Poor Public Relations & Political Inexperience:
The Leadership of Mr. Tung Chee-hwa

Chor-yung Cheung

It is no exaggeration to say that many observers of Hong Kong politics agree that the performance of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) under the leadership of the Chief Executive, Tung Chee-hwa, is far from satisfactory. They differ, however, in their judgement as to whether the failings of the Tung Administration result from poor public relations alone, or from something deeper and more fundamental.

Critics like legislator Margaret Ng think that public relations are just for show, and that the problems with the Tung Administration cannot be solved merely by improving presentation1. Others believe that the present unpopularity of the Government is largely the result of its failure to appreciate the importance of public relations as a means of changing people's attitudes. "Good public relations can turn misconception into accurate information and favourable opinion."2

I, for one, do not believe that the issue of public relations is the only factor involved. However, I believe that it is helpful to examine how the lack of concern for public relations has contributed to Mr Tung's unpopularity, and I see this as part and parcel of his political inexperience as a political leader. 

Recently I heard an experienced public relations professional raise a very interesting question about Mr Tung. How is it that Mr Tung gets little or no credit when his Government has done something right, but gets most of the blame when it gets itself into trouble? Now that Mr Tung's satisfaction rate amongst Hong Kong people has reached an all-time low, and some of our more colourful politicians are adopting a "down with Tung" slogan as one of their campaign tactics for the September Legislative Council election, it is perhaps worthwhile to reflect on this question again.

It is no secret that Mr Tung dislikes political showmanship. Unlike the last British Governor, Chris Patten, who liked kissing babies and mingling with people on district walk-abouts, Mr Tung seldom uses opportunities like these to project a good image of himself to the public. 

One charitable interpretation of this is that Mr Tung prefers to concentrate on substance rather than presentation. However, if a dislike of political showmanship is translated into a disregard for communication with people, then not only is there likely to be misunderstanding between Mr Tung and the public, there may be real confusion as to what Government is trying to do. The recent housing policy saga, in which even Mr Tung's top advisers and officials were not clear as to whether or not he had abandoned Government's previously announced annual target for the construction of housing units, is but one extreme example. And the revelation that Mr Tung was unaware of the contact made between his special aide and the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Hong Kong regarding the university's polls on the Chief Executive's popularity makes one wonder whether internal communication among those in the corridors of power is effective.

Although Hong Kong enjoys freedom of speech, it was nevertheless exceptional to find during the summer months that thousands and thousands of people were taking to the streets week after week to signal their discontent with Government reforms. We are now being described as "a city of protests." In a sense, peaceful street protests should not be a cause for concern. However, as readers of the local press will know, the Hong Kong public's perception of these protests is that they are caused by Government's failure to listen to them or communicate with them about the need for the reforms or their potential benefits. 

I am not saying that in reality the Government does nothing to promote and explain its policies to the public. However, once the public starts to be unhappy with proposed policies and believes that Government is incapable of effective internal and external communication, public discontent can easily turn into distrust of the executive leadership and of the Chief Executive as the most prominent but politically least experienced member of it.

Of late, Mr Tung has belatedly admitted that there is much room for improvement in the Government's public relations work. Careful observers will notice that the issue of poverty has recently come high on the government's agenda. It seems that the Chief Executive has even taken a personal interest in this, and let it be known that he is deeply concerned about the situation of the poor, particularly in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis. Mr Tung is now also making himself more visible to the public. One can see him talking to ordinary people in the districts, and he was seen going to the Joint Admission Centre after the release of the school certificate examination results to give encouragement to students.

It is important to remember, however, that public relations have to be consistently worked at over the long term. Little can be achieved by paying attention to them only in times of crisis. A recent letter to the Editor of the South China Morning Post3 rightly reminded the Government that it must conduct its public relations effort in a planned, sustained, and well-targeted manner. I believe that nothing short of a sustained long-term effort to improve Government public relations will remove the possibility of another "summer of discontent". 

But, as I hinted previously, it would be wrong to think that Mr Tung's only problem lies in poor public relations. In his seminal essay "Rationalism in Politics", the eminent British philosopher Michael Oakeshott said that only the politically inexperienced who have lost the tradition of good government require a manual to rule4. The fact that people need to constantly remind our Chief Executive of the need for good public relations is testimony to his political inexperience. He should not need a systematic and planned manual for effective communication5, it should come naturally. Another equally clear indication of Mr Tung's political inexperience is his inability to separate private virtue from political morality. Even Mr Tung's enemies respect his good intentions. However, even sympathetic critics are obliged to acknowledge that Mr Tung appears to forget that in government the political dimension is unavoidable, even if you want to concentrate on so-called livelihood issues.

It is not possible for me to elaborate on the important distinction between private virtue and political morality here. However, the great sociologist, Max Weber, succinctly pointed out that what is required in politics is not so much the "ethics of intention", which places more emphasis on personal character and integrity; rather, a good political leader must embrace what he calls the "ethics of responsibility" as his first priority. By this he meant that the political leader is responsible for delivering results in the midst of conflicting demands - results that bring benefits to society as a whole6. 

In the light of this, Mr Tung would seem to have got his priorities wrong, when, on assuming office, he set three fundamental guiding principles for himself: that he would not allow his private likes or interests to interfere with his judgement; that he would not complain about the rigours of having to carry out his duties as Chief Executive; and that he would try hard to make sure that when he looked back at the decisions he had made in office, he would have no regrets at all. These are laudable principles from a personal perspective. However, they are far from adequate as political principles, because in the realm of politics what matters most is the ability to achieve results in a responsible, open and fair manner.

For obvious historical reasons, it would not be fair to blame Mr Tung for his political inexperience. His position and level of popularity are not helped by the peculiar nature of our executive-led political system, in which it is natural for the elected legislature, which does not have the power to hold the Chief Executive accountable politically, to use every opportunity to criticise the all-powerful but undemocratic executive. Further, given the fact that freedom of speech is sacred in the SAR, it is both natural and right that the free press adopts a critical stance towards the executive, for this is the way to hold the Government responsible to public opinion.

For these reasons, while good advice from public relations experts will benefit Mr Tung, I believe that he will remain vulnerable, until he manages to transform himself into a politician who appreciates the priority of political morality and makes our political high offices both authoritative and accountable. I sincerely hope that such a day will come sooner rather than later.

(This article is an adapted version of the author's contribution to the English Radio Programme, "Letter to Hong Kong", broadcast on 13 August 2000 on Radio 3, Radio Television Hong Kong.)

Notes:
1. See Margaret Ng, "Do you know what's going on?" in South China Morning Post, 7 July 2000.
2. See Patsy Leung's letter to editor "Administration's communication skills sadly lacking," in South China Morning Post, 8 August 2000.
3. Ibid.
4. See Michael Oakeshott, "Rationalism in Politics," in Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays, London & New York: Methuen, pp. 20-30.
5. See, for example, Cutlip, Center, & Broom's Effective Public Relations, 8th edition, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, chapters 10-13.
6. See Weber's seminal essay, "Politics as a Vocation", in W G Runciman (ed), Weber: Selections in Translation, translated by Eric Matthews, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978, rpt 1982, chapter 10.

Mr. Chor-yung Cheung is a Senior Lecturer of the Division of Social Studies, City University of Hong Kong