Critics of former governor Chris Patten believe he has done Hong Kong a great disservice because he derailed the through-train of the Legislative Council.
When Mr Patten championed his 1994-95 constitutional reforms, he was roundly accused of jeopardising the chance of a smooth transition on July 1, 1997.
Even now, many say that democrats such as Martin Lee Chu-ming, Szeto Wah and Emily Lau Wai-hing, would be on the first legislature of the Special Administrative Region (SAR) and that a provisional legislature would not exist if not for Mr Patten's provocative plan to enfranchise Hong Kong in 1994 and 1995.
But let us pause to consider: what real damage has the reform plan done? Last week, Hong Kong people witnessed a transition that could not have been smoother.
A huge international television audience must have been aware that Prince Charles was handing over to President Jiang Zemin much more than a former colony of six million-plus people. China also gets a booming economy, with property developers making unprecedented profits and stock investors and speculators watching their investments rally to all-time highs.
More important, looking at the crowd gathered outside the legislative building at midnight on June 30 and watching the peaceful procession of demonstrators for greater democracy in Hong Kong, the only possible conclusion, notwithstanding the 1995 election, is that Hong Kong has not collapsed. It is business as usual.
However, we should not overlook the problems with the legislature. It is true the pre-handover assembly was dissolved and replaced by a far less democratic lawmaking body. This is regrettable indeed.