Preservation of colonial-era postboxes has long been a topic of debate among philatelists, but only in the increasingly troubled city of Hong Kong…

Preservation of colonial-era postboxes has long been a topic of debate among philatelists, but only in the increasingly troubled city of Hong Kong could it cause a simmering political dispute enveloping issues of identity, independence and incompetence

Some 18 years after Hong Kong was handed back to China from British control, the government has decided to cover up the royal insignia on the territory’s 59 remaining colonial postboxes on the grounds that they are an “inappropriate” symbol of the past

Coming after one Chinese official reminded Hong Kongers of the limitations of self-rule and another blamed the territory’s woes on its failure to decolonise, the plan sparked a backlash

The government’s critics were motivated less by a love of the boxes than by the belief that this was another instance of kowtowing to Beijing and undermining the “high degree of autonomy” promised Hong Kong by China in 1997

From the postbox affair to the debacle over a new electoral system to the row over academic freedom at the University of Hong Kong, people are increasingly split into pro and anti-Beijing camps

“Hong Kong is more politically divided than ever, and the dividing issue is the attitude to our motherland,” says Regina Ip, a pro-Beijing lawmaker and member of the executive council. “To a lot of our young people, it seems that China’s economic rise has benefited only some.” “

What many share is a lack of faith in the ability of the “one country, two systems” arrangement to deliver the political, economic and social change needed to keep this city of 7m people thriving

The malaise afflicting Hong Kong was underlined by corruption charges brought against former chief executive Donald Tsang after an investigation into his links to the city’s tycoons

All three post-handover leaders of Hong Kong have seen their careers tarnished

Mr Tsang’s predecessor, Tung Chee-hwa, the territory’s first post-handover chief executive, resigned in 2005 after his leadership was criticised in Hong Kong and Beijing

C.Y. Leung, the incumbent, is flagging in opinion polls and his government sparked one of the most potent street protest movements in China since the Tiananmen massacre in 1989

Whatever their leadership foibles, the chief executives’ woes are as much symptoms of Hong Kong’s difficulties as they are causes. With Beijing fearful of threats to the sovereignty of “One China”, it was never going to give Hong Kong citizens total freedom to pick their own leader or allow chief executives, who are banned from joining political parties, to build their own support vehicles. That leaves them without legitimacy in the eyes of many

“One country, two systems was always going to be a fudge,” says Steve Vickers, who led the criminal intelligence bureau of the Hong Kong police in the colonial era. “China is a one-party state ruled by the Communist party and Hong Kong is an open society with a free press and different values, but one is bigger than the other.” “

This compromise was less problematic when Beijing took a hands-off approach in the years after 1997 and Hong Kong boomed on the back of China’s economic miracle

But it is under ever greater strain now that political and personal tensions between Hong Kongers and mainlanders are growing, China’s economy is slowing and many feel that the good years lined the pockets of property tycoons while driving up the cost of living for everyone else

Hong Kong’s politicians are not rising to the challenge. In the legislative council recently, a pro-democracy lawmaker ended a rant about Mr Leung selling out Hong Kong to the mainland by asking him: “When will you die?”

Mr Leung responded by citing a line from Mao Zedong: “Having too many grumbles is bad for your health.”