Back

Note: This article represents the view of the author and not the University of Hong Kong.

On August 4, 2003, when CE Tung Chee-hwa announced the new appointments of three principal officials, the HKU Public Opinion Programme happened to be conducting a regular tracking poll on the popularity of principal officials. In view of the gravity of such appointments, a number of questions were instantly added into the poll, in order to test people's receptiveness of the newly appointed officials.

Results revealed that 42% of the respondents considered Henry Tang Ying-yen was the right person for the job of Financial Secretary, whilst 17% held the opposite view. As for Ambrose Lee Siu-kwong, 40% thought he was the right choice for the post of Secretary for Security, 13% said he was not (Table 1). Thus, the general public could be regarded as approving the appointments of Tang and Lee with reservations.

Attaining a positive appraisal level of 42%, Tang has somewhat made some progress over the year past. In late June of 2002, when the CE appointed Tang as the Secretary for Commerce, Industry and Technology, 38% of the respondents thought that he was the right person for the post (Table 2), a bit lower than the latest 42% he scored. Coincidentally, the negative figure registered was also 17%. As seen from these figures, having worked hard for one whole year, Tang's effort only received a so-so response. If a change of title from "Director" to "Secretary" is regarded as a career promotion, Tang's escalation in his official rank fails to win popular support, which means that there is still ample room for improvement.

Nonetheless, from another perspective, people still welcome Tang's appointment. Tang's popularity rating registered on August 1 was 53.0 marks among the sub-sample, which then surged to 58.4 marks after he accepted the post of Financial Secretary, indicating an increment of over 5 marks, which is not bad. As a matter of fact, after the latest round of appointments and resignations, the popularity of the entire team of principal officials has improved, demonstrating the advantages of leadership restructuring.

However, what deserves our concern is that only 19% of the respondents believed that John Tsang Chun-wah, who took over the job as the Secretary for Commerce, Industry and Technology, was the right choice for the post, while 73% failed to give an appraisal. This brings out a small problem which should nevertheless not be neglected: Not only did Tsang fail to fill up the popularity vacuum left by Tang, his start point also fell way behind that of Tang one year ago (by a difference of 19 percentage points in their positive appraisal). Therefore, it will take some time for the team of principal officials to build up people's confidence. To Tsang, one real challenge is to iron out a smooth work relationship with other officials as quickly as possible, while establishing his own reputation at the same time.

Facing also the same challenge is Ambrose Lee, the new Secretary for Security. The latest positive appraisal level attained by Lee was more or less the same with that of Tang, which was just mediocre. However, Lee's popularity trailed way behind that of Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee one year ago. At that time, 75% of the people thought that Ip was the right person for the post of Secretary of Security. Had Ip not put up an over-ambitious attitude, refrained a bit from her high-profile and high-handed approach, and be more attentive to public opinion, her popularity would surely be further lifted. Now that Lee has stepped into Ip's shoes, whether he can manage to push up the popularity of the whole team is yet to be seen.

Looking back to one year ago, when the CE appointed Antony Leung Kam-chung as the Financial Secretary, 62% of the respondents thought he was the right person for the job, which placed him on the third rank among the 14 officials, right behind Donald Tsang Yam-kuen's 79% and Regina Ip's 75%, making Leung a very well-received official. By then, Leung had already taken up the post of Financial Secretary for more than a year, only that the accountability system was not yet put into practice.

Leung and Ip, who enjoyed strong public support one year before, are now replaced by Tang and Lee, who were a few notches lower in terms of their popularity, this weakens the strength of the government. Worse still, Tang, with only average popularity at the time, is now replaced by Tsang, who is almost unknown to the general public. The whole leading team could barely make any stride amidst the current hardship.

To put it this way, the leading team was full of ambitions one year ago, but any changes in the administration structure now can only be pursued prudently and cautiously. Owing to the hasty introduction of the accountability system by the obviously unprepared and immature administration, together with the unclear mechanism of such a system, a series of blunders has erupted one after another, resulting in a sheer failure of the whole leadership. Now that new blood is injected and new plans are set out, whether crisis could be turned into opportunity depends on the following crucial factors:

(1)

Whether the leading team has learnt the lesson, and would establish a relatively more developed accountability system as soon as possible. In the year past, very few officials claimed that they would be accountable to public opinion. Up to now, the CE's system of appointing and dismissing the officials is still ambiguous and unclear. Even a mechanism to set up independent committees to investigate officials' dereliction of duties cannot be found. The "accountability system" has become a simple "CE appointment system", which bears no connection with public opinion.

(2)

Whether the SAR Government can revamp its policy directions, so as to respond to people's political, economical, and livelihood demands. After the July 1 Demonstration, Hong Kong has quickly evolved into a civic society. It would be naive for the CE to believe that boosting the economy alone would turn the situation round for the better.

(3)

Whether the leading team can recover themselves and store up enough energy to face the next crisis. Some deadly viruses could attack us again at any time, while terrorism and global war could also happen anywhere. Constitutional reforms, financial turmoil, and any natural or social disaster, could throw the SAR leadership off their guard at any moment. How to tackle these crises while still upholding the freedoms and the rule of law so much treasured by Hong Kong people, would be an important issue for the government.

A year ago, CE Tung Chee-hwa's support rating was standing at the 50-mark level. After his announcement of the team of principal officials, his rating has increased from 50.7 marks to 52.8 marks. This year, the same move has earned him 4.1 marks, as his popularity rating rose from 40.3 to 44.4 marks, which was much higher than the 2.1-mark increment recorded last year. Yet, his overall rating is still below the 45-mark credibility crisis level. People's vote of no confidence in Tung has also slightly dropped from 68% to 62%. The development of Tung's popularity is no doubt a clear reflection of the blind alley currently trapping the whole SAR leadership core.

One of the difficulties is that since the whole administration is in a critical condition, every single move has to be about making up for the past mistakes, while any reckless or unthinking decisions should be avoided. Another difficulty is the government's very limited resource of popularity, which was squandered over the past year, making it even harder now for the leading team to start again compared to one year ago, when the accountability system was first introduced. Facing such a deadlock, the only thing Tung and his leadership core could do is to take this painful lesson to their heart, revamp their policy directions, respond swiftly to the public's political demands, remain composed when facing economic challenges and hold on patiently for striking a rebound. Moreover, the government should also rebuild Hong Kong people's confidence on the cultural front, and always be prepared to face new crisis. This is not an issue of public relations, but simply a policy matter which the CE claimed to be his strength. It is a matter of Hong Kong re-positioning itself.

To put it bluntly, the CE now commands very little respect from the people, which therefore leaves him no choice but to repent himself and make mistake no more.