Not too long ago, former Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, released a book titled "Hong Kong Diaries" based on his personal journals from the final years of British rule. In it, he reflects on the political landscape of Hong Kong from 1992 to 1997—an era I recall fondly from my days as a secondary school student. Looking back thirty years later, there is a sense of nostalgia mixed with the revelations of political intricacies.
Although by the time of the handover the British Empire had already seen better days, let’s not forget—it was still an empire, and Hong Kong was one of its last remaining colonies. Patten knew perfectly well that he was the Governor sent by the Empire to manage this territory, facing the tangled politics characteristic of a waning colony.
Sounds understated, doesn’t it? Anyone with even a passing knowledge of 20th-century history is well aware that the politics of late colonialism is fraught with danger. Today, we witness a plethora of third-world failed states, rife with internecine warfare and societal hellscapes, which in the early 20th century were considered well-governed colonies under imperial stewardship.
Many in Hong Kong hold a romantic belief that Britain would leave behind a legacy of good governance and democratic rule, but just look at the present chaos in places like Bangladesh, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Myanmar—all former British colonies. One salient feature of colonial politics is the dependency on imperial order, as seen in Hong Kong’s legal framework. Many top judicial figures hail from the UK, allowing local courts to rely directly on British common law. Furthermore, the British Privy Council could override local court decisions. Without the British, the colonial judiciary became incomplete, losing the effectiveness of checks and balances.
This dependency on imperial order contributes to why many former colonies struggle post-independence; the vacuum left behind by the empire often sees local powers emerging that frequently lack legitimacy, justice, or the wisdom to govern judiciously. Local powers, self-serving, immature, and shortsighted, typically managed to behave themselves like model citizens only under the watchful eyes of the Empire. Once that distant authority withdrew, however, all hell broke loose.
Thus, the late colonial politics of Hong Kong resembled the struggle to repair a mobile phone bereft of its original battery; without that former imperial care, one is left scrambling for makeshift replacements. No more Privy Council? Say hello to the recently minted Court of Final Appeal. Don’t have a Governor to lean on? Well, time to settle for a Chief Executive appointed by Beijing. Who needs British constitutional oversight when we’ve got the Basic Law—a document that might as well have been crafted on the back of a napkin? No British Parliament? Just boost the Legislative Council’s stature and hope for the best.
The Hong Kong young people of today exist in a patchwork constructed from these mismatched components, which naturally raises an uncomfortable question: can these parts truly serve their purpose? If I swap my iPhone’s battery with a no-brand knock-off, can I reasonably expect that to be a safe move? The dilemma confronting Patten was precisely this—during his tenure, he was endlessly tasked with making decisions about what replacements this system required.
As he himself pointedly notes, he was destined not to be trusted. Hong Kong is a veritable buffet of interests. To Beijing, Patten was simply an imperialist come to siphon off residual value and plant time bombs. Meanwhile, to the British, he faced skepticism about his capacity to uphold imperial dignity and interests. Hongkongers, meanwhile, had an unrealistic faith in Britain, laden with excessive expectations, that the UK’s moral responsibilities would somehow cater to their desires. Yet, among Hong Kong’s own populace, many interest conflicts brewed painfully, leading Patten to quickly recognise just how thankless a role this was. And let’s be honest—would sacrificing Sino-British relations for Hongkongers’ wishes be appropriate for him in his esteemed position? Once it came to it, Hong Kong was always going to be handed over. For the British, China’s economic stakes post-1997 outweighed any of Hong Kongers’ grievances—they love Britain, after all, so surely they wouldn’t grumble too much.
The journals preserve a snapshot of the environment in which post-1997 Hong Kong evolved and what other possibilities may have existed. Patten ultimately opted for a populist approach, frequently appearing before the locals and engaging in their everyday activities—think munching on egg tarts—to win their emotional allegiance. He used his brief term to expose Hong Kong to a taste of British parliamentary politics, unsure of just how much they would really glean from the experience.
Setting aside whether or not his strategy was wise or if his motives were sincere, what is abundantly clear is that Patten possessed a strong awareness of his situation. His abilities as a politician were undeniably solid. His journals lay bare the realities he navigated—Hong Kong’s plight, the positions of Beijing and Britain, and the tangled web of interests at play—allowing him to base decisions on this confluence of information.
As his diaries indicate, Patten was anything but a newcomer to Hong Kong. Even as a backbencher—relatively inconsequential in the 1970s—he had already visited the place. Equipped with a thorough political education, he approached Hong Kong from an imperial perspective and swiftly articulated his views. For instance, he quickly noticed that the Chinese were unable to grasp the rule of law fundamentally because they didn’t truly understand what it entailed. Chinese officials may have believed they followed the rule of law simply because they enforced laws to govern.
Patten pointed out clearly that in a rule-of-law society, rulers face obstacles from the judiciary that could thwart their ambitions, potentially leading to failure. His uncertainty surrounding whether his policies could actually be enacted speaks volumes. Irrespective of the principles of rule of law, laws bind the powerless, yet for it to be a true rule-of-law environment, governments must also be subject to laws. If governments can alter or reinterpret laws at whim without legal repercussions, that arrangement resembles something entirely different. In fact, it seems Hong Kong may have disappointed Patten; numerous so-called democratic lawyers and legal professionals post-1997 mirrored a rather worrying viewpoint on rule of law: serving up endless demands for citizens to comply with the law, as if there were a significant difference between their understanding and that of their counterparts in mainland China.
His diaries also delve into the intertwined relationship between Hong Kong’s housing market and finance. According to Patten, a stable rise in property prices is essential for the functioning of Hong Kong’s financial market, banking system, and government finances. A collapse of housing prices would jeopardise the entire financial apparatus. Therefore, both housing supply and prices are extremely sensitive topics in Hong Kong requiring careful management. He was particularly attuned to the balance between the thirty units added to Hong Kong’s stock daily against population growth; if newly available housing outpaced population increase, a crash could ensue, devastating the financial system. Conversely, an overstressed housing supply against rising population could overly inflate prices, worsen the rental market, and unleash discontent.
Such quantitative scrutiny permeates his diaries, and if you compare this attention to detail with the governance processes over the past thirty years, one can see just how the sophistication of governance has been lost. Tung Chee-hwa’s proposal for 85,000 units is a cautionary tale of how a housing market crash can destabilise Hong Kong’s financial landscape. Meanwhile, the subsequent policies cutting back on public housing illustrated how rising rents due to suppressed housing supply created dire living conditions and societal unrest. Additionally, Hong Kong’s overreliance on finance and property added long-term vulnerabilities, diminishing diversity; selecting representatives through elections that amount to parachuting individuals lacking political training into power diluted principles like rule of law, democracy, and economic understanding leading to sordid political outcomes.
Another interesting anecdote recalls an instance when the British military conducted a military exercise aimed at preempting a potential PLA assault on Hong Kong. Does anyone recall this exercise? No? That’s probably no surprise, as Patten directly critiqued the undertaking as mere panic-mongering. His response was to deliberately sidestep the situation and mitigate it by keeping prominent British military leaders at bay and opting for cool detachment, allowing both the citizenry and Beijing to largely ignore the issue. His method of ensuring British interests was not simply to rubber stamp every request from the Empire but to provide a buffer where necessary.
As you peruse Patten's journals, you begin to discern the residual issues left behind by British rule. Rather than mere bombs waiting to go off, the reality appears more like a mishmash of makeshift components left in the wake of lost original parts. The knowledge encapsulated in his writings represents common sense to him, but for Hongkongers, it offers insights into truths about their leadership and governance that they might only grasp upon reflection. The irony lies in the fact that while they misidentify themselves as knowledgeable, they merely scratch the surface of comprehension. Once the British truly departed, those who understood left, and what remains are those blissfully ignorant.
In truth, Hong Kong is an overgrown infant; despite over a century of colonial legacy, the citizenry, particularly at the handover, barely attained maturity. They functioned efficiently within the British system, though sans that structure, their foundational frailties surfaced obtrusively. Politicians fumble with the concept of the sovereignty of democracy, mistaking the mere act of electioneering for democratic engagement; lawyers bumble through explanations of rule of law, equating litigations with lawful governance; bureaucrats dig in with brute force without understanding balance; landlords pursue profit maximisation disregarding any adverse outcomes. As for figures like Martin Lee and Jasper Tsang, they ultimately succumbed to the chaos financially and politically; Patten’s predictions were prescient, indicating that Lee’s democratic bloc would capture mainstream support and governance—unless, of course, they were all incarcerated.
Yet, he prefaced this reality with “unless” as a caveat.
During his tenure, he ultimately allowed Hong Kong to return to China under conditions that appeared stable and prosperous, with that prosperity extending for a significant period. However, that stability was not fated to last. Now, when reflecting on today’s circumstances and the events of the past decade, it is all too clear the shadows of unstable late colonialism linger in the air. The frosty tranquillity that emerges today is but a manifestation of unachieved ambitions from three decades ago.
I often find myself pondering whether Patten's *Hong Kong Diaries* is a book that perhaps arrived late to the party, having only been published in 2023. Had it come out a decade prior, I would wholeheartedly recommend it to every young person interested in Hong Kong politics. This isn’t about venerating Patten; rather it’s about how these young individuals, born in the late 1990s or early 21st century, could extract meaningful insights into the temporal shifts of Hong Kong’s political landscape and what reality they truly face, thereby recalibrating their narratives. They ought to comprehend the perilous environment in which they find themselves, cultivate more resilience for survival, and have a firmer grasp of the stakes involved lest they become easy prey for the beast known as ‘politics.’ Primarily, it should provide clarity about fundamental concepts, especially what rule of law truly encapsulates.
Now, with its release, it feels somewhat awkward, given that many individuals who ought to have read this book may have made regrettable decisions over the past decade, and some may never have that opportunity again. Even if today’s youth do engage with his writings, will they still desire to enter politics? I suspect most have relinquished that ambition, with numerous young minds fixated solely on escaping this place, rendering the book rich yet somewhat diminished in efficacy, leaving behind more a sense of nostalgia than practical relevance.
I perceive this book as essential reading for anyone in Hong Kong with an interest in politics, equivalent to the memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew and Sir Sze-yuen Chung. Compared to those two, however, Patten’s work is markedly distinct. Lee and Chung, both Chinese, wield a certain subtext derived from their cultural lens, while Patten, an Englishman, bears a fresher, less culturally tethered perspective, with an altogether different flavour that characterises Western politicians. The other two memoirs also serve as invaluable works, and the synergy of the three will afford an all-encompassing understanding of late colonial politics.
