Tung Chee-hwa had a clear vision for Hong Kong

The death of Tung Chee-hwa at age 89 has prompted a necessary reckoning with the legacy of Hong Kong’s first chief executive. Two decades after his resignation, the question endures: was Tung a hapless administrator overwhelmed by crisis, or a prescient leader constrained by circumstance and an unforgiving political environment?

The contrasting assessments of political scientist Sonny Lo Shiu-hing and former Central Policy Unit head Lau Siu-kai frame this debate sharply. Their divergent analyses reveal not merely different judgments of one man, but fundamental disagreements about governance, legitimacy, and vision in the post-handover era.

Lo’s critique is unforgiving; some consider it unfair. In his 2001 book, Governing Hong Kong: Legitimacy, Communication and Political Decay, he documents systematic institutional deterioration under Tung’s watch – weakened administrative capacity, executive-legislative paralysis, and the erosion of the once-vaunted civil service. Tung was chosen by a 400-member committee rather than universal suffrage, in accordance with the Basic Law. His administration depended entirely on performance-based credibility.

When the Asian financial crisis struck months after the handover, followed by a property market collapse that plunged homeowners into negative equity, that fragile foundation crumbled. The ambitious pledge to build 85,000 housing units annually – intended to address affordability – instead became a political albatross when it collided with economic reality.

Lo further indicts Tung for his paternalistic leadership style and dismal political communication skills. The administration’s handling of public sentiment culminated in the catastrophic miscalculation over Article 23 national security legislation. Against a backdrop of economic malaise and lingering anxieties from the Sars (severe acute respiratory syndrome) epidemic that killed 299 people, an estimated 500,000 Hong Kong residents took to the streets on July 1, 2003. The proposed legislation was the trigger, but the mass protest was really caused by a combination of social grievances and the economic downturn. The government’s subsequent withdrawal of the bill was a humiliating climbdown. By December 2004, even Beijing was expressing concerns.

His resignation three months later, ostensibly on health grounds, surprised no one.