Anglo-Chinese Capitalism in Hong Kong and Singapore: Origins, Reproduction & Divergence

Figures & data

Figure 1. Population in colonial Hong Kong and Singapore, 1819–1950. Source: See supplementary data.

Figure 2. Trade volume of Straits Settlements (in sterling pounds), 1868–1914. Source: See supplementary data.

Figure 3. Trade volume of Hong Kong (in sterling pounds), 1868–1914. Source: See supplementary data.

Figure 4. Cold Storage advertisement 1, 1956. The Straits Times Annual.

Figure 5. Cold Storage advertisement 2, 1958. The Straits Times Annual.

Figure 6. Nam Kwang & Co. advertisement, 1947. The Straits Times.

Figure 7. National home appliances advertisement, 1961. The Straits Times Annual.

Figure 8. Glassware and crockery room John Little & Co., 1910s. Views of Singapore, National Library Board Singapore.

Figure 9. Interior View, John Little & Co.’s premises, 1910s. Views of Singapore, National Library Board Singapore.

Figure 10. Bata advertisement 1, 1939. The Roda Magazine.

Figure 11. Bata advertisement 2, 1940. The Roda Magazine.

Figure 12. Bata advertisement 3, 1931. The Straits Times.

Table A1. Brief description of the six articles of the 1823 Raffles’ regulations

Regulation number	Brief description
Regulation No. 1 ‘Regulation for the Registry of Land in Singapore’	The regulation dealt with the registry of land, effectively creating a land market in Singapore, where land could be sold and leased through public auction.
Regulation No. 2 ‘Regulation for the Port of Singapore’	The regulation declared in the first line that ‘Singapore is a free port’ and would be ‘open to ships and vessels of every nation free of duty, equally and alike to all’.
Regulation No. 3 ‘Regulation for the Establishment of a Provisional Magistracy and the Enforcement of a due and efficient police in Singapore, with certain Provisions for the Administration of Justice in Cases of Emergency’	The regulation here provided for the administration of justice based on English law, with some allowance for local Malay customs to prevail when dealing with religious practice, marriage, and inheritance.
Regulation No. 4 ‘Regulation prohibiting gaming-houses and Cockpits, and for suppressing the vice of Gaming in Singapore’	The regulation here prohibited gambling and cockfighting which he deemed ‘disgraceful and repugnant to the British character and government’ and ‘highly destructive to the morals and happiness of the people’.
Regulation No. 5 ‘Regulation for the Prevention of Slave Trade at Singapore’	The regulation here prohibited the slave trade in Singapore and declared that even those who arrived before the British in January 1819 would be given free status.
Regulation No. 6 ‘Regulation in furtherance of the Objects of Regulation, No. III and containing additional Provisions for the Magistracy and Administration of Justice in Singapore’	The regulation here provided further specifications relevant to Regulation 3 on the administration of justice. It specifies that an active role in government and legislation would be given to the non-official European community and a measure of participation to the indigenous peoples, and not simply colonial authorities.

Sources: (Raffles & Hooker, 1968; Turnbull, 2009)

Table A2. Primary archival sources of British statements announcing free trade policy orientation in Hong Kong

Context and explanation	Archival source
Lord Palmerston had explained to the Chinese government that Hong Kong was seized ‘in order that British merchants trading to China may not be subject to the arbitrary caprice either of the Government in Peking, or its local authorities at the seaports of the empire’.	Morse H. B. (1910)
Charles Elliot, first administrator of Hong Kong, declared it as a free port as soon as he took possession in January 1841. He declared that ‘Her Majesty’s government has sought for no privilege in China exclusively for the advantage of British ships and merchants’.	Sayer (1980)
Official British policy later endorsed Charles Elliot’s early initiative to establish Hong Kong’s free port status	Gordon (1843)
It was expressed that Hong Kong was not picked for colonisation by official policy, but rather it was ‘occupied not with a view to colonization, but for diplomatic, commercial and military purposes’.	Stanley (1843)
Colonial authorities in Hong Kong were instructed to maintain friendly commercial relations with the local people. Henry Pottinger, first Governor of Hong Kong, was required from the beginning ‘to impress upon the officers of his squadron the necessity of cultivating as much as possible the friendly feelings which it may be hoped that the Chinese authorities and people will be disposed to entertain toward them’ to enhance the colony’s utility to promote trade.	Gordon (1843)
The British intention towards Hong Kong was again reiterated, which was that Hong Kong was possessed ‘not at all because of any natural advantages which it possesses, but simply as subsidiary to the intercourse between the British and the Chinese empires’ for which the most important was trade.	Labouchere (1856)

Raffles, S., & Hooker, B. (1968). Raffles’ Singapore regulations—1823. Malaya Law Review, 10(2), 248–291.

 Google Scholar

Turnbull, C. M. (2009). A history of Singapore, 1819–2005. Singapore: NUS Press.

 Google Scholar

Morse, H. B. (1910). The international relations of the Chinese empire. Shanghai, CN: Kelly and Walsh.

 Google Scholar

Sayer, G. (1980). Hong Kong, 1841–1862: Birth, adolescence, and coming of age. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

 Google Scholar

Gordon, G. H. (1843). [Letter to H. Pottinger]. Records of the Colonial Office (COI129/3). London, UK: Colonial Office.

 Google Scholar

Stanley, F. (1843). [Letter to H. Pottinger]. London, UK: Records of the Colonial Office (COI129/2).

 Google Scholar

Labouchere, H. (1856). [Letter to J. Bowring]. London, UK: Records of the Colonial Office (COI129/55).

 Google Scholar