Let us hope that, with the resignation of Tung Chee-hwa, his legacy does not just consist of criticism and condemnation. Mr Tung had a turbulent reign as chief executive (and that is putting it mildly). While he may not have carried out his duties well, that does not mean he did not try his best to do what he set out to do - hold Hong Kong together after the handover.
It is interesting to read the pages of commentary which have appeared on Mr Tung in the past week. Most seem to be generous to a man who has had to deal with crises that no leader in Hong Kong's history has had to face. But some commentators are having a hard time shaking off the habit of Tung-bashing, even to this day. The man, like everyone, has faults, shortcomings and times when he misjudged matters, but to deem him 'mediocre' is rather unbecoming.
For all his faults and mistakes, Mr Tung did not take his post believing that it would make him great. Hong Kong did not need a Napoleon, and never during his tenure did Mr Tung indicate that he wanted his job to be a platform to achieve personal greatness. That was not what Hong Kong needed in 1997, or what it needs now.
And if Mr Tung is guilty of being 'mediocre', then this is something we should be grateful for. The last thing Hong Kong needed was a leader who made the running of our city a grand stage for his theatrical performances. At the end of the day, we needed someone who had no desire to be melodramatic while taking the heat. And, boy, did Mr Tung take the heat - sometimes as a result of his own failings, sometimes for other people's. It was never very likely that Mr Tung would go down in Hong Kong history as some glorified hero. His policies were well intended but ill-fitting; he never learned to be a good communicator to foster good public relations; and his personality did not leave much room for charisma. But he was unwavering in his deep sense of duty and commitment to serve the community. This kept him from abandoning ship. Indeed, it drove him to work longer hours during his own darkest hours, and those of Hong Kong.
At the end of Mr Tung's first term of office, no one was willing to leave their seats at the Tung-bashing theatre to step up as a challenger in such bad times. To Mr Tung's credit, he stayed on during the worst of times. In a strange sense, his taking the blame for everything held Hong Kong together. Jumping ship might have been the easier option at the time, but he hung on when no one, understandably, wanted his job. And in a sense, that took courage; courage that no other person could muster.
To many, Mr Tung's resignation fulfilled a long-time wish. Indeed, this may be just the right time for our city to have a new chief executive - one who has the luxury of learning from his or her predecessor's failures and shortcomings as well as finding his or her role in a Hong Kong with fewer problems and a stage set for, perhaps, grand performances.