The 1967 disturbances in Hong Kong represented a challenge to the authority of the colonial government. Local leftists resorted to work stoppages, demonstrations, riots, property damage and random bomb attacks; 51 people were killed and over 800 were injured. The book addresses two major issues: what caused the disturbances and what did they mean for the colonial political system and for future reforms? The traditional explanation has been that they were simply a spillover from the Cultural Revolution. While most contributors would appear to accept that view, there are suggestions that a comprehensive account might be more nuanced. The editors qualify their findings by raising the possibility that further research may show that other domestic or international factors may have been more important than previously assumed.

The book does, however, make considerable progress towards a contextual explanation. Yep's chapter, originally published in this journal, provides a detailed account of the interplay between the British government, the Governor, and the British chargé d'affaires in Beijing. Bickers shows how the preceding demonstrations in Macau helped to inflame the situation in Hong Kong. Carroll compares the disturbances with the strike-boycott of 1925–26. Smart and Lui discuss problems of governance dating from the 1950s and assess the impact of those problems and the disturbances on government policies in the 1970s. An interesting appendix relates eye-witness accounts of the events. The book provides a rich assortment of descriptive historical material, particularly on how the colonial government handled riots and demonstrations.

Analysing what the disturbances meant for political development and how they affected future reforms proves to be more difficult. Wong Cheuk-yin believes that they did not represent a crisis of legitimacy (a view which he incorrectly attributes to me), but rather a test or a question of legitimacy, a line which he accepts uncritically from one of his official informants. Wong apparently asked three former officials whether they thought that there was a crisis of legitimacy. When they responded negatively, he concludes ipso facto that there was no crisis. It does not appear to have occurred to him that the question itself might have been interpreted as criticism, that their actions might contradict their words, or that the style of colonial administrators was to downplay political difficulties. Wong also has major conceptual problems, managing to confuse the political support that the government received after the bombings began with the legitimacy of the system itself.

The 1967 disturbances did not in themselves represent a crisis of legitimacy. Rather, they probably accelerated the response of the Hong Kong government to a crisis of legitimacy which occurred as a result of a completely separate domestic event, the 1966 Star Ferry riots. A Commission of Inquiry had reported that there was a “gap” between the government and the people, which triggered a critical debate between the Governor and his senior officials about what should be done. It may be, as Smart and Lui speculate, that, even without the 1967 disturbances, there would have been major changes to the system as a result of the 1966 riots. But the Colonial Secretariat was slow-moving in most social policy areas and the disturbances seem to have confirmed that it needed to act more quickly, bring in some immediate reforms, and then perhaps make longer term substantial reforms to social policy, corruption control, and the structure of colonial authority.

The immediate reforms were the introduction of the City District Officer scheme, of which there is only one brief mention, and labour reforms on which Clayton contributes a well documented commentary covering the period 1962–71 and focusing on the issue of the eight-hour day for women factory workers. As Clayton shows, it was in the aftermath of the 1966 riots that labour reforms began to be treated seriously; previous attempts had foundered in the Colonial Secretariat. This chapter, together with those by Sinclair and Schenk, provides detailed analysis of the difficulties that the colonial government faced and an explanation of how it sought to introduce reforms and improve its performance. Sinclair analyses the success of the police force in dealing with the rioters, noting that the para-military nature of the force was glossed over by a “hearts and minds” approach which succeeded despite leftist allegations of police brutality. Schenk's chapter on the banking and financial sector describes the severe, but temporary, impact of the disturbances on the economy which resulted in capital flight, a run on the banking system and longer-term adverse effects on Chinese banks in Hong Kong. She also provides interesting material on the measures which the government took to combat these problems.

For anyone who wants to find out what happened in Hong Kong in 1967, the book is a necessary starting point. Its strength lies in its descriptive material and the use made by some contributors of the archival resources in Hong Kong and London. The analysis of what the disturbances meant for the colonial political system and for future reform, however, remains more elusive. No definitive answers are provided here and there is probably a need for more systematic analysis and research. The chapters on labour, the police and the economy suggest the direction that research might take, focusing specifically on critical policy areas and on the mindset of colonial officials with the aim of examining the effects of both the 1966 and 1967 riots on subsequent reforms and the structure of colonial authority.