THE telephone lines will be humming between Government House and Downing Street this week, as Governor Chris Patten attempts to stay in touch with the latest machinations in Prime Minister John Major's re-election campaign.
Although it is nearly three years since Mr Patten left London for self-imposed exile in Hong Kong, he still shows almost as much interest in British politics as in the territory's affairs. In this case, the Governor has personal reasons for his interest. While it is fanciful to suppose that a change of Prime Minister would lead to his recall or to any significant change in British policy towards China and Hong Kong, a different leader in Downing Street would be bad news for Mr Patten in that he could not expect to enjoy such a strong relationship with the new man - or woman - as he has had with John Major.
One possible successor to Mr Major, Employment Secretary Michael Portillo comes from the opposite wing of the Conservative Party. Although Mr Patten hired Mr Portillo to work for the party's research department 20 years ago, the Governor probably now has more in common with Labour leader Tony Blair than with the Thatcherite standard bearer. The President of the Board of Trade, Michael Heseltine, the current favourite to succeed if Mr Major goes, is ideologically more compatible, but has his own ideas about how to run Hong Kong - as he demonstrated by his controversial call, shortly after the Tiananmen crackdown, for mainland cadres to be given a role in the territory's government before 1997.
Mr Patten would not have such a free hand in Hong Kong, were Mr Heseltine to become Prime Minister. That must explain why the Governor was so quick to jump to Mr Major's support on Thursday night. This may have been to Mr Patten's benefit, but it is questionable whether such an overt display of partiality was in the best interests of the territory.
Never before has a Governor publicly expressed his opinion on who should be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Normally, no appointed official would dream of doing so. Arguably, as Her Majesty's representative, Mr Patten has a constitutional duty to be impartial on such issues. If so, it was a duty he clearly and very publicly breached on Thursday.
Mr Patten may say he was acting in Hong Kong's best interests, since the territory benefits from the special relationship between Prime Minister and Governor which means its problems are not ignored in London. Yet he is treading a dangerous path.
