It is ridiculous to insist that the British "nurtured" rules in Hong Kong. The Chinese have had societal rules since the time when hide-clad Angles were dancing around Stonehedge. The concept of fair play wasn't in British vocabularies until last week. The Chinese king had to fight a war with the then powerful English to prevent drug-trafficing Englishmen from swamping his countryside with Indian opium. When he lost, he had to cede Hong Kong for use as an opium transit point. Free speech? Margaret Thatchter signed, in 1988, an agreement to return Hong Kong to the Chinese. In 1992, democracy, free speech and all the good things were enacted. From 1841 to 1988, when it seemed Hong Kong would remain a British colony, there was nary a mention of free speech.
The British have always been bad at ceding their imperial glory. They have always tried to ensure that their erstwhile "jewels of the crown" collapse into anarchy when they leave. In India, in the last few years of colonial rule, they enacted everything from separate electorates for different religions to partitioning nationalist regions. In Hong Kong, they encouraged people who fell out of the mainstream in this business center to dabble in politics and foment trouble for its new rulers.
The pomp, ceremony and glib pronouncements about fair play and free speech aside, it all comes down simply to letting go.
