Although the idea of freedom has been well studied as an ideal in political philosophy, relatively little scholarship has focused on the human experience of freedom. Drawing on ethnographic research between 2012 and 2013, I examine how freedom was achieved by people who practice freeganism and freecycling in Hong Kong. I show that the freedom that these people pursue, either individually or collectively, is not a freedom without constraints but a freedom that must be attained through the exercise of deliberation, restraint, and self-discipline. While freegans seek liberation by withdrawing from the world and practicing self-cultivation (chushi asceticism), freecyclers do so by engaging with worldly affairs in order to create social changes (rushi asceticism). In both cases, by reimagining freedom as ethical practices rather than a right that comes naturally with birth, freegans and freecyclers in Hong Kong are able to experience moments of freedom despite inevitable structural constraints.

The post-1945 influx of Chinese immigrants from Mainland China put a strain on colonial Hong Kong’s limited housing stock and under-developed welfare and education systems. In response, the colonial government introduced a ‘Touch Base’ policy in 1974. Thereafter, all Chinese immigrants who failed to ‘touch base’, that is, reach urban areas of Hong Kong, faced repatriation. This article examines the origins and effects of the ‘Touch Base’ policy, focusing on how Sino-British relations and the anti-immigration discourse in Hong Kong affected policy-making, and vice versa. It argues that the policy change, a product of a new form of Sino-British diplomacy, was underpinned by popular hostility towards Chinese immigrants. The article further argues that this policy shift also reinforced the emergent differentiation between the Hong Kong Chinese and Mainland Chinese immigrants amongst the Hong Kong population. Hitherto, historians have explored the issue of post-1945 immigration using archival sources from the early Cold War period, but have not traced the origins of the anti-immigrant rhetoric that continues to be felt today.

This article explores recent changes in Hong Kong’s independent documentary filmmaking during a decade of escalating protests in the territory, focusing in particular on cinema’s role in Hong Kong’s “movement field.” It focuses on Ying E Chi, an important distributor and promoter of Hong Kong independent films, the annual Hong Kong Independent Film Festival it organizes, and three recent documentaries it distributes that are relevant to the 2019–2020 protests. Drawing on participant observation at film screenings, interviews with filmmakers and textual analysis, the author argues that independent documentaries function in Hong Kong’s “movement field” in three main ways: by contributing to and providing a space for civic discourse, by facilitating international advocacy and by engaging in memory work. Its contributions to civic culture, it asserts, are reflected in the films’ observational aesthetic, which invites reflection and discussion. Public screenings and lengthy post-screening discussions are important ways in which these functions are realized.