Britain’s Governor Chris Patten: Unmade in Hong Kong : Asia: He was cheered upon his arrival. But with 2 years to go before China takes over, attitudes have changed.

HONG KONG — When Gov. Chris Patten arrived here nearly three years ago vowing to hand back a more democratic Hong Kong to China in 1997, he was received--as he recalls wryly now--as “a knight on a white charger.” Activists rallied behind him. Crowds gathered in the streets to shake his hand. He made more headlines than the Queen of England.

Now, with exactly two years to go before China resumes control of the British colony, the tide has turned. Big business says Patten went too far; reformers say he didn’t go far enough. Popular support slipped away as China and Britain battled behind closed doors. His Chinese counterpart, Lu Ping, refuses even to speak to him.

Although China’s stinging personal attacks once seemed to energize the governor, he faces a more troubling no-confidence vote this week in Hong Kong’s legislature--led by the Democratic Party, once his closest ally.

Suddenly, Hong Kong’s savior seems like the loneliest man in town. “When he arrived, he represented a change from Britain’s policy of appeasing China into one of honorable retreat,” said pro-democracy leader Martin Lee. But Lee contends that in his rush to resolve transitional issues before 1997, Patten is bargaining away key elements that make Hong Kong’s future foundation as shaky as the San Andreas Fault.

“It’s clear now he has betrayed us badly,” Lee said.

At his swearing-in ceremony in July, 1992, Patten hinted at his departure from governors past by eschewing the traditional egret-plumed pith helmet and sword for an elegant gray suit and red tie. The man who would be Hong Kong’s last governor declared that Britain’s legacy would be a society that is “free, fair and open” with the institutions to ensure it stays that way under its future rulers. After unveiling controversial electoral reforms without consulting China, he enjoyed a burst of support from legislators such as Lee and endured “a rain of brickbats” from Beijing.

Now, after three years of locking horns, Britain and Beijing are finally shaking hands, quickly resolving several longstanding disputes--and bringing denunciations from erstwhile supporters.

Friday, officials announced a long-sought agreement on financing for Hong Kong’s new airport, the largest infrastructure project in the world, which had been delayed several years by political disputes. And last week brought the end of a court-related wrangle that has lasted longer than the O.J. Simpson trial: Beijing approved the establishment of Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeals, the equivalent of the Supreme Court, a move that had been stalled since 1991.

The 51-year-old Patten, whose blondish hair has turned mostly white during his term in Hong Kong, points to the settlement as evidence that his new conciliatory style is bringing results.

“I think it was a good deal on both sides,” he said as he arranged himself in an armchair in his study. “Not every deal with China is a sellout or bad for Hong Kong.”

But China’s sudden willingness to deal is viewed, in part, as a confident show of strength, a gesture dismissive of a lame-duck governor with a fast-approaching deadline. Even British officials say Hong Kong’s future sovereigns have time on their side and can stall until what is put on the table looks appetizing. The Court of Final Appeals deal was made mostly on terms Britain had refused just weeks before, say those pushing for this week’s no-confidence vote, and was shaped by the Preliminary Working Committee, China’s shadow government that Patten previously refused even to recognize.

For this reason, people such as Lee see the agreement as a Faustian deal. Hong Kong’s court of last resort will be too weak and too late, he argued, and so undermines Hong Kong’s entire rule of law. Its judges cannot rule on “acts of state,” which are defined broadly enough to mean anything from expropriating a factory to detaining dissidents without charge. And not allowing the court to set up before 1997 means no time for precedents that would help define the vague term.

“It’s a calculated condemnation of the Hong Kong people to the grimmest possible future,” Lee said.

Patten pointed out that there is a middle ground between “confrontation and kowtow.” He sat upright in his armchair and said, “I spent three years being lambasted for being too aggressive, too assertive in standing up for Hong Kong. . . . One deal with China, and suddenly, Martin Lee and others are saying, ‘It’s all over, the game is up.’ ”

But many in Hong Kong fear that there are more deals to come. Beijing has promised that, in 1997, it will dissolve Hong Kong’s legislature, to be elected under Patten’s plan, and replace it with lawmakers of its liking. Some fear that Patten would sacrifice his hard-won electoral reforms for a Beijing-approved election, so that he could leave the colony with a democratically elected legislature.

“If better arrangements were proposed, then we couldn’t say we’d never talk about it,” he said. But, he continued, pounding the arm of the chair for emphasis, “the arrangements for the 1995 elections [scheduled for Sept. 17] are tiptop. They will produce a fairly and credibly elected Legislative council, and I think it would be a tragedy to dismantle that in 1997.”

One thing that some in Hong Kong wish Patten would take apart is the statute book filled with old colonial laws they fear could be abused by China. On Friday, the Hong Kong Journalists Assn. released its annual report on press freedom. Its title: “Broken Promises.” The report documents efforts by China to control the Hong Kong press even before the hand-over and criticizes Patten for falling short in his pledges to take media-threatening laws off the books.

Patten has kept emergency powers for himself to shut down the press in times of crisis--not, he insisted, that he’s expecting one before 1997. “Once again, we found ourselves being criticized by some for scrapping all those antediluvian regulations and attacked on the other side for not going far enough. It’s, I suppose, one of the inherent aspects of the job.”

Patten, Hong Kong’s 28th governor, hopes that history will take a kinder view of his efforts and of Britain’s colonial legacy.

“I would hope that the people of Hong Kong will look back at what we tried to do with a degree of affection and moral respect,” he said.

In the meantime, he has two years to earn it, and he insisted he’s not tired yet.

“It still feels like a challenge,” he said. “But after this is over, I’m certain I’m going to have earned some time with a good book under a tree.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Tough Times

The drop in Hong Kong Gov. Chris Patten’s popularity, as surveyed by a Hong Kong newspaper.

% who want to see Patten replaced: July ‘92: 3% Jan. ‘93: 16% July ‘93: 18% Jan. ‘94: 26% July ‘94: 19% Jan. ‘95: 26% ****

Patten’s credibility rating: July ‘92: 65% Jan. ‘93: 56% July ‘93: 57% Jan. ‘94: 53% July ‘94: 55% Jan. ‘95: 51% Source: Ming Pao poll