At the end of the last century, as Indonesia held its democratic presidential election following the fall of the Suharto dictatorship, a colleague at Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post asked me plaintively: “Why can those Indonesians choose their ruler and we cannot?” It is a question that takes on a special resonance as the former colony bridles at the price of its history.

The transfer to Chinese sovereignty 17 years ago last week was calm as Beijing treated its new golden goose with caution and pursued the policy of “one country, two systems”. But there was always a central misunderstanding. Hong Kong people (and the outgoing British) stressed the second part of the formula advanced by the late paramount leader, Deng Xiaoping, as a guarantee that their way of life would continue for the 50 years laid down in the handover agreement. But, for Beijing, the first two words counted for more. Hong Kong was now Chinese and, in Beijing’s eyes, it had signed up in the Joint Declaration of 1984 to take over Hong Kong as it was when Britain had ruled it as a colony, with no thought of extending democratic rights to its residents.

But many of those 7m people thought that, as inhabitants of an advanced, law-abiding city, they were entitled to exercise democratic rights. They grew resentful at the way central authorities sought to exercise control of the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong (HKSAR) through three largely ineffective chief executives selected by a small circle of Beijing-approved electors. That resentment has been heightened by the prospect of the next choice of chief executive in 2017, with a wider franchise, still being controlled from the centre by the stipulation that only candidates who “love China” will be allowed to stand.