I would question Graham Williamson's simplistic opinion about the development of this city ("It is a fact that Great Britain built HK", September 9).
Hong Kong was not built by Great Britain. It would have remained "a barren rock", which the British occupied by unequal treaty, without its population. Their industry, perseverance, flexibility and most importantly, intelligence, made Hong Kong what it is today.
Without their enterprise it would at best be a staging post for the opium trade which made many "hongs" rich. It is true that the British built the infrastructure, provided services and some good schools, and foisted the Christian faith on the colony. However, all this was done to train clerks and functionaries to maintain their colonial administration.
The colonial teachers had not reckoned that their subjects would far exceed their expectations of providing a steady supply of docile junior administrators.
Hong Kong's infrastructure and services merely facilitate the population, which epitomises the essence of the city and enables it to remain vibrant through communal efforts.
The Chinese are known to refrain from commenting on complex issues not because they are "too scared to comment" but rather because they are reluctant to sound simplistic or boorish.