The city’s first post-handover leader had strategic instincts to spare, but not the tactical and political skills needed for execution
3-MIN READ3-MINAlex LoAlex Lo has been an SCMP columnist since 2012, commenting on China and international affairs. Published: 9:30am, 12 Sep 2026The death of Tung Chee-hwa at age 89 has prompted a necessary reckoning with the legacy of Hong Kong’s first chief executive. Two decades after his resignation, the question endures: was Tung a hapless administrator overwhelmed by crisis, or a prescient leader constrained by circumstance and an unforgiving political environment?The contrasting assessments of political scientist Sonny Lo Shiu-hing and former Central Policy Unit head Lau Siu-kai frame this debate sharply. Their divergent analyses reveal not merely different judgments of one man, but fundamental disagreements about governance, legitimacy, and vision in the post-handover era.
Lo’s critique is unforgiving; some consider it unfair. In his 2001 book, Governing Hong Kong: Legitimacy, Communication and Political Decay, he documents systematic institutional deterioration under Tung’s watch – weakened administrative capacity, executive-legislative paralysis, and the erosion of the once-vaunted civil service. Tung was chosen by a 400-member committee rather than universal suffrage, in accordance with the Basic Law. His administration depended entirely on performance-based credibility.
His resignation three months later, ostensibly on health grounds, surprised no one.
