* This article is written when I was in F.6. That is an assignment but finally I have not submitted.

Hong Kong has been returned to China for four years. And the evaluations of our first chief executive, Mr. Tung Chee Hwa become a hot topic recently. Mr. Tung has done much for Hong Kong. His sincereness was shown in his policy: the solution of housing problem, education reform, pacify the discontent by citizen on economic problems etc. Even so, most of us are not highly appreciating him. Are all his policies in vain?

Undoubtedly, Mr. Tung is a sincere politician. He endeavors to improve Hong Kong wholeheartedly. But a good politician needs more political charm and sense than only sincereness especially facing the problem come after 1997. Mr. Tung doesn’t seem to be a good politician. He is not decisive in making policy. Most of his policies and speeches have not taken serious consideration. For instance, he promised to offer 85,000 flat so as to solve the housing problem.

But it was only his personal dream. He had never acknowledged any council before making this promise. Another example is Falun Association; how can a serious politician determine a political issue in his own value judgement? A sensible politician would only evaluate an association whether they offend the laws. How can Mr. Tung assert Falun Association “involve a little bit evil” with no evidences?

Mr. Tung is a naive politician. He saw I.T. was popular, then he planed to build I.T. harbour. When he visited Singapore, he wanted to invest Chinese Medicine Harbour in Hong Kong. Does he acknowledge Executive Council? Does he acknowledge us? Absolutely not! The most apparent example is his speech recently: “I feel sorrow to see those F.5 graduates to find school anxiously!” Then he planed to raise the seats of F.6 class? How can he look after all F.5 students in Hong Kong? How much will he spend to raise the seats in Hong Kong? Obviously, he has not consider the cost and benefit to do so. His motive is positive but his policy is an arbitrary decision.

Some newspaper readers claimed that the only thing Mr. Tung have done correctly is the implementation of “One country, two system”. I agree with this point and I think it is an important achievement for the stability of Hong Kong. Because of the friendly relations with the central government, the political environment in Hong Kong was stable and not disturbed by central government. But most of us feel this stable condition is a must for chief executive to maintain. I don’t think so. I dare not imagine what happen if an “anti-central” person become our chief executive. We should not forget the central government has authority to impeach any chief executive! So, I don’t think pro-central government is bad for Hong Kong.

Economic recession is a great problem after 1997; most of us condemn Mr. Tung. But I don’t think it is a fault of him. If so, all president should bear this fault as economic recession is a global problem. I can only say Mr. Tung was unlucky. People evaluate Mr. Tung from their own interests. But it is not fair to Mr. Tung.

To find a businessman, Mr. Tung would be a good choice. But if we find a good politician, he would not be the best. We don’t know what will change if Mr. Tung was not elected to be the first chief executive. Or the situation would be worse. But as the next chief executive election is coming, I hope a good politician would be elected. Even Mr. Tung is able to renew the term to be chief executive, I hope he will become a sensible politician and making sensible decision.

Feedback at 5th April, 2005:
That is interesting to read it again 4 years since the time I wrote it. I have no sense in politics and rarely read newspaper about the development in HK. I doubt why I can write such thing at that time.