The HK Chinese were however much better off at the time under British rule than the mainland Chinese were under China's. China was kind of a mess at the time.
Perhaps materially, but on principle I don't think anyone would want to be considered second-class.
The objective fact is that Hong Kong now enjoys greater electoral freedom after severance from British colonial rule and returning to Chinese sovereignty. Yet the cacophony coming out of western media are actively encouraging the repainting of an otherwise undeniable fact as somehow controversial.
And then you have these nativist protestors who knowingly break the laws of the jurisdiction in a "I dare you to arrest me" fashion. It hit the peak of hypocrisy when they went to Washington to implore Donald Trump to assist them in instilling democracy in Hong Kong.
The Chinese had a direct hand in making that so: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/th...
EDIT: I asked this half rhetorically. Although I don't have citations to back it up, my impression is that natives who were colonial subjects didn't generally fare well. You may be able to argue minutae.
EDIT 2: you ask a fair question, but I couldn't help but be reminded of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIvYWUVB1Ig :)
As well, "British subjects" in a colony is always a controversial and touchy subject because you have both cases of how theyre treated depending on how they were percieved by the UK. There was a reason why USA started a revolution and India wanted to be independent under Gandhi which again ties with the idea that colonial subjects are usually exploited and not heard from.
What rights do those the British try to "subjugate" in the six counties of north Ireland have? Diplock courts, the Special Powers act, shoot-to-kill, military/intelligence collusion with loyalist death squads etc.
And even up till the 1980s, there was an undertone of white privilege, especially in Central (the business district).