Can Tung still change history?
If you are past the halfway point of what is considered a normal lifespan, you can, as some people say, see the other side. At 67, Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa is well past that point. And with elections for the next chief executive due in 2007, he is also past the halfway point of his second term as leader of Hong Kong.
In political jargon, that makes him a lame duck - a leader who is weakened by receding power. Being a lame duck leader in a true democracy has its perils. But being one in a system in which you are chosen by only 800 hand-picked voters puts you at the mercy of the people who created the system.
That is why President Hu Jintao took it for granted that he had every right to question Mr Tung's performance, as he did last month. By publicly rebuking Mr Tung, Mr Hu reminded us that however hard mainland leaders try to package our chief executive as an elected leader who is representative of the people, he in fact serves at the whim of Beijing. That raises this point: if and when we do have direct elections for the chief executive, would China's top leaders still consider it their right to lecture him, or her, and if they do, would our elected leader counter that only Hong Kong voters can judge his or her performance? That, I suppose, would depend very much on who the chief executive is.
When those who hold the highest office get near to the end of their political life, most become obsessed with how history will remember them. They spend their dying days in power enhancing or, in Mr Tung's case, repairing their legacy.
Mr Tung's effort to rebuild his legacy began soon after the first massive anti-government protest two summers ago, as evidenced by his new-found anxiety about public opinion whenever he discusses controversial policies with his ministers. That is a sea change from when he first came into office with a bull-headed belief that his way was the only way. The remaking of his image has continued in spurts with limited success, and there was almost a hint of desperation in his latest policy speech which he used to recast himself as a leader who is responsive enough to self-criticise and accept blame for past failures. But can a tiger change its stripes?
Mr Tung was born in the Year of the Ox, and this is what astrologers say about people under this sign: they are natural leaders but insist on doing things their way, and they hate to be opposed.
So how do you prove the astrologers wrong? There is the option of changing the stripes on the tiger, but Mr Tung is not exactly famous for mastering the possible, let alone the impossible.
Skilled image-makers know how to manipulate the reach of today's mass media. Combining fear and falsehood, they turned US President George W. Bush, who avoided the Vietnam war, into a war hero and reduced his rival John Kerry, a decorated war veteran, to a coward.
In any case, Mr Tung is not a great communicator, a necessary talent if he hopes to fool the people into believing he is what he is not.
Legacies are great to have if you can leave behind an admirable one. But who knows, Mr Tung could dazzle us yet in his remaining 30 months in office, especially now that he has let it be known that he will not attempt anything difficult when it comes to new policies.
Michael Chugani is the editor-in-chief of ATV English News and Current Affairs
