After leaving his post at Hong Kong's last governor, Chris Patten was later invited to address the Central Party School in Beijing, an honor that never was accorded to all 3 of his successors: CH Tung, Sir Donald Tsang and C.Y. Leung. He was also the first western to have been invited to do, he thought. That school is where future leaders prep for bigger jobs ahead.
A long line of future party leaders, after hearing him, lined up to get his autograph for his book, "East and West" penned in 1998, translated and widely available in China, a year after he was labeled by BJ media as "criminal of a thousand years" and a "whore". And then he was a welcome and honored guest at the sanctum sanctorum of the Chinese Communist Party.
One thing Hong Kong's "patriotic" political allies seldom learned: Chinese politics or polemics is seldom what it may appear on the surface. These days party loyalists like C.Y. Leung are viewed somewhere between poison and leftover food, tolerated for their party loyalty, but dismissed as largely irrelevant to the thinking of the modern party ruling elite in China mostly with blue-chip western education with degrees from the Harvards and the Oxfords in the West. The ruling elite in BJ has more in common with its counterparts in the US and the UK with similar education and economic backgrounds than C.Y. Leung. Anyone who still thinks Chris Patten is despised as a "hypocrite" is well advised to familiarize herself with the history of the Communist Party and its dealings with the West and not just Beijing's flamboyant polemics.
Beijing officials and their allies in Hong Kong tend not to know much history of the Chinese Communist Party. Here is one history lesson thanks to Frank Ching, a columnist in HK and veteran China correspondent.
South China Morning Post
Communist Party was a true champion of democratic rights - until it came to power
Tuesday, 21 October, 2014, 7:15pm
Comment›Insight & Opinion
Frank Ching looks at how the Communist Party championed everyone's right to vote - and to be elected - until, that is, it came to power
Proverbs reflect the wisdom of a people, as passed down from generation to generation. Sometimes they can be traced to an individual who is not as well known as the words he or she coined. Few may remember it was the French writer and critic, Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, who noted in January 1849, " plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose". But most of us know the phrase, "the more things change, the more they remain the same".
This distillation of wisdom popped into my mind recently. In Hong Kong, we have been contending for most of this year with the concept of universal suffrage, when it is fake and when it is genuine. The pan-democrats, citing international norms, tell us that if there is no genuine choice of candidates, then one-person, one-vote is only fake universal suffrage.
This concept, it turns out, is by no means original to 21st-century Hong Kong. In fact, the issue of what constitutes "genuine universal suffrage" was discussed in 1944 - 70 years ago - by the Communist Party. On February 2, 1944, the party newspaper, Xinhua Ribao, carried on its front page an editorial under the headline, "On the Right to Vote".
"In a genuine universal suffrage system, not only must the right to vote be 'universal' and 'equal', but the right to be elected must also be 'universal' and 'equal'," the editorial declared in its first paragraph.
"Not only must people enjoy the equal right to vote, they must also all enjoy the equal right to be elected ... Broadly speaking, the right to vote already includes the right to be elected." In other words, one implies the other. "If the right to be elected is restricted, the right to vote is also being restricted."
The editorial ended, saying that, if there is a precondition as to who can be elected, or if the authorities put forward specific candidates, then even though the right to vote has not been limited, voters have been turned into tools of the election.
To put it in today's Hong Kong terminology, if potential candidates for chief executive are barred for political reasons, such as for not loving China or Hong Kong enough, then the electorate at large is deprived of the choice of voting for such candidates.
The editorial discussed the issue entirely in theoretical terms. It did not speak of attempts to bar any particular candidates. It did not appeal to international norms. It merely appealed to reason. And the logic of the party's argument is as strong today as it was in 1944.
It is just that the party's position has shifted. In 1944, it was in the political wilderness, with most of the country under the control of the Nationalist government of president Chiang Kai-shek. Through this editorial and many other articles, the party sought to depict itself as the champion of democratic rights, unlike Chiang.
Of course, after the party gained power in 1949, promises of democracy were forgotten. Democracy advocates, and intellectuals generally, were persecuted in one political campaign after another.
This brings to mind another saying, "Where you stand depends on where you sit." Or, to use a more earthy Chinese expression, "the head follows the buttocks."
Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator. firstname.lastname@example.org . Follow him on Twitter: @FrankChing1 
here are 2 historical facts too frequently ignored in the current political polemics in Hong Kong: Beijing in no uncertain terms told the British not to replace its colonial rule by a parliamentary democracy after WWII. The anti-colonial and often violent movements during the Cultural Revolution. HK leftists were told by Beijing to cut it out as soon as the Gang of 4 got arrested. No more anti-colonialism. The British were doing very well for Beijing.
Second fact: Beijing did not want to have Hong Kong back since WWII. HK served as a window to the world for them as China was isolated. HK was a free port with a small-is-beautiful colonial government.
Lots of PRC agents working in the British government and the triads were the big controller of smuggling traffic that was most useful for China during the Korean War.
Referring to other mis-informed or biased articles is just the blind leading the blind. Let's look at the facts.
Please take a look at the consultation paper from the HK Gov in Dec 2013.
As a start, please take a look at Chaper 3, section 3.24. Preparation for Universal Suffrage was being done, where implementation details were to be discussed and feedback solicited. That is, until this was stopped by the so-called "pro-democracy" legislators, who, as I explained, really had their jobs in mind instead of HK's future.
I was not and am not in the Election Committee, so I could not vote to select the current Chief Executive. If the proposed changes from the HK Gov are implemented, I will be able to vote in 2017. That is what I want.
Would I want more say in nominating the short list of candidates? In the future, why not. But now, the so-called "pro-democracy" people are stopping me from being able to vote in 2017.
"One bird in hand is worth two in the bush." Simple idea. I just want Universal Suffrage to be implemented in 2017, regardless of the nomination process. We can work on that next. I'm in no hurry. The World needs to keep moving forward.
The all-or-nothing tactics of the so-called "pro-democracy" are only trying to protect their own self interest. They are promising hundreds and thousand of birds in the moon. Well, they can go live there. We don't need those liars in HK.