Q: Four years ago, in the run-up to the CE election, your popularity surpassed Henry Tang’s and many believe that’s why Beijing chose you. But now according to HKU and CU surveys, your popularity is below 40 marks.

A: Many articles have been written about the reliability or otherwise of the Hong Kong University opinion polls. I shall not join that chorus. Yes, popularity is important. Public ratings are important. But I’m not in this position just for popularity ratings. There are certain things that are unpopular but you still have to carry out and do the necessary things for the long-term benefit of Hong Kong.

Q: Do you agree that the sitting CE will have more advantages to seek the top job again?

A: Not just for Hong Kong chief executive. The same applies to leaders of other governments. A second term carries certain benefits, not only because you don’t have to worry about your third term, but also because experience is important. I’m not saying for a moment that I’m responding to the encouragement. It’s just a theoretical answer.

Q: So what are the factors that will make you say yes?

A: I will think about this later this year when the time comes. But whatever my decision is, I’d like to hear from the people whether they want to change the fundamental policies that I have put in place in the last four years with regard to housing, poverty, ageing society, the environment, healthcare, education and so forth. And I’d like to be engaged in policy discussions. If people like me, people don’t like me, I want to know what they think about my policies. Do they like or dislike my housing policy, my ageing society policy, environment policy and so on. These discussions would be much more meaningful.

Q: How are you going to get such feedback?

A: I sit down with people from all sectors, all walks of life in Hong Kong, walk the streets of Hong Kong and I am stopped for photographs and chitchat all the time, and I hold mini-city forums on the sidewalks of Wan Chai, Causeway Bay and Kowloon. I’ll be with young secondary school students, probably 200 of them, tomorrow morning for example and the university students will come at 11 am.

Q: What do you think of Li Ka-shing’s point and echoed by your colleague John Tsang that a good CE must have good understanding of the hopes of the people and must have empathy for the people? Do you think you have those attributes?

A: Sure. Not just the hopes of the people. You also have to be mindful of people’s aspirations and apprehensions, particularly in a city that practices two systems or the other system.

Q: Since Zhang Dejiang’s visit, have you received other signals from Beijing that they support your re-election?

A: I will leave the interpretation of what Mr Zhang said to other people. Mr Zhang has been very supportive of myself as the current chief executive. He has been very supportive of this government. He said this as much publicly and it’s not for me to add or to interpret.

Q: Have you received other signals from Beijing apart from what Zhang said and does it matter?

A: I have been pretty open to relaying what the central government and central authority leaders said about my work. I have done that.

Q: When will you make up your mind on seeking a second term?

A: It may not be as early as September. As I said I didn’t make my decision until I believe it was November 2011.

Q: What do you think about all the talk about “ABC”? Do you think there are certain forces pushing this line, and who are they?

A: Well it’s politics. ABC is not news. All the things about ABC are not one-dimensional. The other dimension that I’d like you and other people to know is that I remain as friendly as possible, as far as I’m concerned, with people who want to advance their ABC objective. I never, never shouted back. So that’s another example of how we tried to strike harmonious relationships with young people.

Q: July 1 is around the corner and with that, the annual protest calling for you to resign. What do you make of such calls for you to resign?

A: Some demonstrators actually asked me to resign even before I took office. People even speculated on good authority that I will resign last summer, and I will resign in December and I will resign in January, but they keep proving themselves wrong. I don’t expect political leaders in other jurisdictions are also affected by what’s written on placards held by the crowds in demonstrations.

Q: What do you think of the spread of localist and pro-independence sentiments?

A: Let me venture one theory, you might say that this is cynical. Given the Legislative Council ‘selection system we have in Hong Kong, meaning one vote, multiple seats, proportional representation, large constituency, you put these four factors together and we have a pretty unique election system. You only need to harness about 10 per cent of the votes and your 10 per cent could be the last 10 per cent of the votes in the political spectrum. You get a seat in Legco and you tend to encourage radical positions. Now whether or not everyone in the so-called pro-independence localist groups re serious about Hong Kong’s independence, I have my doubts.

Q: Could it be that they are idealistic and want to share some ideas that aren’t being heard in the political system?

A: I don’t rule out the possibility of certain members of the pro-independence, separatism localist groups feeling frustrated because, not withstanding what they prefer, the central authorities and, in this case, the National People’s Congress does have a say according to the Basic Law in constitutional development. Some of these young people ask for electing the chief executive on the basis of civic nomination.

Q: Do you think there is a need to reform the election system for Legco in the long-run?

A: It’s not on the horizon; I think we have to recognise the fact that in all jurisdictions across the world, changing the election system could be a very, very controversial thing. The United Kingdom has recently been talking about changing, reviewing, their first-past-the-post system but it hasn’t changed. So it isn’t something one could simply press a button and make happen quickly.

Q: One of your predecessors, Tung Chee-hwa raised the idea of a governing coalition and greater cooperation with Legco and lamented the failure of executive-led government. Do you agree?

A: We try our very best to maintain harmonious relations with the Legislative Council. You only have to compare the language that official government members use versus the language that Legco members use and you know how much we bend over backwards not to antagonise. But then at the same time we realise that there is a trend of several lawmakers using less and less civil tactics vis-à-vis the government. Now, even if we could somehow with a magic wand win over 20 members of the opposition camp – if we did that we probably would have won over all 43 members of the pro-establishment camp – we would still have seven opposition members who use tactics such as throwing things at government officials, at the chief executive, filibustering. Seven filibusters in the Legco would mean a lot of havoc for the government and for the entire community. Yes, I’m happy to do whatever we can to strike a harmonious working relationship with Legco members, including those in the pan-democratic camp, but I think political reality means, again because some of these people want to capture most of the last 10 per cent of votes in the political spectrum, they are probably incentivised to remain radical.

Q: Tung also mentioned the need for the administration to have power-sharing with the establishment party, do you agree?

A: Yes, we are doing that already. But then I am also wary of the fact that the Basic Law gives the government, meaning executive authority, certain powers and responsibility.

Q: Some of your critics say the problem is you are combative.

A: When the first banana was thrown, I wasn’t the chief executive. So, it wasn’t a result of who is the chief executive. When the leader of the Democratic Party said that the number one enemy of the Democratic Party was C.H Tung, Mr Tung was the chief executive. C.H Tung wasn’t combative but he was described as the number one enemy of the Democratic Party, so I think it’s partly the nature of politics. If you look at what we’ve managed to get through the Legco, yes the establishment of the innovation technology bureau was delayed by three years, the proposed establishment of the culture bureau was frustrated, it’s still not there, but otherwise if you look at all our legislative agenda, you look at our budget proposals, our various motions in the Legco, we got them passed. If you compare what we’ve achieved against what other governments in other parts of the world did not achieve, I think we’re actually doing reasonably well.

Q: So you’re saying it’s not a personality issue but a systemic issue?

A: Yes, it’s systemic. It’s the way that we are organised. We are meant to be executive-led according to the Basic Law. But we also need the cooperation of the Legco. The executive authority, namely the government, doesn’t determine the rules and procedures of the Legco. We don’t have a say at all. The only way to stop filibustering, for example, lies in the amendment of the Legco’s rules and procedures.

Q: Won’t a gentler, friendlier CE have an easier time with Legco?

A: No one could be more friendly than Mr Tung himself.

Q: Won’t a CE’s life be easier if he or she is a member of a major political party enjoying a strong, stable majority in the legislature?

A: You are talking about David Cameron? (Laughs)

Q: Do you see wisdom in amending the legislation to allow the CE to have a party affiliation?

A: On matters such as Scottish independence and Brexit, David Cameron, being the leader of the Conservative Party, did he or could he direct the way that his Conservative Party members vote? Did he, could he direct the way that his cabinet ministers vote on that matter? It’s the very nature of politics. I think sometimes we cannot be too idealistic. Now if the Hong Kong government is too efficient, the chief executive too authoritative, I think we have problem with Hong Kong democracy.

I think people still have too much of a throwback to the colonial days when there was no election of Legco members, when the president of the Legco was the governor and he handpicked his own supporters and appointed them to the Legco, so there was no rowdiness, and there was definitely no object throwing in the Legco chamber. And I don’t think that’s the kind of politics that Hong Kong people want. The Hong Kong style of democracy and some of these sorts of built-in inefficiencies are actually not uncommon in the international community.

Q: Over the past few years Hong Kong has increasingly come under the international spotlight, on topics like whether it can keep the “one country, two systems” and the booksellers’ case. Do you see pressures from the international community?

A: We have a lot of interactions with the international community on all levels, Hong Kong is an international city and we want to maintain these international relations. Hong Kong, on the political side of things, has been in the limelight. Ever since, for example, the negotiations of Hong Kong’s future in 1982, there was a keen interest, and some anxiety at times, before 1997. On the question of the booksellers’ case, we have received inquiries from foreign governments, their representatives in Hong Kong, from foreign chambers of commerce, and we share with them exactly what we know. I think they appreciate the fact that we are forthcoming, we are candid with our views on things.

Q: Do you agree with the view that Hong Kong has been used as a pressure point to target China? The other view is that China is to blame for all these issues coming into the spotlight.

A: Hong Kong is a Chinese city but it is not just any other Chinese city. We practise “one country two systems” and therefore international interest in Hong Kong is keen. Business people use Hong Kong as a gateway into mainland China, NGOs use Hong Kong as a gateway to enter the mainland of China, media organisations that are based in Hong Kong also use Hong Kong as a gateway into China, as a listening post. The key thing is that we should maintain all the freedoms that are very much part of the core values of Hong Kong and we practise a high degree of autonomy according to the Basic Law.

Q: Do you agree that the booksellers’ case is the most serious challenge to Hong Kong people’s confidence in the one country two systems and trust in the central government?

A: In internal diplomacy, there are certain approaches that are correct and some approaches that are not correct. It’s rather like diplomacy. The way that I conduct diplomacy between Hong Kong and the mainland central authorities is not to use megaphone internal diplomacy. Between governments of sovereign countries, people don’t use megaphone diplomacy. It’s the same with Hong Kong and the mainland. I shall not describe whether this is the most serious challenge to the one country two systems arrangement. The key thing is I want to express and relay the concerns of the Hong Kong people to Beijing and I would expect a reply from Beijing responding to those concerns.

Q: Some people also expected you to have written to a higher level, rather than the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, like Premier Li Keqiang’s office, for example.

A: All correspondence between Hong Kong and the central authorities, whether it’s a high authority or the same level of the authority as the Hong Kong M.A.O, goes through the M.A.O. That has been the system for the past 19 years.

Q: There is speculation you cancelled your trip to Tianjin this week because you want to handle the booksellers’ case well so you can get approval from Beijing to get a second term.

A: There’s still a lot of work on the booksellers case, but that’s not the only reason why I’m staying behind in Hong Kong.

Q: Do you think there is a need for you personally to go up to Beijing?

A: Whatever is the need, obviously depending on the nature of discussion, the scope, and the level of officials on both sides.

Q: You said there is room for improvement for the notification mechanism? How big is this room for improvement?

A: The starting point, and to me it’s basic and fundamental, is that we want to know as soon as possible when a Hong Kong resident is arrested by a jurisdiction outside of Hong Kong. That applies to foreign governments and should also apply to the mainland, because we are two systems. We already have this notification system arrangement between Hong Kong and the mainland, which I don’t think exists between Beijing and the provinces and the mainland cities. So that’s a hallmark, a characteristic of the two systems, a high degree of autonomy arrangement. So what I’m seeking is an arrangement that’s similar to what we have with foreign jurisdictions. So the key thing is notification. I think Hong Kong people are well aware of the fact that when you are outside of Hong Kong, you are expected to abide by the laws of your host country or city.

Q: If what Lam Wing-kee said is true that he was being handled by the party’s special central investigative taskforce, how can the mechanism work over a party outfit and do we want it to do so?

A: Firstly I’ve never come across the term “central special investigative unit”. I don’t know if you have. Secondly, I don’t want to respond to what he has said to the media. And I don’t want to rely on what he has said to the media. That’s why we have invited him to contact the police, or the police have been trying to contact him. I’m just a little curious as to why he just said yesterday that he would wait for another two or three days to contact the police. I mean, either you have something to tell the police or you don’t. If you have something to tell the police, you will probably put the police slightly ahead of radio stations and newspapers.