What was wrong in China in 1989 which led to the tragic crackdown on the pro-democracy movement in Tiananmen Square? Student leader Chai Ling, in Hong Kong for a week, draws a conclusion that should provide much food for thought for the Beijing leadership and the governing team of the Special Administrative Region (SAR). Ms Chai said: 'The fundamental cause of the June 4 tragedy is that there wasn't a free press. The Government did not understand the reality of the society and the students did not know how decisions were made by the party.' A simplistic interpretation of what Ms Chai has said is that a lack of a free press was the only reason for the calamity. But there is more to it than that - the absence of transparency in how the Government was operated and the lack of a channel for the masses to voice their views were more immediate problems that led to the split between the leadership and the people it governed. In delivering her 'verdict', Ms Chai has been fair and calm. Instead of putting all the blame on the leadership, she concluded, with hindsight, that both sides had made mistakes. Speaking eight years after the killings, Ms Chai's belated assessment of the crackdown is not only relevant to the Beijing leadership today, it is also a timely reminder for the SAR leadership. Hong Kong has been lucky that in the past, even though the colonial administration was not as accountable and as transparent as the people would have liked, we did, and we still do, enjoy a high degree of press freedom, making us the envy of many of our neighbours. With the introduction of representative government in the early 1980s and the partial opening of Legislative Council seats to elections in 1985, the Government had no choice but to hold itself more accountable. This has been a healthy development. The Government may not necessarily act in accordance with all the views expressed, but it does respond to what is demanded by the people. The community may not be at all satisfied with the Government's actions, but they do not, just because of their grievances, take drastic action to overturn the Government. Instead, people resort to peaceful demonstrations and elect those who share their views to make sure their wishes come true. Today, we can confidently say that our government is not totally alienated from the needs of the community. And compared with our compatriots in China, we can also proudly say that we do know to a large extent how government policies are formulated and implemented. Hong Kong people treasure these traditions. What is worrying for Hong Kong is whether the various new policies pursued by Chief Executive-designate Tung Chee-hwa will end up undermining these essential elements for a stable society. Superficially, the curtailment of civil liberties by amending the Public Order and Societies ordinances, the suppression of free speech as reflected in the constant warnings from Beijing officials of what the media could and could not report and comment on after the handover, and the design of a less democratic political system should be effective in eliminating any opportunity for unrest. But the June 4 experience showed that these policies only alienate the people and the leadership, which, in the end, causes more harm than good. Mr Tung has repeatedly said that no one wanted the June 4 event to happen. Perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, he should use more of the June 4 lesson to shape his way of governing the territory if a stable and prosperous Hong Kong is to be the outcome.