So it stands to reason that much of what the Central Policy Unit think-tank, which co-ordinates the drafting process, had prepared before the September 11 assaults is now out of date. And that Mr Tung's team must now be scrambling to come up with something new to address this greatly altered environment in time for his October 10 speech.

Whether it is a tax rebate, or greater government spending on infrastructure to try to stimulate the economy in the wake of the attacks, or simply a matter of trying to counteract the doom and gloom that has become so pervasive since these attacks, all these are matters Mr Tung will have to address.

Indeed he has been busy conducting last-minute consultations with local political parties on their views on his Policy Address. And Information Co-ordinator Stephen Lam Sui-lung has been quoted by some local papers as saying that the fast-moving global situation means no final decision has yet been taken on the overall direction of the speech.

But even with the best will in the world, that decision cannot be delayed much longer. After all, enough time has to be left for tens of thousands of copies of the address to be printed. And given the pace at which events appear to be moving towards a war involving the United States, that raises the embarrassing possibility that even a revised version of the speech could be overtaken by events, before it is delivered in a little over two weeks from now.

This is not the first time that the 150-year-old tradition of an October Policy Address has proved a problem in today's more fast-moving society. In 1998, when the Hong Kong dollar came under attack during the Asian financial crisis, its contents also had to be revised at the last minute. And in 1997 it was rendered largely irrelevant, when Mr Tung instead unveiled his policies three months earlier, in a July 1 speech to mark the transfer of sovereignty.

All of this raises the question of why Mr Tung still sticks to an anachronistic colonial tradition that is increasingly proving such a straitjacket. The most likely answer is that in the years immediately after 1997, there was such emphasis on the need for continuity he dared not tamper with the system inherited from the days of British rule.

Another example emerged last week when former Executive Council convenor Dr Chung Sze-yuen claimed that Mr Tung had tacitly accepted the need for a ministerial-like system back in 1997, but initially been unable to move in this direction because of the desire for continuity during the handover.

Now that taboo is being broken, with a first step in this direction expected in Mr Tung's October 10 speech, perhaps he will shatter another - and make this his last such address. The Government can do far better by making more regular mini-policy announcements, such as its $18 billion plan to boost tourism in August. These allow it to respond to unfolding events and are far more suitable to today's fast-moving environment than the outdated tradition of an annual set-piece speech.

Danny Gittings is the Post's Editorial Pages Editor