to see.

If the 1990s China was sacrificed, and the US was seriously hurt and weakened.

An Euro-Russian axis was bound to happen.

Since the dynamic of history would be completely changed if the US decided to enter war against China in 1996.