Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder why the British did not bother to purchase the New Territories when they could have easily done it, but instead they just leased the property for 99 years from China. It is basically like renting a property owner's space, so it never really belonged to the British to begin with.
It is pointless for British to do that. Even to retain Hong Kong Island is a kind of pointless too in this age.
British has never recognized Hong Kongers as its own citizen. They were denied immigrating to UK and treated as second-class citizens. It is meaningless to have the land without giving its native locals full citizenship rights and let them integrating to serve the nation.
I guess the reason why Britain didn't demand China to cede New Territories outright is because all along Britain regarded Hong Kong as just a trading post for China trade.
In the 19th century, Britain had set up a lot of these port cities as trading/military posts in its overseas empire. For example, Singapore, Malacca, Port of Aden, Gibraltar,....etc. Most of these posts were smaller than Hong Kong.
In 1842 and 1860, Britain needed the deep water Victoria Harbor for its mercantile fleet, the coastal area for godown (warehouse) and some places to reside for the British who would face a more hostile environment in China.
Even in 1898 when New Territories was leased, I guess the British still regarded Hong Kong as a trading post where New Territories could provide more water for ships to anchor.
The principal reason why Thatcher traveled all the way to Beijing is the urge of British Hongs (conglomerate) and the local elite -- mainly land developer.
The lands in Hong Kong and Kowloon were auctioned for 999 years, in other words in perpetuity, before 1997.
But for those lands in New Territories, they were auctioned for the use of only 99 years which all expired on June 30, 1997.
So by early 80s, the local tycoons felt the urgency and wished Britain could negotiate another lease.
What's funny is that a lot of young people want the british to come back or become like a singapore. Freedom isn't free.
Actually they were not born before 1997, or even they have already been born, they were just toddlers. So they didn't know what British rule was like.
And some of the convicted young demonstrators and their parents were not in Hong Kong yet before 1997. They are immigrant families from China who recently moved into the City.
Becoming another Singapore is a topic but the separation must come in good term. In 1965, when Singapore was separated from Malaysia, it was the idea of Malaysia to let Singapore become independent, not Singapore's. Lee Kuan Yew did not want independence and he understood the risk involved.
If Singapore had the chance of staying in Malaysia, the prime minister of Malaysia might be an ethnic Chinese now. In earlier 60s, PAP had already set up headquarters in all cities like Ipoh, Taiping and KL. They already showed leading polls in regional elections.
Actually they were not born before 1997, or even they have already been born, they were just toddlers. So they didn't know what British rule was like.
And some of the convicted young demonstrators and their parents were not in Hong Kong yet before 1997. They are immigrant families from China who recently moved into the City.
Both Singapore and pre-Patton HK were autocracies. Which is essentially what China is now. So they are bascially asking for what they have now but think the grass is greener.
Both Singapore and pre-Patton HK were autocracies. Which is essentially what China is now. So they are bascially asking for what they have now but think the grass is greener.
IMO the British governors, especially the last 4-5, were really competent and very clean and one is even a Sinologist who can speak very fluent Mandarin -- much more fluent than the current leader of Macau.
The problem with the Beijing-appointed leaders in Hong Kong is so far all 4 lack the caliber to govern. Some are ridden with scandal and one even being convicted into jail.
So I understand what the younger one thinks. Since Beijing has chosen 4 times and none of them is qualified, why aren't they given a chance to make the choice?
So I understand what the younger one thinks. Since Beijing has chosen 4 times and none of them is qualified, why aren't they given a chance to make the choice?
The thing is they were never given the choice previously anyway. This would be a great leap forward. What HK hasn't realised is that they were only prosperous in the 80s and 90s by being the gateway to China. Now that China needs no gatekeeper they would have to share the wealth. This would have happened whether or not the UK stayed. It probably would have been worse as they would be an outpost trying to cling to the old ways.
Singapore has prospered and maintained prosperity by being the financial capital of Southeast Asia which has probably been to the detriment of Malaysia and India. With the changes in Vietnam we will see how they manage the relationship with China going forward.
Well the new one isn't actually a colonizer, it's their motherland, whether or not you agree with the then ruling class. If it was still an imperial dynaster would the thinking be any different?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
