# Is Hong Kong developed because of UK?



## Travis007 (Jul 19, 2004)

Britain got Hong Kong on its feet, and the rest is history...


----------



## Accura4Matalan (Jan 7, 2004)

I'd say yeah to a degree. Same with NY, but that involved a larger variety of groups like the Dutch.


----------



## v:zero (Aug 8, 2005)

So you all mean that Chinese cities cant be dependent? :no:


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

touchring said:


> The problem is Britain got HK as a result of the opium war in 1840s.
> 
> http://www.serendipity.li/wod/hongkong.html
> 
> I stole $1000 from you, and pay you back $50 as compensation. You take the $50 to gamble and hit a $1,000,000 jackpot - so you can say that i am a millionaire because of you? :eek2:


Touché...Yes, because you wouldn't have had an extra $50!


----------



## ChinaboyUSA (May 10, 2005)

I agree with that British brings positive things to Hong Kong,
but is Hong Kong a Chinese International City?

How do you think about Shanghai?

Actually, the history of Hong Kong under UK's administration is not a honor, colony is a honor?
So, the hardest working Chinese people is the basic reason!
Today's Shanghai is a good example!

Western civilization works good in western world,
when it goes to Asia, it has to be localized then melted with the world.
Hong Kong is a symbol of east and the west mixture.
The cultural root is Chinese!

This threat obviously not follow the trend today, so I would not give it 10!


----------



## Buster (Sep 1, 2003)

ChinaboyUSA said:


> I agree with that British brings positive things to Hong Kong,
> but is Hong Kong a Chinese International City?
> 
> How do you think about Shanghai?
> ...


Being a colony is no honour, and the means the British used to secure Hong Kong was awful (opium wars).

That being said, Hong Kong was thrusted onto the world's stage as an international port by the brits. We can't deny the importance of the British but you're right, the Chinese provided the goods to trade, and the people to keep the trade going.


----------



## MainDiish (Jul 11, 2005)

I would say yes....


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

UK was a very important factor,but not the key factor.


----------



## KingWest (May 1, 2005)

Because of UK (providing the admin system), because of the US (to buy the goods), because of the hardworking HK people, and because of the closed door policy of China during the period (China used HK as the only window to the world and provided uninterrupted supply of life essentials).

None of these alone would work.


----------



## ChinaboyUSA (May 10, 2005)

British is not responsible for Hong Kong!

When Hong Kong was going to be hurted by the Asian Economic Crisis,
China is the support to maintain Hong Kong's stability!

And if not Hong Kong is based on China, 
how come British were so eager to have it and take the chance when China was governed by a weak & corrupted government in Qing Dynasty!

How much resources that British robbed from China in history?

Thanks for today's China's rising, 
Hong Kong is going to be stronger!

British factor is one of the important factor to Hong Kong but not a must of Hong Kong, and it was mostly in the past. 

China is the most important foctor to Hong Kong.


----------



## Handsome (May 2, 2005)

If UK is great,so why UK cant make other colonies developed????????????????????????


----------



## rt_0891 (Mar 13, 2005)

ChinaboyUSA said:


> China is the most important foctor to Hong Kong.


Post Reunification, this is indisputable fact. 

However, prior to '97, the unique combination of UK + China allowed Hong Kong to prosper. 

If either one were to be cut out from the big picture, Hong Kong would never be prosperous.


----------



## firmanhadi (Aug 3, 2005)

I guess Brits built the foundation: the common law, education system, language etc. then add Chinese work ethics into the mix, the results are wealthy places like HK and Singapore.


----------



## paidos (Jul 27, 2005)

ChinaboyUSA said:


> When Hong Kong was going to be hurted by the Asian Economic Crisis,
> China is the support to maintain Hong Kong's stability!


I know the media in China keep stressing that China has been pumping money into Hong Kong during the Asian currency crisis.
One thing I don't understand though. Hong Kong itself has one of the world's largest foreign reserve and no foreign debt. China has world's second largest reserve, but also has a foreign debt almost half of her reserve. Why should they put their savings aside and ask China to lend them money? and if that really happened, given the transparency of Hong Kong's balance sheet, wouldn't we all have known about it?


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

HK was one of the few colonies that the UK _didn't_ manage to screw up.


----------



## Zaki (Apr 16, 2005)

UK certainly had a hand but the majority of the reasons is its people. Looking at UKs other colonies in asia, HK is a rare exception. And also people claiming that HK would still remain a small fishing village, many major cities around the world started off like that. I am sure HK would have become a huge city on its own, its location is amazing.


----------



## c0kelitr0 (Jul 6, 2005)

Handsome said:


> If UK is great,so why UK cant make other colonies developed????????????????????????


they didn't screw HK like they did some of its colonies.


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

Handsome said:


> If UK is great,so why UK cant make other colonies developed????????????????????????


:rofl:

USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore

And to a lesser extent...

South Africa, Malaysia, India

And look at Africa, many of the more prosperous and stable countries were former British Colonies:

Botswana, Kenya, Tanzania, Ghana


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

Handsome said:


> If UK is great,so why UK cant make other colonies developed????????????????????????


Every colony had different 'status' or level of importance.

Singapore was Crown Colony for example.


----------



## ChinaboyUSA (May 10, 2005)

redstone said:


> Every colony had different 'status' or level of importance.
> 
> Singapore was Crown Colony for example.


It is a shame of some Singaporean say something like this!


----------



## ChinaboyUSA (May 10, 2005)

Tubeman said:


> :rofl:
> 
> USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore
> 
> ...


Thanks god they are not British colonies anymore, otherwise they will be totally abandoned by today's new world order!


----------



## touchring (Mar 25, 2005)

samsonyuen said:


> Touché...Yes, because you wouldn't have had an extra $50!


I guess this is Vietnamese logic, because this logic doesn't exist elsewhere in the world. No one robs people, and then returns 10% of what he robs and gets praised as a result. :bash:

Britain had a serious trade deficit with China in the early 1800s because it imported most of what it used from China, e.g. Tea, Silk, Chinaware, etc.

Vietnamese people should learn to have some Asian pride and not always kowtow to everything from the West.


----------



## touchring (Mar 25, 2005)

ChinaboyUSA said:


> It is a shame of some Singaporean say something like this!


Yes, but you have to understand the difference, Singapore was not robbed by the British, it was willingly sold for like $10,000 by the Malays to the British in a pure commercial agreement. And 99% of Singaporeans are either 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation immigrants that came after it was sold.

There wasn't a Malaysia before Malaysia was formed, and the place was filled with small kings, some even of Arab and Indian origins from various places that sold land and occupied land in Malaysia and Sumatra freely.

"Singapore remained a possession of the Sultanate until January 29, 1819, when Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles of the British East India Company arrived and immediately recognized the strategic importance of Singapore's location between the trading routes of the East and the West. Raffles also needed a strategic base to service the fleet of the growing British empire, as well as to forestall any advances by the Dutch in the region. 

It was against this political backdrop that Raffles signed a formal treaty on February 6, 1819 with Sultan Hussein Shah and Temenggong Abdul Rahman of Singapore. The treaty established a British East India trading post on the island jointly ruled by the British, Sultan Hussein Shah and Temenggong Abdul Rahman.

Raffles penned a visionary statement which explained the purpose of securing Singapore for the British Empire: "Our object is not territory but trade; a great commercial emporium and a fulcrum whence we may extend our influence politically as circumstances may hereafter require."

When Sir Stamford Raffles claimed Singapore for the English East India (EIC) Company, it was nothing but a swampy, thickly jungled island populated by a handful of fishermen and sea gypsies. However, a naturally deep harbor and a shelter from disasters made the island an important asset for trading and by 1824, Singapore was already a successful entrepot that drew merchants of every race, color and creed were drawn to the island.

The British took full control of Singapore in 1824 through another treaty with Sultan Hussein and in 1832, Singapore became the center of government for the Straits Settlements of Penang, Malacca and Singapore. By 1825, Singapore had become a major port with trade exceeding that of Malaya's Malacca and Penang combined. In 1867, the Straits Settlements were made a British Crown Colony in an arrangement that continued until 1946."


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

ChinaboyUSA said:


> It is a shame of some Singaporean say something like this!


But that's the truth. Honestly Singapore was a Crown Colony. Like Penang, HK and several others of higher importance and status than other colonies.


----------



## ChinaboyUSA (May 10, 2005)

How's this looks like: Singapore, UK


----------



## touchring (Mar 25, 2005)

ChinaboyUSA said:


> How's this looks like: Singapore, UK


Unfortunately, it's the fact, Singapore was formerly owned by the UK, and now is adopted by immigrants that did not originate from there, and came after the UK started the settlement. That's why they call it 'settlement' instead of colony - people settle there over time.


----------



## ChinaboyUSA (May 10, 2005)

^Singapore is still a part of UK?


----------



## touchring (Mar 25, 2005)

ChinaboyUSA said:


> ^Singapore is still a part of UK?


50 years ago, it's part of UK. Then under pressure from USA, after WWII, they gave it away to the present Singapore government. Singapore is now 'owned' by the present Singapore government.


----------



## ChinaboyUSA (May 10, 2005)

Sorry, the discussion becomes foolish. Colony's history is ended mostly today! Any colonies exist today?

Singapore and Hong Kong were colonies of UK,
but Singapore is Singapore in Singapore, Hong Kong is Hong Kong in China.

Mojority of both Singapore and HK is Chinese, and they are perfectly melt with different nationalities

They are among the top Asian and Global cities in the world!


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

Chinaboy no one is disputing that but you cannot doubt that Britain had a role in helping HK develop to become what it is today.


----------



## Saigoneseguy (Mar 6, 2005)

Are you developped because of your parents? Is a matter of points of view...

@*touchring*: Why bring Vietnameses to this discussion?No one ever said that Vietnam is always kowtow from the West.Now that I don't understand your logic!


----------



## touchring (Mar 25, 2005)

saigon_monsooner said:


> Are you developped because of your parents? Is a matter of points of view...
> 
> @*touchring*: Why bring Vietnameses to this discussion?No one ever said that Vietnam is always kowtow from the West.Now that I don't understand your logic!


First, take a look at what Yuen said:

*Quote:*
The problem is Britain got HK as a result of the opium war in 1840s.

http://www.serendipity.li/wod/hongkong.html

I stole $1000 from you, and pay you back $50 as compensation. You take the $50 to gamble and hit a $1,000,000 jackpot - so you can say that i am a millionaire because of you? 

*Yuen:* Yes, because you wouldn't have had an extra $50!


Mine is an objective view based on what i gather of Yuen and Lac's postings over the last 1 month that everything from the West is good, e.g. America, France, UK, etc, never mind if they invaded your land, killed and raped your people 20-30 years ago. I maybe able to understand this mentality - the West is rich and trendy.

Of cos, you can correct me if i'm wrong and cite your reasons. Anyway, i dun do personally attacks, btw, so no point dwelling on one's parents, whether your parents or my parents.


----------



## touchring (Mar 25, 2005)

JDRS said:


> Chinaboy no one is disputing that but you cannot doubt that Britain had a role in helping HK develop to become what it is today.


Hong Kong's a complex case, I would suggest you read history texts on how Britain 'obtained' Hong Kong. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War - Led to ceding of HK island.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Opium_War - Led to ceding of Kowloon.

Hong Kong and related incidents is one of the reasons Britain became the wealthiest country in the world in the 1800s, all thanks to drug money from Hong Kong, which converted from a fishing village as forumers already said to a trafficker haven, that is used to buy goods for free from China, and exported to Britain and all of Europe. With drug money, HK's economy boomed, and legitimate trade followed, along with banks, etc.


----------



## financial way (Jul 29, 2005)

today,still have colonies...

japan is US'...


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Touchring, you're an idiot. I'm not Vietnamese (or even know any Vietnamese people), so I don't see why I'd have what you "gather" to be their logic.


----------



## United-States-of-America (Jul 19, 2005)

One question, do Hong Kong people have British passports?


----------



## Anekdote (Apr 11, 2005)

NewYorker1 said:


> One question, do Hong Kong people have British passports?


Yea, many people in Hong Kong still have British Passports


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

That passport is the BNO - British Overseas National. Before the handover, many Hong Kongers felt betrayed by the British because the UK wasn't willing to automatically grant citizenship to HKers, even those born under British rule in the British crown colony of Hong Kong. The compromise became the BNO passport, which is favoured over the present HK passport because there are less visa restrictions when travelling.


----------



## ChinaboyUSA (May 10, 2005)

Anekdote said:


> Yea, many people in Hong Kong still have British Passports


You must be kidding, they are all holding the P.R. China's passport! Welcome back, Hong Kong!


----------



## EuroShifta (Aug 1, 2005)

Just admit it Hong Kong! The UK made you the big star in the world.! After all, HK is the most developed city in China.. which was formed by the UK! And you should thank us about it! The UK's concentration on HK made other colonies fall behind. UK so love HK that they gave the precious gift that no colonies would ever have...... Infrasturcture, health care, peace and order... UK has a BIG ROLE IN HONG KONG's DEVELOPMENT! Period!!


----------



## rt_0891 (Mar 13, 2005)

EuroShifta said:


> The UK's concentration on HK made other colonies fall behind. UK so love HK that they gave the precious gift that no colonies would ever have...... Infrasturcture, health care, peace and order... UK has a BIG ROLE IN HONG KONG's DEVELOPMENT! Period!!


??? Hong Kong's growth and development was paid for by Hong Kong's own taxpayers, not out of the British public purse. The reason why HK could build such infrastructure was because of HK's laissez faire Economic policies, not because the UK concentrated its energy on developing it. :weirdo:

It's interesting to note that Hong Kong does not have to pay one cent of its own collected taxes to China post 97'.


----------



## EuroShifta (Aug 1, 2005)

:weirdo:


----------



## ChinaboyUSA (May 10, 2005)

Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China.


----------



## EuroShifta (Aug 1, 2005)

SAR? as in SARS virus!?


----------



## ChinaboyUSA (May 10, 2005)

^Get out from here!


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

HK can't escape from the shadow of UK. It is the results of UK and capitalism that make this hilly and limited space of HK developed the way they are today!

Check out 1996 chicago aerial views and you will know that chicago is da flat as pancake and straight as the line  My first signature link is where it is at, enjoy!


----------



## Farmer77 (Jun 30, 2005)

Hong Kong owes a lot to Britain.

No true democracy, but they were given complete *economic freedom*. No minimum wage laws, No federal trade commision, No OSHA, No labor laws. Plus a sweet flat tax that helped people keep more of what they earned. You can apply for a business license in Hong Kong in just one day with just one form. 

The British ruled over Hong Kong with a policy that can be called as benevolent neglect. They built roads, schools and enforced laws on theft and murder. But other than that, they left Hong Kong alone. 

A complete opposite of Hong Kong would be India. They have a true democracy, but they have so many laws and redtape that many can't start a business.


----------



## vvill (Sep 20, 2002)

EuroShifta said:


> Just admit it Hong Kong! The UK made you the big star in the world.! After all, HK is the most developed city in China.. which was formed by the UK! And you should thank us about it! The UK's concentration on HK made other colonies fall behind. UK so love HK that they gave the precious gift that no colonies would ever have...... Infrasturcture, health care, peace and order... UK has a BIG ROLE IN HONG KONG's DEVELOPMENT! Period!!


... UK never concentrate their development in hk while leaving the other colonies alone... there's never such strategy! and also, UK never 'gave' HK infrastructure or health care. everything is self-financed though you may praise it's the system UK has introduced to hk which has facilitated its growth to become an international financial centre and financed these projects.

hk's geographical location is absolutely vital for the city's success. admittedly, uk involvement was very important yet it's not the single leading factor.


----------



## vvill (Sep 20, 2002)

hkskyline said:


> That passport is the BNO - British Overseas National. Before the handover, many Hong Kongers felt betrayed by the British because the UK wasn't willing to automatically grant citizenship to HKers, even those born under British rule in the British crown colony of Hong Kong. The compromise became the BNO passport, which is favoured over the present HK passport because there are less visa restrictions when travelling.


i guess not. most have given up their BNO passports because the SAR passport has become far more convenient these days in comparison.


----------



## financial way (Jul 29, 2005)

BNO is full of shit, useless...

SAR much more better...


BNO holder, lowclass citizen...


----------



## sean storm (Nov 18, 2004)

EuroShifta said:


> SAR? as in SARS virus!?


you're a complete idiot.

it's obvious from your comments that you know nothing about HK.

the UK provided the foundation of HK's economy, the Chinese did everything else.


----------



## United-States-of-America (Jul 19, 2005)

I'm afraid that Hong Kong will be independant for another 91 years because of the "99 Year Deal".


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

Anyone who denies that the UK had a major part to play in making Hong Kong what it is today is simply an idiot.


----------



## v:zero (Aug 8, 2005)

"UK has a big role in HK;s deveopment" -- true.

"UK so love HK that they gave the precious gift that no colonies would ever have...... Infrasturcture, health care, peace and order" -- False


----------



## v:zero (Aug 8, 2005)

_00_deathscar said:


> Anyone who denies that the UK had a major part to play in making Hong Kong what it is today is simply an idiot.


so your saying most of the forumers in this threads are idiot?


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

Yes.


----------



## United-States-of-America (Jul 19, 2005)

^ I agree. Hong Kong was just a small town (hell, even a village) when the UK took control of it. And now, it's a beautiful world city thanks to the British people.


----------



## firmanhadi (Aug 3, 2005)

EuroShifta said:


> UK so love HK that they gave the precious gift that no colonies would ever have...... Infrasturcture, health care, peace and order... UK has a BIG ROLE IN HONG KONG's DEVELOPMENT! Period!!


The UK GIVE the GIFT of infrastructure, health care, peace and order out of LOVE for Hong Kong? 

I didn't know Queen Victoria was as benevolent as Mother Theresa. :eek2:


----------



## HKT (May 17, 2003)

Sorry to all, UK *needs* HK not the other way around. At the time when UK won the Opium War, it needed a place to trade with China and that place was HK. The reason why UK chose HK is because of the natural setting, the harbor is a big plus for shipping. Because the trading (yes, it was opium) was so huge, UK couldn't resist itself from making profit.

HK started to develop after the civil war ended in China in 1949 and many people from Shanghai immigrated to HK because of the fear of communist. They provided the skills and cheap labor to HK and during the 60s-70s, HK started to prosper. HK *DID NOT* prosper right after UK took control as the result of the Opium War in 1840. It was *more than 100 years later* when HK proceeded to develop, which was about the time Cultural Revolution broke out. And *IT WAS ONLY 2 YEARS* before Handover when the all the seats in Legislative Council were all elected. However, during the colonial history, HK *HAS NOT* seen any elections for the governor.

China was the main reason that HK developed, which can been seen at the numbers of trading today. But of course, the presence of UK in HK’s history did play a major role in HK’s development. By comparing Portugal's ruling on Macau for more than 400 years, it is clearly that UK did a better job.


----------



## deli (Dec 12, 2004)

lol, may god bless those greedy british...:angel:


----------



## Handsome (May 2, 2005)

They use opium to make China sick


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

ChinaboyUSA said:


> Thanks god they are not British colonies anymore, otherwise they will be totally abandoned by today's new world order!


Can I have this comment in English please? What are you trying to infer?

As I have clearly shown, many of the most successful countries / cities in todays "New World Order" were British colonies. Of course, Britian can take only part of the credit for this fact, but the fact remains.

Why isn't Macau equally developed and successful as Hong Kong? There must be factors why the British colony became an international trade and finance hub whilst the Portguese colony a few miles away became a sleepy backwater famous for gambling.

Hong Kong is a useless location for a major city. Hardly any flat land, no river, nowhere near enough fresh water for 6 million people. I challenge anyone to find me a city of equivalent size in such a location... cities simply do not "spring up" on mountainous little islands with no level ground and minimal fresh water. Hong Kong's location is purely an accident of history.

Are the people trying to claim Hong Kong's development owes nothing to the British honestly trying to state that if Britain had never been involved there'd be a 6-million strong city on Hong Kong / Kowloon / Lantau today? Please!


----------



## Farmer77 (Jun 30, 2005)

I totally agree with Tubeman. Hong Kong is on a freakin' rock. Barely any fresh water. No resources. If the British never took control of Hong Kong, the skyline you see today would still be full of woodsheds. No glimmering skyscrapers, that's for sure.


----------



## nick_taylor (Mar 7, 2003)

Would have Hong Kong developed in the first place - no. Unlike other Chinese cities, Hong Kong wasn't even around, hence stating that it would have developed to become what it is today without the British would have been highly doubtful. What happened though was a combination of Britian and Chinese migrants to the colony which have led to its current situation - a sort of enclave within China which has flourished due to British external influences. I think you'd have to handicapped to somehow believe Britain never had anything to do with what Hong Kong is today. Same goes for Singapore and even New York and Dubai to certain extents.

Either way I'd rather have the Hong Kong of today than a small fishing community.


----------



## shibuya_suki (Apr 24, 2005)

let me give a naive comment:
95% hker are chinese,it said the truth,who build the infrastructure in hk?chinese.(i mean actually making) who work for earning money?chinese.
who trade with outside?chinese.....

i can say the basical system ,law,and infrastructure is desingned by the british,hker no doubt should thanks UK,cos they dont have to suffer terrible city planning of mainland china,but thats it....

UK dont love hk,before 1950s,UK dont give any welfare,public housing to hk people,majority people live in slum which made by themself,its truely third world city....who work hard for making hk rich?chinese
Uk only give the environment,while hker work hard and learn hard to make hk developed
however i would agree someone said that hk is an accident of history


----------



## HKT (May 17, 2003)

Tubeman said:


> As I have clearly shown, many of the most successful countries / cities in todays "New World Order" were British colonies. Of course, Britian can take only part of the credit for this fact, but the fact remains.
> 
> Why isn't Macau equally developed and successful as Hong Kong? There must be factors why the British colony became an international trade and finance hub whilst the Portguese colony a few miles away became a sleepy backwater famous for gambling.


I fully agree on this part.



Tubeman said:


> Hong Kong is a useless location for a major city. Hardly any flat land, no river, nowhere near enough fresh water for 6 million people. I challenge anyone to find me a city of equivalent size in such a location... cities simply do not "spring up" on mountainous little islands with no level ground and minimal fresh water. Hong Kong's location is purely an accident of history.
> 
> Are the people trying to claim Hong Kong's development owes nothing to the British honestly trying to state that if Britain had never been involved there'd be a 6-million strong city on Hong Kong / Kowloon / Lantau today? Please!


No, I can't agree anymore here. When British took over HK, there weren't 6 million people there. HK is very useful location in British's plan because it was near Guangzhou, which at that time was the largest city in Southern China. Sorry, you showed you aren't familiar with history and geography. HK lies at the entrance of Pearl River, it is the river that connects Guangzhou and HK, which is critical for shipping. There is also flat land in the Northwest New Territories, where new towns are being built today in HK. If HK wasn’t useful to the British, I don’t think the UK would need Kowloon after winning the second Opium War with France and leased the New Territories as a result of France's colonisation of Bay of Canton in later years

People are not trying to claim that Hong Kong's development owes nothing to the British. In fact, no one owes no one as it is over now. And don’t tell me the British didn’t benefit from the development of HK. Because of that, HK owes nothing to the UK *right after the Handover.*


----------



## Anekdote (Apr 11, 2005)

ChinaboyUSA said:


> You must be kidding, they are all holding the P.R. China's passport! Welcome back, Hong Kong!


No i'm not kidding, I know many people who are holding a BNO passport...


----------



## touchring (Mar 25, 2005)

samsonyuen said:


> Touchring, you're an idiot. I'm not Vietnamese (or even know any Vietnamese people), so I don't see why I'd have what you "gather" to be their logic.


Sorry -> Anyway, i dun do personally attacks.


----------



## paidos (Jul 27, 2005)

Anekdote said:


> No i'm not kidding, I know many people who are holding a BNO passport...


I think people in Hong Kong are entitled to get BOTH British National Overseas passport AND Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Passport. As a matter of fact, many people have both. They cannot get the Chinese passport, held by the nationals in China though.


----------



## Arvo (Jul 9, 2005)

I think even many mainland Chinese would agree that without British, Xianggang will just become a tiny fishing village in the Baoan county of Guangdong Province.

And I still have both BNO and Hong Kong SAR passports.It's interesting that some of my friends even have Canadian and Portuguese passports.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

Had the Brit's not come along, I very much doubt the Chinese would have even noticed Hong Kong.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

The British particularly liked Hong Kong's deepwater harbour, which played a major factor in picking that location for a British colony. They didn't just throw darts on the map of southern China to collect their prize of the Opium Wars.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Another thing why HK develop because it's such as small place that is easy to manage. Just like Singapore


----------



## jmancuso (Jan 9, 2003)

Farmer77 said:


> If the British never took control of Hong Kong, the skyline you see today would still be full of woodsheds. No glimmering skyscrapers, that's for sure.



well...i dunno about that. just about every major chinese city has a skyscraper building frenzy going on these days. what the brits did contribute however is the creation of the one most prolific capitalist systems in the world.


----------



## Siopao (Jun 22, 2005)

WANCH said:


> Another thing why HK develop because it's such as small place that is easy to manage. Just like Singapore



yeup it is manageable... but can you explain about Canada's and America's development? I mean theyre huge compared to other small countries that are still developing... perhaps history? :dunno:


----------



## touchring (Mar 25, 2005)

Siopao said:


> yeup it is manageable... but can you explain about Canada's and America's development? I mean theyre huge compared to other small countries that are still developing... perhaps history? :dunno:


The key should be "management" and decentralization. A huge country can have many decentralized administrative regions, and yet enjoy a common market advantage that smaller countries do not have.


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

WANCH said:


> Another thing why HK develop because it's such as small place that is easy to manage. Just like Singapore


Actually that's very very true... :yes:


----------



## Harkeb (Oct 12, 2004)

definitely. Compare HK with Macau (portuguese). Which power had the best influence?


----------



## djm19 (Jan 3, 2005)

I think the UK had a lot to do with it. The trade really made HK a big port. And that in effect, I think the success of Hong Kong is spurring growth throughout china, so UK had a lot to do with it.


----------



## EuroShifta (Aug 1, 2005)

^^ obviously, but forumers here are in *DENIAL* to face the fact that the UK helped Hong kong :bash:


----------

