Vitriolic anti-Patten slur is patently wrong
I REALLY must object to Tom Mackenzie's almost vitriolic comments about Lord Patten (His say, November 15). Mackenzie states that "For all the multitude of jobs that Patten has had he has not made a success of a single one of them."
Just how does Mackenzie know that? And if Patten has been such a failure, why has he been appointed to so many high-profile and often problematic jobs over the years?
Patten was the last Governor of Hong Kong from 1992 to 1997.
The handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997 had already been agreed before he arrived, and many would have taken the job as a sinecure and just enjoyed the weather and food. Not Patten. He worked hard to try to get the best deal he could for the people of Hong Kong from China, although he had no bargaining chips and faced opposition on almost all fronts.
The business community didn't like it because he would not kowtow to China, the UK Foreign Office didn't like it because he was rocking the diplomatic boat and China, in its colourful way, dubbed him "son of a thousand whores", among other things. But he was liked and respected by the man in the street in Hong Kong, and affectionately known as Fat Pang. And what he tried to achieve is still remembered and appreciated.
I have no idea whether Patten will manage to sort out the current debacle at the BBC. But to say that he has always been a failure is unfair, insulting and patently wrong.
Saltash, ex-Hong Konger