It is widely accepted that free market and absence of income or so-called “corporate” tax were the major reasons for Hong Kong’s accumulation of wealth, “scholars” and peripheral political maneuverings notwithstanding.
Believe what you want, but America in the 1800’s along with Hong Kong in the 1900’s are just a couple of examples of the wildly successful creation of wealth when the market economy is allowed to run without any significant government interference.
I guess you figure if someone points out that a particular exception to the norm had many factors other than just economic policy making into an exception you can't handle the idea that those things in no way alter the economic point but do alter the fact that such economic points apply to the exception in a way that can't be compared to other places that do have productive industry and resources.
Believe what I want? Ok, I believe the facts which are that the economic policies in Hong Kong are not a comparison to make when discussing the US or any other nation because a great deal of economic and political leverage was applied on their behalf that would have never been there to help them had it not been for the political interests of three outside players meshing.
Without that outside political and economic power exercised on their behalf at no cost and with very little in the way of encumbering agreements in return for that outside aid, they would have had no economy to defend with tariffs or much income to tax with an income tax, either.
Now, Bismark's Germany copying what had been US economic policy, that's a good example. Hong Kong, too much of an exception due to it being more a creation of outside political forces than a nation in the normal sense of the word.
Have a lovely little day