Perhaps the Chief Executive was only stating the obvious - that Beijing would not let the organisers of the June 4 vigil enter the mainland so long as they continued to honour the memory of the dead of Tiananmen Square. Perhaps, in the end, the two versions of what Tung Chee-hwa said to Szeto Wah are one and the same: in advocating the dropping of the baggage of history, Mr Tung was, in fact, asking his luncheon guest to halt the Victoria Park vigils.
If so, he should have known that he was asking the impossible. The idea of Mr Szeto giving up the June 4 memorial in exchange for a visit to Beijing beggars belief. But, given his well-known position on the issue, it would have been equally astounding if the Chief Executive had said that he was all in favour of the vigils and would go to bat on this score with the central Government.
Whatever one thinks of his position, there was nothing scandalous in Mr Tung making his views known. Political leaders are constantly embroiled in disputes with those who hold opposite opinions. But the Chief Executive has a specific problem in reconciling two different aspects of his job.
On the one hand he is the most powerful figure in a political system which, for all its faults, retains pluralistic debate. The pro-democracy groups may have found the experience of the past two years deeply disenchanting. But, as the row over what Mr Tung said to Mr Szeto has demonstrated, the Government cannot expect to command automatic deference and obedience from the community and its elected representatives.
So, however much this may be against his nature, Mr Tung is forced to fight his corner. To that extent, he is a partisan politician at the head of an administration that has to answer its critics, even if it knows that executive power will always win the day.
But the Chief Executive also clearly hankers for a situation in which he could assume a role more like that of a head of state, floating above everyday politics and painting a broad canvas as in his vision of Hong Kong as a world city.
In the United States, presidents have to fulfil both roles - up to their necks in the politics of dealing with Congress and of winning elections while embodying the republic in their transient persons.