Those were the days when it was great to be chief executive.

Under Tung, Legco Q&A sessions gyrated wildly from the many patriots' fawning compliments and respectful pleas to the few democrats' frustrated criticisms and demands. But after the July 2003 march, the Liberals' Article 23 desertion, the DAB's 2003 District Council election massacre and the democrats' gain of seats in September 2004, despite every effort by every asset Beijing could muster, all but dyed-in-the-wool sycophants began to nip the hand that fed them.

With Tsang, even sycophants snap and snarl.

He was warned, chided, described as arrogant and labeled all but a liar by those columnist Steve Vines describes as Beijing's lapdogs. The formerly sycophantic bodies of James Tien and Choy So-yuk and several other ``patriots'' seemed veritably possessed by the querulous demons of democrats Albert Cheng and Emily Lau.

What happens when lapdogs turn rabid? Go to Legco's Web site and see for yourself.

Some expect Tsang's relations with the former lapdog faction to magically improve after July 10 when the mantle of Beijing's blessing descends upon his anointed shoulders. Beijing appears to believe that what Legco in particular and Hong Kong in general need is a stiff dose of determined leadership.

They want Donald to snap the whip and get all the dogs pulling in the same direction. But will left-wing poodles obey Sir Donald, ex-colonial?

Like Back to the Future, Beijing supposes getting Hong Kong's future in hand requires returning colonial civil servants to command. They expect Tsang to restore mythic days of colonial executive-led government, when all but a few were politically apathetic and all arms of government conspired to maintain Britain's control.

But like fiction-writer Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon, ``where all the women are strong, the men good-looking, and all the children above average,'' there never was such a place. Lam Wai-man's Understanding the Political Culture of Hong Kong decisively proves colonial Hong Kongers' political apathy always was a myth.

Colonial officials drove politics underground with the Special Branch where and when they could, co-opted critics if possible, bribed any and all with monopolies, subsidies, and honors and at last resort, jailed or expelled hardcore opponents. When even that began to fail in the 1960s, they developed an elaborate consultation system. They appointed thousands to chair and serve on boards and committees, collect fat honorariums, and have a chance to climb the ladder of collaboration right up to Exco. The colonials hired thousands as civil servants with the understanding they would back the government and frankly warn the colonials when they felt it needed.

Mutual Aid Societies extended government's ear down to the individual public housing block. When even this control system proved insufficient, the British developed district boards with universal suffrage elections, reformed the urban and regional councils, and began functional, then direct, elections to Legco.

When Hong Kong was a place of relative freedom and real prosperity all but isolated from a poverty-stricken, violence-wracked, lawless mainland, most chose collaboration with colonials over expulsion to the mainland or emigration overseas. Despite threats, a vigorous civil society pressed for many changes from the 1950s to the 80s. Today, with nearly half the population well educated and having relatives abroad with right of abode and with Guang-dong nearly as prosperous and modern in many aspects while far cheaper, expulsion no longer works to coerce cooperation.

Hong Kongers' rising ability to pressure government forced change. The functional constituency system formally recognized the power and involvement of thousands of individuals and groups in politics.

Colonial control mechanisms are dead. Even the pious Sir Donald cannot miraculously resurrect them. Back to the future is not an option.

Beijing should remember the pioneers of the Chinese Communist Party on May 4, 1919 who determined China needed democracy and science to secure its future. They have nurtured science well, but as Kuomintang leader Lien Chan pointed out, not democracy.

Science may bring prosperity, but democracy secures it. Forward to democracy, not backward to colon-ialism, is Hong Kong's and China's solution then, and now.

degolyer@hkbu.edu.hk

Michael DeGolyer is an associate professor of the government and international studies department at Hong Kong Baptist University