This is an excellent question which deserves a nuanced answer. British colonial policy towards HK, as you rightly pointed out, varied in relation to local and cold war politics. I will attempt to answer this question based on four stages of colonial policy, which was chiefly used by legal scholar Benny Tai.
The First Stage: Rule by law (1840- 1960)
Hong Kong was ceded to the British after the Opium Wars chiefly for business and economic interests. The Victoria Harbour in particular was naturally conducive for British trade in China and Southeast Asia. The ideals of imperialism or ‘enlightening the natives’ were not as strong in Hong Kong as in other British colonies. The British pacified the Chinese by allowing local magistrates to continue to apply Chinese customary law (including traditional land and marriage rights) but subject British citizens (and foreigners) to the Common Law system. This dual legal system was only gradually abolished in the mid-1950s.
In colonial Hong Kong, the governor dominated the colonial government system. The legislature was considered merely an advisory body; it was chaired by the President, the governor. Members of the legislature were not elected; they were either government officials (usually from the UK) or appointed by the governor. In all fairness, the foreign governor often relied on the local Chinese bureaucracy for advice, but there was effectively no checks and balances on his powers.
The Second Stage: Decolonization 1970s
The 1960s saw two significant developments. First, decolonization movements elsewhere led Britain to realize that Hong Kong would not become a colony forever. Secondly, the rise of Communist Maoist riots 1967 (coupled with the cultural revolution in China) raised questions on whether Hong Kong could even become an independent state. The plan of self- governance was abandoned, and development was mainly limited to social and economic aspects.
The British colonial legacy during this era is particularly instrumental in Hong Kong’s development. After the Mao Riots, which in part reflected the abysmal conditions of factory labour, the government expanded social welfare: legislation protecting labour (in particular prohibiting child labour), public housing, free education for nine years. The Mass Transit Railways Corporations (MTR) created an efficient system of rail travel that millions in Hong Kong still rely today. An efficient (and importantly, covered) sewage system was developed, which improved public sanitation. Perhaps most importantly, an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) was established to tackle rampant corruption in Hong Kong.
At the same time, political rights were still severely restricted. The new public order ordinance imposed heavy restrictions on public gatherings and protests. The legislature continued to be unelected, and the governor still exercised great power.
Although democratic reform was strictly off the table, aspirations from the local entrepreneur and Chinese middle class rapidly gained influence. To address this, hundreds of advisory committees and consultative organisations allowed the Chinese (esp. elites) to participate in policy making. Eventually, more Chinese unofficial members were appointed to LegCo until they exceeded non-Chinese members. This was the policy of building government by ‘consensus’- building an image of a caring government.
The Third Stage – Representative Government 1980s
Reform in the 1980s was prompted by concerns over HK’s future. The Opium War leased Hong Kong (technically the New Territories, the largest part of Hong Kong) for 99 years, which was due to expire in 1997. Concerns began to emerge regarding the status of Crown leases. Initially, the British Government wanted to maintain some sovereignty over Hong Kong. Accordingly, it introduced political reform (elections) in order to develop a representative government. Some argued that this would allow the British to maintain a degree of political influence, or to insulate Hong Kong from Communist China.
For the first time, some forms of election were introduced to the legislature. However, elections were not based on universal and equal suffrage. Members of specific functional constituencies (ie. the education sector, or the medical sector) may elect their own representatives. This was justified on the grounds that they would provide a measure of specialist knowledge to the Legislature. Members of the general public could only indirectly elect representatives to the Urban Councils and District Boards, who would then vote among themselves to be elected as a legislator.
These constitutional changes (viewed as radical at the time) were perceived by the Chinese as an attempt to influence post 1997 affairs. Motivated by a desire to maintain relations with China, officials engaged reforms rather half-heartedly. Direct elections to elect the legislature was postponed to 1988, and then delayed until 1991. A 1987 proposal to create a Bill of Rights of Hong Kong was shelved. An ombudsman scheme to handle complaints was weakened because the administration was reluctant to give the position too much power. Increasing judicial reviews sought to challenge the government, but the judges were adopted a deferential and restrictive approach.
The Fourth Stage – The Patten Reforms 1990
After the infamous Tiananmen Square Incident (the June Fourth incident), the approach of appeasement by the British government was replaced by that of confrontation. The traditional apathy of those in Hong Kong were challenged when 40,000 Chinese protested under a severe typhoon. The British empire wished the world to see that Hong Kong was not only developed economically but also politically.
The British governor at the time, Chris Patten, expanded the legislature by adding more democratic elements. At the time, proposals were already in place between HK and China to develop Hong Kong’s Constitution (the Basic Law). The proposals were alleged by the Chinese government to contravene the spirit previous agreement on the structuring of the legislature. As a result, negotiations broke down. The legislature passed the electoral reform, but the Chinese government refused to recognize the 1995 election.
Under the Patten administration, the Bill of Rights Ordinance began to grant those in Hong Kong entrenched human rights. The courts began to take an increasingly active approach toward judicial review, and the Ombudsman began to receive a steady stream of complaints towards the government. Despite this, many officials of the colonial administration remained uncooperative. The government refused to set up a Human Rights Commission to enforce the Bill of Rights Ordinance.
Conclusion
To address your question directly, those in Hong Kong did not really have many political rights until the late 1980s. Elections were nowhere near democratic, universal, or equal, nor were freedom of speech and expression expressly guaranteed until the 1990s. Arguably, they were only given those rights superficially under international pressure and the desire to distance HK from communism. Tai describes this as “window dressing behind their glorious retreat.” In terms of economic, public health, education, and infrastructure, however, British policies contributed largely to Hong Kong’s success.
Sources:
Lo, Stefan H. C. and Chui, Wing Hong Hong Kong Legal System Hong Kong, McGraw-Hill 2012
Tai, Benny Yiu-ting ‘The Development of Constitutionalism in Hong Kong’ in Wacks, Raymond (ed) The New Legal Order in Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press 1999, Ch 2, p.39-65