By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: Hong Kong... "in perpetuity"
So, I came back across this tidbit - this whole '99 year lease' the Brits had on Hong Kong is actually rubbish!
According to the various treaties, the UK had control of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon "in perpetuity", but the rest of the area known as Hong Kong (New Territories, and most of the other islands) were leased for 99 years.
Given this - should the UK have returned HK and Kowloon after that 99 years??
If they decided not to hand it back, how would things go??
An interesting point extract from: https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-British-return-Hong-Kong-to-China
'Hong Kong had been largely developed as one unified area which made it impractical to separate urban Hong Kong from the New Territories. The highways subways and mass transit were all interconnected. The shipping ports were all in the New Territories. Residents of the New Territories had the same rights as those in HK Island or Kowloon.
This left the British with a limited set of options. Shrinking Hong Kong back to the perpetually British parts wasn't practical. The Chinese government wasn't going to accept continued British Rule over the New Territories and the British didn't have a solid claim to not give it back.'
I had this conversation only yesterday. There would have been big difficulties keeping the island and Kowloon and giving the new territories, etc back. What would they have done with the people living in the leased part? Given them back to China? Forcibly moved them to the "in perpetuity" bit?
i don't know the answer to the above but it would have been messy.
Brief HK History as per Wikipedia:
An interesting point extract from: https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-British-return-Hong-Kong-to-China
'Hong Kong had been largely developed as one unified area which made it impractical to separate urban Hong Kong from the New Territories. The highways subways and mass transit were all interconnected. The shipping ports were all in the New Territories. Residents of the New Territories had the same rights as those in HK Island or Kowloon.
This left the British with a limited set of options. Shrinking Hong Kong back to the perpetually British parts wasn't practical. The Chinese government wasn't going to accept continued British Rule over the New Territories and the British didn't have a solid claim to not give it back.'
Each time I am in Hong Kong i cry a little. Over the last few years the place is getting more and more Chinesified. The Hong Kong natives I know who lives there feel similarly. And as a sharp contrast, the Chinese natives I know who live there have never once uttered appreciation for anything but their comparatively higher salaries. Hong Kong should be given to the Hong Kongese. (Macau too)
Shining_brow:
Back when Deng was in power, he very much didn't want the locals having ANY say in what happens/ed... ALL discussions were only to be between England and 'China' (ie, CCP). Same thing happened again later in the 80s.
Unfortunately, things are only going to get worse for HK :(
Never been to HK and now it seems apparent I've missed the boat.
But I still have a desire to go to the races there.
