Hong Kong's overseas audience can find hardly any traces of major changes in the SAR. The local community is likely to concur with such an observation but that does not mean locals have not detected some differences.

Most notable is that the executive and the legislature have become relatively quiet.

One possible explanation for this is that Hong Kong has become less politicised.

When Hong Kong was dominated by a heavy political agenda in the last years of British rule, political arguments were inevitable and the executive had to be more pro-active and responsive in addressing political issues.

Now that the SAR Government has made a conscious decision to depoliticise the community's agenda, it is only natural that the local scene has become less eventful.

Isn't that good news? After all, a lot of Hong Kong people were fed up with the seemingly never-ending Sino-British bickering of the past few years.

The community may find a less politically charged environment appealing, but Hong Kong people have to ask whether the present situation is really a result of a changing public agenda or whether it reflects only a general inertia on the part of the legislature and the executive.

Replacing political posturing with rational debate is welcome. However, it is important for both the executive and the provisional legislature to note that in rushing to bury all traces of former Governor Chris Patten and his style of governance, the SAR may run the risk of throwing away both the good and bad of the past regime.

For example, notwithstanding all the criticisms levelled at the former Governor for his political-reforms package, Mr Patten's efforts to make the government more open and transparent have earned him credit from not only his allies, but also his opposers.

During his five-year tenure, Mr Patten made himself very accessible to the media and introduced a monthly session during which members of the legislature could question him.

This is a fine tradition that should be kept. It is demonstrative of the legislature acting as a check on the executive.

Disappointingly, there has been no sign that Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa will keep the question-time tradition. Nor has there been any serious call on the part of the Provisional Legislative Council to revive the arrangement.

Mr Tung probably does not mind being challenged by provisional legislators. However, in giving the idea a cold shoulder now, Mr Tung may have taken into account what the practice could mean in the future.

Mr Tung can cope with a less-assertive provisional legislature, but when the Democrats return to the law-making body next year, a more adverse practice, as he sees it, may be revived.

So by avoiding a question-time arrangement now, Mr Tung may be hoping to put an end to the possibility of the practice being revived in the future.

Regardless of what may have brought Mr Tung to his present position, it is undeniable that the question-and-answer session is a valuable channel for the executive to show its accountability to the legislature.

To impress the community that the Government is as open and transparent as before, Mr Tung should seriously reconsider the issue.