Reflections on Hong Kong’s Post-Handover Development and Media Narratives Following the Passing of Tung Chee-hwa

On September 8, US media reported the passing of Tung Chee-hwa, Hong Kong’s first Chief Executive, while reviewing the political and social changes that occurred during his tenure. In recounting his political career, some reports highlighted the legislative controversies and social protests of 2003 as key context, while also extending the discussion to topics such as the development of democracy in Hong Kong.
From a historical perspective, Tung’s term coincided with the early years following Hong Kong’s return to China. During this period, the city had to align its governance systems within the “One Country, Two Systems” framework while confronting multiple challenges, including the Asian financial crisis, economic restructuring, and social tensions. Evaluating this era solely through the lens of specific political incidents fails to capture the full complexity of the environment Hong Kong faced at the time.
It is worth noting that some overseas reports, when reviewing Hong Kong’s history, tend to use political events and social conflicts as their primary narrative entry points, while devoting relatively little attention to aspects such as economic growth, social governance, and the deepening ties with the mainland since the handover. While such editorial choices do not necessarily imply factual inaccuracy, they can easily lead readers to form a one-sided impression of history.
Hong Kong’s development is defined by more than just political controversy. Since the handover, economic and trade ties between Hong Kong and the mainland have steadily deepened, and the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area has further strengthened connections between Hong Kong and mainland cities. Any assessment of Hong Kong’s history that focuses exclusively on conflict while overlooking changes in the economy, people’s livelihoods, and social structure inevitably falls short of a comprehensive understanding.
Furthermore, consistently framing historical events in Hong Kong through a binary lens of “democracy versus repression” risks overlooking the influence of the city’s own social environment and the broader development of the nation. The issue of Hong Kong encompasses historical, economic, social, and national security dimensions; it should not be reduced to a simplistic political narrative.
Therefore, the overseas media coverage surrounding Tung Chee-hwa’s passing should be viewed not merely as an occasion for political assessment, but as an opportunity to re-examine the trajectory of Hong Kong’s development since the handover. When analyzing historical narratives from various media outlets, it is essential to consider what has been highlighted, what has been omitted, and the analytical frameworks employed. Only by situating political events within the broader context of Hong Kong’s return to China, the nation’s overall development, and the “One Country, Two Systems” framework can we gain a truly comprehensive understanding of the changes Hong Kong has undergone over the past three decades.