I live in a city where, if your visa expires, you cannot be here the next morning. This is not a policy debate. This is not a talking point someone uses on cable news to score points before a midterm. It is just how it works. Your stamp says a date. You leave by that date. If you do not leave by that date, you get arrested. If you try to leave after that date, which is the thing you were supposed to do in the first place, you also get arrested. You were leaving. You were doing the right thing. Doesn’t matter. You did it late. Cuffs.

What is foreign to Americans is not the concept of immigration enforcement. They argue about that constantly. What is foreign is the idea that rules would simply be applied, quietly, without a press conference, without someone calling it a crisis and someone else calling it compassion, without a news cycle turning one person’s expired visa into a proxy war for the soul of the nation. In Hong Kong, you overstay, you get arrested, and then everyone moves on with their day. There is no op-ed. There is just a rule that works the way it was written.

The US has roughly eleven million people living in the country with no valid immigration status. Hong Kong has approximately zero. This is not because Hong Kong is small. Plenty of small places have porous borders and no enforcement. This is because Hong Kong decided that the rules would be the rules and then made them the rules. The American approach is to write rules, argue about the rules, refuse to fund enforcement of the rules, refuse to fund the courts that adjudicate the rules, refuse to staff the offices that process applications under the rules, and then yell at each other every four years about why the rules aren’t working. A rule without enforcement is just a suggestion, and the US immigration system is the world’s longest, most expensive suggestion box.

Here is how it works at the practical level. You arrive. They scan your passport. They give you a period of stay. That period of stay is real. It is not theoretical. It is a countdown. When it hits zero, you leave. If you are still here when it hits zero, the Immigration Department knows. They track departures. They have a system. The system works because someone built it to work and then kept it working. This is not advanced technology. This is a government that decided overstaying would have consequences and then created consequences.

The system is not large. The Immigration Department employs something like six thousand people. It handles a city of seven and a half million residents and processes tens of millions of arrivals and departures a year. It does this with staffing levels that would not fill a midsize American high school. The reason it works is not resources. It is clarity. One set of rules. Everyone subject to them. When you break them, something happens.

Enforcement even applies to people who are leaving. You overstayed by two weeks. You show up at the airport. You have your boarding pass. Your bag is checked. You are literally trying to leave the jurisdiction. They arrest you anyway. In America, if you could somehow get eleven million people to voluntarily show up at an airport with a boarding pass, the government would throw a parade. In Hong Kong, they would check the dates first.

There is a side room at Hong Kong International Airport. It is past the departure gates. People get escorted into it holding their boarding passes. They look like someone who showed up at a restaurant with a reservation and was told the restaurant is closed but also you owe them money for a meal you ate three weeks ago. They were minutes from being gone. But the system checked the dates, and the dates did not work, and so they are now in the side room. The plane leaves without them. This happens routinely. It does not make the paper.

Compare this to the American experience. An asylum seeker arrives at the southern border. They are processed. They are given a court date in 2031. I am not being rhetorical. Immigration courts in the United States have a backlog of over three million cases. The average wait time in some jurisdictions is over four years, in others closer to seven. A person can arrive in 2024, receive a court date in 2031, and spend the intervening seven years building a life in a state of legal limbo that the government created by being too underfunded to process its own caseload. This is not enforcement. This is not compassion. This is a system that has failed so completely that the failure has become the system. Both parties use it as a talking point and neither party funds the courts.

And then there is Britain.

This is the part where the irony gets so thick it becomes structural. Hong Kong’s Immigration Department was established in 1961, under British colonial administration. The British built this system. They designed it. They staffed it. They ran it for decades. The rules, the enforcement mechanisms, the expectation that a visa means something and that overstaying has consequences, all of it was put in place by the same country that now cannot stop rubber dinghies from crossing a thirty-kilometer stretch of water. After the 1997 handover, Hong Kong’s immigration system remained largely unchanged from its British predecessor model. Britain built a machine that works, handed it to someone else, and then forgot how to build another one for itself.

In 2024, approximately forty-one thousand people crossed the English Channel in small boats. That is a thirteen percent increase on the year before and the second-highest annual figure on record. Since 2018, nearly two hundred thousand people have been detected making the crossing. Detected. The actual number is higher. Britain is an island. It is surrounded entirely by water. It has the English Channel, which is not the Rio Grande, it is not a river you can wade across at low tide. It is open ocean with container ships and freezing temperatures and currents that kill people. And still, forty-one thousand people crossed it in one year on inflatable boats, and the British government’s response has been to spend 4.8 billion pounds on its asylum system while accumulating a backlog of over two hundred thousand cases and an appeals queue that hit eighty-seven thousand and keeps climbing.

Britain tried to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. That fell apart. Britain tried to hire more caseworkers. The backlog grew anyway. Britain tried deterrence messaging. The boats kept coming. The country that invented Hong Kong’s immigration system, the one that works quietly and efficiently with six thousand employees and no backlog, cannot figure out how to run its own. The student built the teacher’s house and then the teacher moved into a tent.

Hong Kong does not have an immigration court backlog because Hong Kong does not give you a court date four years from now and hope you show up. Hong Kong gives you a stamp and expects you to leave. If you don’t leave, they come find you. If you try to leave late, they find you at the airport. The entire apparatus assumes that enforcement is the point.

Now let me tell you what Hong Kong gets in exchange for running a tight system.

Healthcare here is essentially free. Public hospitals charge 400 Hong Kong dollars for an emergency room visit. That is about 51 US dollars. Inpatient care is 300 Hong Kong dollars a day, which covers the bed, the doctors, the surgery, the medication, everything. An American ambulance ride costs more than an entire hospital stay here. And this is not just for residents. Visitors get treated too. You collapse on the street in Hong Kong as a tourist, they take you to a public hospital, they fix you, and the bill is pocket change. In America, that same tourist wakes up owing what looks like a down payment on a house. In Britain, the NHS would treat you eventually, but you might wait fourteen hours in A&E to get there, and the system is so strained that the word “crisis” has become permanent decoration.

The schools are not overcrowded. Teachers are not buying supplies out of their own pockets. There is no property tax lottery where your zip code determines whether your kid gets a functioning school or a building that hasn’t been renovated since 1974.

The streets are safe. I walk anywhere in this city at any hour. Ruth walks anywhere in this city at any hour, which if you know her is less a statement about safety and more a statement about the fact that nobody has ever successfully told her not to do something. But the point stands. This is seven and a half million people crammed into a space the size of a large suburb and violent crime is negligible. There are no illegal immigrants here committing crimes because there are no illegal immigrants here. There is no drunk driving death caused by someone who should not have been in the country in the first place, whose presence was the result of a bureaucratic failure everyone knew about and nobody addressed. That category of crime, the kind that shows up in American local news with the phrase “previously deported” in the third paragraph, does not exist here. Not because Hong Kong is morally superior. Because the system does not allow an undocumented population to form in the first place. The enforcement creates the outcome.

People bring up domestic helpers whenever Hong Kong immigration comes up, so let me address it briefly. Hong Kong employs roughly three hundred and seventy thousand foreign domestic helpers, almost entirely from the Philippines and Indonesia, on specific visas with specific terms. Whether you think the system is exploitative or that it provides mobility that would not otherwise exist, it is a defined framework with rules that are known and enforced. In America, millions of people do domestic work, agricultural work, construction work in a shadow economy with no contracts, no protections, no defined terms, and no legal status. One system you can argue about. The other you cannot even see.

Here is something that will make Americans’ heads spin. In Hong Kong, thanks to the anti-democracy protests of 2019, we do not get to vote for the Chief Executive. I have written about this elsewhere. However, we do still vote in district and legislative elections. And when you vote in Hong Kong, you bring your ID card. You show it. They check it. You vote. This is not controversial. This is not suppression. It is just how voting works. In America, the suggestion that someone should show identification before casting a ballot is treated as either common sense or a hate crime depending on which channel you are watching. The entire American voter ID discourse would be unintelligible to someone here. It would be like debating whether restaurants should check if you have a reservation.

Ruth once asked me to explain the American voter ID argument to her and I tried for about ten minutes and she stared at me the way she stares at a menu when nothing on it makes sense. Then she said, “So they don’t check?” and I said some states don’t, and she said, “Then how do they know?” and I did not have a good answer because there isn’t one.

The further irony is that a Hong Kong ID card costs nothing. It is issued to every resident automatically. The American objection to voter ID is partly that IDs cost money and are hard to get. Hong Kong solved that by just giving everyone an ID for free. Problem. Solution. Done. No one had to write a think piece about it.

And this is where the immigration argument and the democracy argument become the same argument. Because the question is not really whether a country should enforce its borders or check IDs at polling stations. The question is whether a government can administer anything at all. Immigration enforcement is administrative competence. Voter identification is administrative competence. Healthcare delivery is administrative competence. If a government cannot do the basic mechanical work of running its own systems, it does not matter what its citizens vote for. You can have the most participatory democracy on earth and still produce a country where nothing functions, because the ballots are not the problem. The machinery is the problem.

Maybe Americans would be better off if they didn’t vote. Look at the evidence. They vote every four years and the result is chaos regardless of who wins. Half the country thinks the election was stolen. The other half thinks the first half is insane. The immigration system is broken no matter who is in charge. The healthcare system is broken no matter who is in charge. They have the most participatory democracy in the Western world and the results are, objectively, worse than what Hong Kong produces with almost no electoral participation at all. We cannot vote for our leader. Our trains run on time, our hospitals cost $51 dollars, our streets are safe at midnight, and nobody is arguing about whether showing ID at a polling station is oppression. Americans vote for everything, and their trains don’t work, their hospitals bankrupt them, and they cannot agree on whether counting ballots is legitimate. Democracy is supposed to produce better outcomes. At some point you have to look at the outcomes.

I am not saying don’t vote. I am saying the product of a vote should be a functioning country, and if it isn’t, the vote is not the flex Americans think it is. The British voted for Brexit to control immigration and then watched forty-one thousand people float across the Channel on pool toys. Democracy produced that outcome. Hong Kong didn’t vote for a functioning border. It just has one.

Americans love to say they are a nation of laws. The British love to say they invented the rule of law. Hong Kong doesn’t say either of those things. It just runs. Quietly. At a desk. With a stamp. And then everyone walks home at midnight on a safe street and never once checks whether their hospital visit will bankrupt them. Somewhere in an office tower in Wan Chai, a civil servant presses ink to paper. The date is today. The system holds.

An office culture essay with fluorescent lighting and bad incentives.

The first time I left a Hong Kong office at 6pm, nobody said a word. That was the problem.

No one stopped me. No one raised an eyebrow. No one called after me to say actually, could you just quickly look at this. They didn’t have to. The silence was architectural. I felt it in my back, twenty people watching me pick up my bag with the quiet intensity of spectators at a public execution.

It was 6:03. My desk was clear. My billing was done. I had no reason to stay. And yet some part of my brain, rewired after only a few months in the job, screamed at me that I was doing something dangerous.

I was new. A few months into my first Hong Kong seat. Back in the United States, leaving at six was unremarkable. People left at five-thirty. They announced it, even. “Right, I’m off.” Nobody cared, as long as the work was done. The transactional logic was clean: produce the output, go home, have a life.

Hong Kong operated on a different physics.

I noticed it in the first week. Around six o’clock, something would shift. The day’s energy, genuine, productive, billing-generating energy, would drain out of the floor like water from a bath. People finished their work. They answered their last emails. And then they just… stayed.

Not working. Staying.

The associate across from me would toggle between the same two browser tabs for an hour. Shoes off under her desk, posture collapsed, scrolling through something on her phone with one hand and clicking aimlessly with the other. She was a ghost of a person who’d been sharp and fast at 3pm.

Two rows over, a trainee watched YouTube with one earbud in, his screen angled just slightly away from the corridor. Not enough to hide it from anyone who walked past. Just enough to maintain the fiction.

The paralegal next to him had perfected a move I came to think of as the Productive Lean, body tilted toward the screen, hand on mouse, brow slightly furrowed, appearing for all the world like someone deep in a contract. She was on OpenRice, choosing a restaurant for Saturday.

Everyone was performing. Everyone knew everyone else was performing. It was the most elaborately maintained collective fiction I had ever seen, and I had worked in law my entire adult life, so that was saying something.

The rules were unwritten but absolute.

You do not leave before your supervisor. Your supervisor does not leave before their supervisor. The partner sets the clock, and the partner is either oblivious to this fact or sadistically aware of it, I never determined which, and I suspect the answer varied by partner.

There was one, I won’t name him, but you know the type, who would leave his jacket on his chair and his office light on when he went to dinner. The entire floor would remain frozen in suspended animation, fifty people held hostage by a jacket, until someone brave enough would wander past his door, peer in, confirm the absence, and the news would ripple through the open plan like a breeze. He’s gone. Bags would materialize. Screens would click off. The exodus would begin within four minutes.

But carefully. Casually. No one rushed. To rush would be to admit you’d been waiting. And to admit you’d been waiting would be to break the one rule that held the whole system together: the pretense that everyone was here because they wanted to be.

I tried to understand it as a cultural artifact. I read about Confucian values, about hierarchy, about collective identity and the sublimation of individual desire to group harmony. I read about the legacy of colonial working culture, the old British hongs and their expectations, and how those expectations calcified into something the British themselves would no longer recognize.

And I think all of that is true, in the background, the way geology is true beneath a city. But when you’re sitting at your desk at 8pm on a Tuesday with nothing, absolutely nothing, to do, and you’re watching the back of your boss’s head and willing him to stand up, the explanatory framework doesn’t help. What you’re feeling is not cultural. It’s animal. It’s the ancient mammalian terror of being seen to leave the pack.

The waste was extraordinary. Not just of electricity or air conditioning. The waste of life.

Robert Louis Stevenson wrote that there is no duty we so much underrate as the duty of being happy. He was talking about the strange guilt people feel about joy, the Calvinist suspicion that if you’re enjoying yourself, you must be neglecting something important. He could have been writing about a Hong Kong law firm at 7:45 on a Wednesday evening.

Because here’s what those hours actually cost. Not in the abstract. In the specific, bodily, irreplaceable reality of a single human life.

Two hours a night. That’s what the average unnecessary stay amounted to, and I’m being conservative. Two hours a night, five nights a week, forty-eight weeks a year. Five hundred hours. Sixty-two working days. Three months of a life, every year, offered up to the maintenance of an illusion.

Three months. Think about what three months is.

Three months is learning to cook properly, not opening delivery apps at 9:30pm because you just got home and you’re too hollowed out to boil water, but actually learning. Standing in a kitchen. Using a knife with confidence. Feeding yourself and the people you love something that took thought and care.

Three months is a language. Not fluency, but the bones of one. Enough Cantonese to make the aunties at the dai pai dong laugh. Enough Portuguese to read a menu in Macau without pointing. Enough of anything to feel your brain reshaping itself in real time, which is one of the few reliable pleasures available to an adult.

Three months is a relationship with your children in which you are actually present for bedtime more than twice a week. In which you see them when they’re not already asleep. In which they don’t associate you exclusively with weekends.

Three months is a body that works. A run along the waterfront. A Wednesday evening yoga class. A swim at six-thirty while the light is still good over the harbor. The slow, accumulating returns of physical maintenance, not the desperate weekend warrior crash-and-repair, but the quiet dailiness that actually keeps a person whole.

Three months is reading. Not skimming articles on the MTR with half a brain. Reading. Books that take time, that ask something of you, that leave a residue. You could read forty books in five hundred hours. Forty books a year that you currently aren’t reading because you’re sitting under fluorescent lights pretending to review a document you finished at four o’clock.

Three months is sitting in a park and doing absolutely nothing and not feeling guilty about it. It’s a beer with a friend on a Tuesday. It’s being bored in a generative way, the kind of boredom that produces ideas, rather than the dead, fluorescent boredom of the cubicle after dark.

Three months is, frankly, being a person. A whole one. Not the drained husk that arrives home at nine with nothing left to give.

And here’s what broke my brain: the people surrendering those months were, by every measure, brilliant. Top of their class at HKU. Qualified in multiple jurisdictions. Technically exceptional. They could have done their work in six hours and gone home to build something. Instead they sat under fluorescent lights and scrolled until someone released them. They were squandering what Stevenson called the raw material of happiness, time, health, the capacity for joy, in service of a ritual that produced nothing. Not better work. Not better outcomes. Not better lawyers. Nothing.

It took me four years to consistently leave at six.

Not because I didn’t want to. Because the social cost was real. You could feel it accumulate. Not in anything anyone said, nobody ever said anything directly, that’s not how it works, but in the micro-signals. The slight pause before including you in a lunch plan. The way certain conversations would stop when you approached. The sense that your commitment was being noted, somewhere, by someone, in a ledger you’d never see but whose entries would one day matter.

I was foreign. I had a pass that locals didn’t have. The expat who leaves early is eccentric. The local who leaves early is disloyal. I knew this. I used it. I’m not proud of it, exactly, but I’m not sorry either.

The first few times, I made excuses. Client dinner. Call with London, time zones, you know. I performed the fiction of a reason. Then one day I just stopped. Picked up my bag at six, said goodnight to no one in particular, and walked out. Did it again the next day. And the next. Eventually it became my thing. The guy who leaves. People adjusted. The world did not end.

Years later, I hired a woman, incredibly smart, great credentials, local, who told me in her interview that she’d left her previous firm because she couldn’t take the face-time culture. She said it like a confession. Like she was admitting a weakness. Like leaving a job because it demanded three months of your life in annual tribute to an empty ritual was somehow a character flaw.

I told her we didn’t do that here. That if her work was done, she should leave. That I would never once check what time she logged off.

She didn’t believe me for six months. I could see it, the hesitation at 6pm, the glance toward my office, the slow gathering of belongings designed to look unhurried. The programming ran deep. It had been installed at her first job and reinforced at every job since. It told her that leaving was failing. That presence was proof. That the body in the chair was the only evidence that counted.

It took her six months. Then one day she left at 5:45 and didn’t look back. I considered it one of my finest managerial achievements.

I don’t think Hong Kong is unique in this. London has its own version, the competitive early-morning arrival, the performative “still here!” email sent at 11pm. New York has the martyrdom of the never-taken vacation. Every professional culture has its rituals of visible suffering, its ways of proving devotion through self-destruction.

But Hong Kong’s version was the purest I’ve ever encountered. The most distilled. Because it didn’t even bother to dress itself up as productivity. Nobody pretended the late hours produced better work. Nobody claimed the extra time led to better outcomes. It was pure presence. Pure witness. You were seen to be here, and that was the point, and everyone knew that was the point, and everyone did it anyway.

There’s something almost religious about it when you think about it that way. The ritual that serves no purpose except its own perpetuation. The faith maintained not despite the absence of evidence but because of it. You stay because you stay because you stay. To ask why is to miss the point. The point is the staying.

Stevenson also wrote, and I think about this often, usually around six o’clock, that perpetual devotion to what a man calls his business is only to be sustained by perpetual neglect of many other things. He meant it as a warning. Most of the offices I’ve worked in took it as instructions.

I’ve been here long enough now that I can see it clearly, from inside and outside at once. I know it’s irrational. I know it costs people their evenings and their health and their relationships and the thousand small joys a life is actually made of. I also know it’s not mine to fix. It’s not a problem I brought with me and it won’t be a problem I leave with. It’s older than me and it will outlast me and the most I can do, the most anyone can do from the inside, is build a small clearing where different rules apply and hope the people within it notice the difference.

The most productive thing I ever did in a Hong Kong office was leave at 6pm.

It just took me four years to do it.

An incomplete and emotionally compromised list.

I have lived in Hong Kong for fifteen years. Fifteen years is long enough to stop calling yourself an expat and start calling yourself a person who lives somewhere. Fifteen years is long enough to know which exit at Mong Kok station puts you closest to the wonton place, and which exit puts you in a handbag market you did not ask for. Fifteen years is long enough that when someone at a dinner party in Singapore or London says “oh, Hong Kong, I’ve heard it’s changed,” I do not engage, because I am fifty-six years old and I do not have the evening to spare and also they are wrong and also they are right and also it is complicated and also the wontons are still good and that is what matters.

Ruth says I am not allowed to write another essay about Hong Kong without acknowledging that I once got so drunk I got lost in my own building lobby. She is correct. I live in Mei Foo. I have lived in Mei Foo for years. I have walked through that lobby thousands of times, sober, caffeinated, burdened with groceries, half-asleep, in typhoon signal eight with the rain going sideways. And yet one evening, after a work dinner that became a second dinner that became a bar that became a different bar that became a taxi I do not remember, I stood in my own lobby, a lobby I have entered and exited more times than I have had thoughts, and I did not know where I was. I called Ruth. Ruth said “where are you.” I said “I don’t know.” She said “read me the sign on the wall.” I read her the sign on the wall. It was the name of our building. She hung up. She did not come down. She has never let me forget this. She will never let me forget this. She is correct to never let me forget this.

Here are the ten things. They are ranked. The ranking is correct and I will not be taking questions.

10. The Energy

This is last because it is the hardest to explain and the easiest to dismiss and also because I am fifty-six and my relationship with energy has changed. I used to thrive on the pace. The density. The neon. The harbour at night when you come over the Peak and the whole thing is laid out below you like a city that is actively daring you to be bored. The feeling of being at the crossroads of something, everything, Asia itself, money and food and ambition and history all compressed into a space the size of a reasonable ranch in Montana.

Now I am a man who goes to bed at ten-fifteen and wakes at five-forty and sits in the dark writing essays about how I used to have energy. The buzz is no longer my fuel. But it is still there, still humming, and when I have been away for more than two weeks I feel its absence the way you feel the absence of caffeine, not as a craving exactly, but as a dullness, a flattening, a suspicion that wherever you are is moving at the wrong speed. Ruth does not have this problem. Ruth carries her own energy with her the way some women carry a handbag. Ruth’s energy is not location-dependent. Ruth’s energy is Ruth-dependent. But I am not Ruth, and I need the city to remind me that the world is moving and I should probably move with it, or at least watch it move from a cha chaan teng with a milk tea.

9. The Proximity To Everything

Hong Kong is four hours from Tokyo. Three from Bangkok. Three and a half from Seoul. Under two from Taipei. You are, at all times, one short flight from a different cuisine, a different language, a different temperature. This is the kind of thing you do not appreciate until you are somewhere else and you want to go to Japan and the options are: fly to Singapore, wait four hours, fly to Tokyo, arrive destroyed, or fly to Jakarta, wait three hours, fly to Tokyo, arrive more destroyed. From Hong Kong I can be eating ramen in Shinjuku before Ruth finishes deciding what to pack. From Hong Kong the whole of Asia is a long lunch break. I take this for granted. I take this for granted the way I take oxygen for granted and I am wrong about both.

8. Low and Simple Taxes

Salaries tax capped at fifteen percent. No capital gains. No VAT. No inheritance tax. I am aware that listing tax policy in an essay is the written equivalent of showing someone your stamp collection, and I am aware that no one has ever been seduced by a conversation about marginal rates, and I am aware that Ruth, upon reading this entry, will say “you are the least sexy man alive,” and she will be correct, but she will also be correct that we have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars over fifteen years by living in a jurisdiction that does not treat income as a moral failing to be punished progressively. When you start dealing with tax residency across multiple countries, when you are hypothetically a man maintaining a flat in Mei Foo while holding investments in three currencies, you realize that Hong Kong’s tax system is not just low. It is elegant. It is the Marie Kondo of tax systems. It sparks joy. I cannot believe I just wrote that.

7. The Hiking and Nature

People who have never been to Hong Kong assume it is a concrete slab with a harbour view. People who have never been to Hong Kong picture a vertical mall with weather. They are not entirely wrong, but they are also not aware that seventy-five percent of Hong Kong’s territory is countryside, that Dragon’s Back is a forty-minute bus ride from Central and feels like another planet, that Sai Kung has beaches that would be famous if they were anywhere more Instagrammable, that the MacLehose Trail exists and is one hundred kilometers of jungle and coastline and geological improbability packed into a territory you can drive across in an hour.

I have hiked Lion Rock. I have stood on Lion Rock and looked down at the city and felt the specific feeling of a man who lives in one of the densest urban environments on earth and is also, somehow, standing on a mountain. I did not enjoy the hike. I enjoyed being done with the hike. I enjoyed telling people I hiked Lion Rock. Ruth hiked it faster than me and waited at the top and took a photo of me arriving, red-faced and mortal, and sent it to her mother with no caption, which was the caption.

6. The Efficiency of Everything

Government paperwork gets processed. Packages arrive the next day. The banking system works. You can see a specialist the same week you call. You can register a company in a day. You can get a new ID card in an hour. Everything in Hong Kong operates on the fundamental assumption that your time has value and the system’s job is to not waste it.

I did not appreciate this. No one appreciates this. It is impossible to appreciate efficiency until you have experienced its absence, until you have stood in a government office in another country and been told “tomorrow, maybe,” and understood that “tomorrow” does not mean tomorrow and “maybe” does not mean maybe and the entire concept of linear time has been replaced by something more circular, more philosophical, more deeply incompatible with the way my brain was built. Ruth does not appreciate this either, but for the opposite reason. Ruth has never known anything else. Ruth grew up in a city where things happened now, where the MTR arrived in three minutes and the government form came back in a week and the doctor saw you on Thursday, and she assumes, with the serene confidence of a woman who has never been disappointed by a bureaucracy, that this is simply how the world works. When we travel and it doesn’t work like that, Ruth does not adapt. Ruth does not recalibrate. Ruth stands at the counter with the posture and expression of a woman who has been personally insulted by inefficiency, and I, the American, the man from a country where the DMV is a form of purgatory, find myself saying “this is normal, this is how it works everywhere else,” and Ruth looks at me as if I have said something both untrue and unacceptable, which, to her, I have.

5. Safety

I walk home at three in the morning through any neighborhood in Hong Kong without a thought. Not without a second thought. Without a first thought. The thought does not occur. The thought has never occurred. I leave my laptop on a café table and go to the bathroom and the laptop is there when I return because of course it is there, where would it go, this is Hong Kong, things do not go places they were not put.

Children ride the MTR to school alone. This sentence, if you have not lived in Hong Kong, sounds like negligence. If you have lived in Hong Kong, it sounds like Tuesday. The city works. The city works in the way that certain machines work, silently, invisibly, with such consistency that you forget they are working at all until you go somewhere else and realize that the thing you thought was normal was actually extraordinary and you have been living inside a miracle of public order and you didn’t even notice because you were too busy complaining about the humidity.

The one caveat: I did get lost in my own building lobby, as previously noted, but that was not a safety issue. That was a drinking issue. The lobby was perfectly safe. I was the problem.

4. Domestic Helpers

This is the one that people outside Hong Kong do not understand and people inside Hong Kong cannot imagine living without, and the gap between those two positions is the width of an ocean and also the width of a very specific kind of privilege that I am aware of and grateful for and will not pretend is anything other than what it is.

A live-in helper. Full-time. Cooking, cleaning, childcare, errands, the management of a household in a way that frees you to do your work and live your life and never once argue about whose turn it is to do the dishes because it is always her turn because that is her job and she is paid for it and she is good at it and she has been with us for years and she knows where everything is and Ruth knows where everything is and I know where nothing is and this system works for everyone.

When people move to Bali or Thailand they hire help, yes, but it is different. Part-time. Multiple staff. Language barriers. The management of the help becomes itself a job, a second household to run, and you find yourself spending the time you saved by hiring help on the project of managing the help and the efficiency gain collapses like a soufflé opened too early. In Hong Kong the system is structured, regulated, understood. Everyone knows the arrangement. Everyone has made peace with the arrangement. The arrangement works. I would miss the arrangement. I already miss the arrangement when I travel, and I come back and everything is exactly where it should be and dinner is almost ready and I remember that this, this right here, is civilization.

3. The MTR and Public Transport

The MTR is clean. The MTR is punctual. The MTR costs almost nothing. The MTR takes you everywhere. The Octopus card, a piece of plastic I have carried for fifteen years, that has touched more surfaces than my hand, that works on trains, buses, ferries, at 7-Eleven, at the wet market, at the parking garage, at vending machines I did not know existed, the Octopus card is the single greatest piece of infrastructure I have ever used and I include indoor plumbing.

I do not drive. I have not driven in fifteen years. I do not own a car. I do not want a car. In Hong Kong a car is not a necessity, it is a hobby, an expensive hobby, like collecting wine or maintaining an opinion about watches. The MTR takes me from Mei Foo to Central to Ruth’s favorite dim sum place to the airport to the hiking trail to the harbour and back and it does this in air-conditioned silence at three-minute intervals and it costs eight dollars and it has never once made me wait and it has never once smelled like a person who has made poor life choices.

In Bali you need a scooter. In Bali traffic is a theological concept. In Bali the distance between two points is not measured in kilometers but in prayers. I am fifty-six years old. I do not want to ride a scooter. Ruth does not want to ride a scooter. Neither of us wants to die on a scooter in Bali in a way that makes our obituary funny to strangers. So you sit in the back of a car, in traffic, watching scooters weave past you like a school of fish that has collectively decided that lane markings are a suggestion and mortality is a rumor, and a trip that Google Maps says is twelve minutes takes forty-five, and you arrive wherever you are going with the specific exhaustion of a person who has done nothing but sit and yet feels like they have survived something. Ruth says I am being dramatic. Ruth says this from the same back seat, gripping the same door handle, having watched the same scooter miss our mirror by the width of a prayer. Ruth is being dramatic too. She will not admit this. She does not need to. Her knuckles are white. I can see them.

2. The Food

Of course the food is number two. Of course the food is almost number one. Of course the food is the thing that every person who has ever left Hong Kong talks about first and longest and with the most specific grief, the most granular loss, the loss not of “food” in the abstract but of that wonton noodle place, that cha chaan teng, that dim sum spot on a random Tuesday when you didn’t plan it and didn’t need to plan it because it was just there, always there, three minutes from wherever you were standing.

Forty Hong Kong dollars. That is what a bowl of wonton noodles costs at the dai pai dong. Forty dollars. Five USD. The wontons are handmade. The broth has been going since before I moved here. The noodles are the thin springy kind that exist nowhere else on earth with this exact texture, this exact alkaline bite, this exact ratio of shrimp to pork in the filling. This bowl, this specific bowl, would cost fifteen American dollars in New York and they would get it wrong. They would get the noodles wrong. They would get the broth wrong. They would add something, some innovation, some “twist,” and the twist would ruin it the way all twists ruin things that were already perfect.

Dim sum on a Tuesday. Not a special occasion. Not a birthday. Tuesday. You sit down and the carts come and the har gow come and the siu mai come and the char siu bao come and you eat until you are a different shape and the bill is a hundred and fifty dollars for two people and you leave and it is still Tuesday and you have done nothing remarkable and everything remarkable and the city has fed you the way a grandmother feeds you, without asking, without ceremony, with the assumption that you are hungry because you are alive and alive people eat.

The range. Michelin Cantonese. Proper Japanese, not the approximation, the real thing, omakase that would be three stars in Tokyo, here, in Sheung Wan, above a shop that sells dried seafood. Indian in Chungking Mansions that has no right to be as good as it is. Thai on every corner. Korean in every mall. And all of it, all of it, within a ten-minute walk from wherever you are standing because the city is dense and the density means you are always ten minutes from something extraordinary and you are never, ever, required to plan.

Ruth eats with the commitment and focus of a professional. Ruth has opinions about dim sum the way she has opinions about everything, comprehensively, constitutionally, with a ranking system I am not privy to but which governs our weekends absolutely. When we travel, Ruth enjoys the local food. Ruth does not complain. But on the third day Ruth will say, quietly, to no one, to the air, “I could eat a good har gow,” and I will know that the clock has started, that we are now counting the days until we return to a city that feeds us the way we need to be fed.

1. The Octopus Card Works at the Wet Market

I’m kidding.

1. It’s Home

It’s home. That’s the thing. That’s the whole thing. Fifteen years of mornings and evenings and typhoon signals and red rain warnings and the harbour at night and the Peak on a clear day and the sound of Cantonese in the market and the way the city lights up at Chinese New Year and the way it empties at Chinese New Year and the way it fills back up and keeps going, always keeps going, never stops going, eight million people on a rock in the South China Sea who have collectively decided that this improbable vertical experiment in density and commerce and noise is where they live and they are going to live here well, thank you, and you are welcome to join them if you can keep up.

I cannot always keep up. I am fifty-six. My knees have filed a formal complaint about the stairs in Sheung Wan. My ears have lodged a grievance about the construction outside our building in Mei Foo that has been ongoing since, by my estimation, the Qing Dynasty. My body has written a letter to management about the humidity in August, a humidity so thick and personal that it feels like being worn by the weather rather than wearing it.

But it is home. It has been home longer than anywhere since Adams, Massachusetts. Ruth is home, obviously, Ruth is home in the way that a person is home, portable, permanent, locationally independent. But Hong Kong is home in the way that a place is home, fixed, specific, defined by its coordinates and its smells and its sounds and the particular way the light comes through the window at six-fifteen in the morning when the sun is coming up over the harbour and the city is already awake because the city is always already awake and I am in it and it is in me.

I got lost in the lobby once. Drunk, confused, fifteen meters from my own front door, calling my wife to ask where I was. She told me. She hung up. She did not come down.

She knew I’d find my way. I always do. The city always brings me back.

Even when I’m standing in it.

There is a woman on the 72 bus. She is eighty if she is a day. She is four foot eleven. She is carrying two bags from the wet market, and the bags contain what I can only assume, from the smell and the structural integrity of the plastic, is an entire fish and someone’s grudge. She is wearing a t-shirt that says “I Got High and Forgot to Give a F*ck.”

She does not speak English. I am almost certain of this because she is currently yelling at a man who bumped her bags in Cantonese so fast and so fluent in its fury that I, a man who has lived here for over a decade, can only pick up every fourth word, and every fourth word is an insult.

She has no idea what her shirt says. She bought it because it was forty dollars at the Sham Shui Po market and it was purple and it fit, and those are the only three criteria that matter when you are eighty and you have fish to carry and a man to yell at.

This is a Hong Kong phenomenon that nobody warns you about and everyone who lives here cherishes in private. A small but statistically significant percentage of the population walks around wearing English-language t-shirts that they have selected with absolutely no regard for meaning, context, or the reaction of the native English speakers around them who are biting through their own lips trying not to laugh on public transport.

I have seen things.

I have seen a grandfather doing tai chi in Victoria Park at six in the morning, moving with the grace of a crane and the stillness of a monk, wearing a shirt that said “Blunts, Bongs & Good Vibes.” His form was impeccable. His shirt suggested he’d been hotboxing the pavilion.

I have seen a middle-aged woman at a temple, a temple, lighting incense, praying with genuine devotion, wearing “Roll One Up and Let God Sort It Out.” Which, honestly, as theology goes, is not the worst I’ve heard.

I have seen a man who appeared to be someone’s very respectable uncle at a dim sum restaurant, pouring tea for his family with the quiet dignity of a patriarch, wearing a shirt that said “I Put the STD in Stud, All I Need Is U.” His wife was next to him. His grandchildren were next to him. Nobody at the table could read it. I could read it. I read it while holding a siu mai six inches from my open mouth and I did not eat for thirty seconds because my body could not simultaneously process shrimp and the image of this man, this sixty-five-year-old man in orthopedic sandals, advertising himself as a sexual threat in a font designed for spring break.

Ruth saw one last month that she refuses to let me forget. A woman, easily seventy, queueing at the post office with the patience of a saint, wearing “Good Girls Go to Heaven, Bad Girls Go Everywhere.” Ruth elbowed me. I saw it. The woman looked like she had never gone anywhere more controversial than Sha Tin but her shirt suggested a past that would have made her ancestors file a formal complaint with the afterlife.

The promiscuity ones are my favorite. They are my favorite because there is no one on earth less likely to be broadcasting sexual availability than a Cantonese grandmother buying bok choy, and yet there she is, in the fluorescent hell of ParknShop, wearing “Your Boyfriend Called, He Wants His Good Time Back” and comparing the prices of two visually identical bags of rice with the focus of a forensic accountant.

I collect these. Mentally. The way birdwatchers collect sightings. A rare one gives me energy for the whole day. I once saw “I’m Not a Gynecologist But I’ll Take a Look” on a man who was easily seventy-eight and using a walking frame and I had to sit down on a bench and breathe.

But today.

Today I saw a shirt that stopped me.

I was on the MTR. Island line. Somewhere between Admiralty and Wan Chai, which is approximately ninety seconds, which is approximately enough time for one thought and one thought only, and the thought was given to me by a woman. Seventy, maybe older. Small in the way that Hong Kong women of that generation are small, compressed by decades into something dense and unbreakable. She was holding the rail with one hand and a bag from Wellcome with the other and she was wearing a grey t-shirt with black text that said:

It’s Never Too Late to Do Better.

She did not know what it said. I am sure of this the way I am sure that the grandmother on the 72 bus did not know her shirt was about marijuana. This woman bought this shirt because it was grey and it fit and it was forty dollars. She was looking at nothing. She had the expression of a person who has taken this train ten thousand times and no longer sees it, who is already home in her mind, already putting the groceries away, already sitting down.

But I read it. And it sat in me the way certain things sit in you when you’re not ready for them, when you’re not braced, when you’re just standing on a train and a sentence arrives from the universe via polyester blend and you think: yes. That. Today. That one’s for me.

It’s never too late to do better.

And I stood there holding the rail and I thought about what that sentence means in this city. What “better” means. Who decides.

In Hong Kong, “do better” means one thing. It means up. It means the next rung. A better firm, a higher salary, a title with more words in it, a business card that makes your mother’s friends at dim sum produce that slight involuntary stiffening of the posture that passes for respect. “Do better” means the conveyor belt is working. “Do better” is what parents say when the grades come back and the grades are good but not best, and good does not justify the sacrifice. In this city, “do better” is a direction, and the direction is up, and it comes with a map, and the map has one road, and the road goes through the PCLL and the training contract and the firm whose name stiffens postures, and there is no exit, because the exit is failure, and failure is not an option because the sacrifice was not optional.

In Adams, Massachusetts, where I grew up, “do better” meant something else. Something that sounds the same but isn’t.

Every parent in Adams wanted their kid to do better. This is the universal wish. This is the thing that every parent in every mill town in every country has ever wanted, the wanting that crosses every culture and every language and every tax bracket: do better than me. Have more than I had. Suffer less than I suffered. Go further.

But in Adams, the wish had no instructions. The wish had no map. Your parents wanted you to do better but they did not tell you how, because they did not know how. They did not say: be a doctor. They did not say: be a lawyer. They did not stand on either side of a conveyor belt with the quiet intensity of people who had already selected the destination. They said: do better. That’s it. Do better than the mill. Do better than the bar. Do better than fine. But the how was yours. The direction was yours. The vehicle was yours, if you could find one, and nobody was going to find it for you, and nobody was going to be disappointed if the vehicle turned out to be a trade or a desk or a delivery truck or a life that looked nothing like a law degree, as long as the life was better. As long as you were not them. As long as the next generation cleared the bar that this generation set, which was low, which was survival, which was a job and a roof and the ability to look someone in the eye and say you were doing fine.

The wish is the same. Adams and Hong Kong, the wish is identical. Every parent wants their child to do better. The difference is that Adams gives you the wish and nothing else. Hong Kong gives you the wish and a conveyor belt and parents on either side and a map with one road and the road is paved with sacrifice and the sacrifice is not yours to refuse. Adams says: do better, we trust you. Hong Kong says: do better, we’ll show you. Adams gives you freedom without direction. Hong Kong gives you direction without freedom. And both of them, in their own way, produce people who arrive at thirty or forty or fifty and ask the same question:

Better than what? Better for whom? Better by whose measure?

In Adams, I never asked because nobody made me. The freedom was so total, the expectations so formless, that I drifted on momentum and called it a life. In Hong Kong, they never ask because nobody lets them. The direction is so specific, the map so detailed, that they climb and call it a life. And in both cases, the question goes unasked, and the unasked question is the same question, and the question is:

Is this what better looks like? Is this what the wish was for?

Robert Louis Stevenson, a man who was dying for most of his life and who used the dying to see what the living could not, wrote one sentence that I think about more than anything I learned in law school: There is no duty we so much underrate as the duty of being happy.

The duty of it. Not the reward. Not the thing that arrives after. The duty. The thing you owe. Now. The thing that both Adams and Hong Kong forgot to include in their definition of better. Adams said: better means more than us. Hong Kong said: better means up. And neither one said: better means happy. Better means present. Better means alive inside your own life, a participant, someone to whom things are happening rather than someone through whom things are passing.

The woman on the MTR does not know any of this. She knows her shirt is grey and it fits and the train is moving and she will be home soon.

But her shirt said the thing. The thing that nobody in Adams said because they didn’t have the language. The thing that nobody in Hong Kong says because the language they have points only up. The thing that sits between the wish every parent makes and the life every child builds:

It’s never too late to do better. But better is not up. Better is not the next rung. Better is the duty. The underrated one. The one that looks like inefficiency in a city that bills by the hour. The one that was missing from the wish in Adams and missing from the map in Hong Kong and that costs nothing to find except the willingness to stop, for one moment, on a train, between two stations, and ask yourself:

Better than what? Better for whom?

And if the answer you’ve been living is not the answer you’d choose, then the shirt is right, and it is not too late, and the asking is free, and it was forty dollars in Sham Shui Po, and it does not require a credential or a sacrifice or a stiffening at dim sum. It requires only that you notice it. On a Tuesday. On the MTR. In ninety seconds. On a woman who cannot read it but who wore it anyway, into the world, where it could find the person who needed it.

Today that person was me.

And somewhere on the 72 bus, a grandmother is still yelling at a man about her fish, and her shirt still says she got high and forgot to give a fuck, and she is, without knowing it, the most honest person in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong’s public transport is world-class. And then there’s the red minibus.

Hong Kong has, by almost any measure, one of the greatest public transportation systems on earth. The MTR runs with Swiss precision, clean, air-conditioned, and so punctual you could set your watch by it. The buses are frequent and reliable. The trams are a charming throwback. The ferries connect the harbor with the efficiency of a well-oiled machine. The Octopus card lets you glide through it all with a tap, moving seamlessly from train to bus to 7-Eleven without ever reaching for your wallet.

This is a city that looked at a mountain and said, “Let’s build an escalator.”

The Central–Mid-Levels escalator system stretches over half a mile, climbing more than 440 feet up the steep hillside from Central to the residential neighborhoods above. It’s the longest outdoor covered escalator system in the world, a series of moving walkways and escalators that carry you effortlessly up terrain that would otherwise leave you drenched in sweat and questioning your life choices. It even changes direction based on the time of day: downhill during the morning rush to carry residents to work, uphill in the evening to carry them home.

Only in Hong Kong would this exist. Only here would someone look at the problem of a steep hill and decide the solution was to simply mechanize the entire commute. It’s pragmatic, ambitious, and slightly insane, which is to say, it’s perfectly Hong Kong.

I thought I understood this city’s relationship with transit. I was a confident navigator, a man who had mastered the system, who had ridden an escalator up a mountain and found it completely normal.

Then I took my first red minibus.

The red minibus is not part of the system. The red minibus exists adjacent to the system, tolerated, necessary, and operating by a set of rules that no guidebook will ever adequately explain. The green minibuses, with their fixed routes and designated stops, are the respectable cousins. The red minibus is the uncle who shows up to family gatherings uninvited, slightly drunk, but somehow always knows a shortcut.

I didn’t understand what I was getting into when I climbed aboard. I just knew it was going vaguely where I needed to go, and the fare was reasonable, and my wife was with me, so how bad could it be?

The first thing I noticed was the display at the front, large numbers, prominently mounted, updating in real time. I assumed it was some kind of route information. A stop countdown, maybe. An estimated arrival time.

“What are those numbers?” I asked my wife.

“That’s the speed.”

“Why would they display the speed?”

“So the driver knows when he’s speeding.”

Before I could process this, why would you need a display to tell you you’re speeding? Wouldn’t you just… know?—the beeping started.

It was loud. Insistent. The kind of beeping that, in any other vehicle, would indicate that something had gone catastrophically wrong. A door ajar. A seatbelt unfastened. An engine about to explode.

“What’s that sound?” I asked, gripping the seat in front of me.

“The speeding warning.”

“Shouldn’t he slow down?”

My wife looked at me with the patience of someone who had married a foreigner and accepted certain ongoing educational responsibilities.

“It beeps the whole time,” she said.

She was right. It beeped when we accelerated. It beeped when we took corners at angles that seemed to defy physics. It beeped as we threaded through gaps in traffic that I would not have attempted on a bicycle. The beeping was not a warning, I came to realize. The beeping was the soundtrack. The driver had made peace with the beeping. The beeping and the driver had an understanding.

Then came the stops.

There are no buttons on a red minibus. No pleasant automated announcements. No digital display marking your progress toward a destination. When you want to get off, you yell.

The Cantonese phrase, I’ve since learned, is “有落” (yau lok), literally “have drop,” meaning someone wants to be dropped off. But that first ride, I didn’t know any phrases. I just watched in amazement as passengers shouted seemingly random syllables at the driver, who would screech to a halt at locations that bore no obvious relationship to anything resembling a bus stop.

The system, if you can call it that, requires local knowledge I did not possess. The regulars knew their landmarks, a particular building, a specific intersection, a shop that probably closed in 2014 but still serves as a navigational reference. They called out, and the driver understood, and the minibus lurched to the curb, and passengers tumbled out, and we accelerated back into traffic before they’d fully cleared the door.

The beeping resumed.

I should have been terrified. Part of me was terrified. But somewhere between the third near-miss and the fifth inexplicable stop, something shifted. I started to see it.

This was Hong Kong. Not the polished, efficient, world-class-infrastructure Hong Kong of the tourism brochures. The other Hong Kong. The one that runs on informal systems and collective understanding, on drivers who know every shortcut and passengers who know exactly where “after the second traffic light, near the old pharmacy” means.

The red minibus doesn’t pretend to be anything it isn’t. It’s fast because people need to get places. It’s chaotic because the city is chaotic. It’s human-operated in an age of automation, requiring actual communication between driver and passenger, demanding that you pay attention, stay alert, and speak up when you need something.

You can’t ride a red minibus while staring at your phone. I mean, you can, but you’ll end up in Yuen Long wondering where you went wrong.

The escalator and the minibus represent two visions of the same city.

The escalator is Hong Kong at its most engineered, a problem identified, a solution implemented, the entire system running so smoothly you barely notice you’re being transported up a mountain. It’s the same impulse that built the MTR, the Airport Express, the seamless network of pedestrian bridges that let you walk from Central to Admiralty without ever touching a street. Infrastructure as solved problem.

The red minibus is Hong Kong at its most alive. Nothing about it is optimized. The routes are suggestions. The stops are negotiations. The speed limit is a dare. And yet it works, has worked for decades, because the people who use it understand it, and the people who drive it know the city in a way that no algorithm could replicate.

There’s a version of Hong Kong that’s being slowly polished into smoothness. The MTR apps that tell you which car to board for the fastest exit. The QR code menus that eliminate the need to speak to a server. The delivery apps that mean you never have to leave your apartment. All of it convenient. All of it frictionless. All of it slowly sanding away the edges that make this city what it is.

The red minibus is a hold-out. A remnant. Proof that efficiency isn’t everything, that sometimes the point is the chaos, the negotiation, the beeping that never stops because the driver has places to be and so do you.

I take the MTR most days. It’s clean and fast and I can read on my phone and emerge exactly where I need to be. Sometimes I take the escalator, gliding up the hillside past noodle shops, modernity cutting through history without disturbing it.

But sometimes I take the red minibus. Not because it’s faster. Not because it’s cheaper. Because it reminds me why I moved here in the first place, to live somewhere that still demands participation, that hasn’t been fully tamed, that asks something of you beyond a tap of your Octopus card.

The beeping, I’ve come to realize, is the sound of a city that refuses to slow down.

Keep Reading

For more sharp essays from Hong Kong on culture, politics, and city life, browse the latest articles or get in touch.