HONG KONG'S FIRST TELEVISED CHIEF EXECUTIVE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 HONG KONG 000603 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR EAP, EAP/CM, EAP/P E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/02/2032 TAGS: PGOV PREL PINR PHUM SOCI CH HK SUBJECT: HONG KONG'S FIRST TELEVISED CHIEF EXECUTIVE ELECTION DEBATE: LIVELY EXCHANGES BUT LITTLE IMPACT ON SUPPORT LEVELS REF: A. HONG KONG 0447 ¶B. HONG KONG 0457 Classified By: E/P Section Chief Laurent Charbonnet; Reasons 1.4 (b, d) ¶1. (C) Summary: Hong Kong's first Chief Executive (CE) debate, televised live on March 1, included some unexpectedly lively exchanges over political reform, air pollution, education, and poverty alleviation. Incumbent CE Donald Tsang appeared restrained but also denigrated his opponent's SIPDIS lack of administrative and policy-making experience and inability to communicate with mainland authorities. Pan-democratic challenger Alan Leong criticized Tsang's record over the past 18 months, observing that the CE's "most decisive" moment had been the destruction of the Star Ferry clock tower landmark. Leong also attempted to focus the debate on the need for full implementation of universal suffrage in Hong Kong, preferably in time for the 2012 CE and Legislative Council (Legco) elections; in response, Tsang again declined to offer a timetable for political reform. Some Hong Kong newspapers observed that staging a televised public debate set a good precedent for political communication, although several of the major pro-Beijing papers limited themselves to highly positive and harshly negative descriptions of the performances of Tsang and Leong, respectively. Early opinion polls indicate little change in public views on the two candidates. End summary. ¶2. (C) Comment: Expectations going into this debate had been low: there was to be no public participation, no direct questioning between the candidates and, after all, the outcome of this less-than-democratic selection process is fore-ordained. Nevertheless, most Hong Kongers seemed excited and engaged to be witnessing the first such public debate in the first contested CE "election." It's too early to say what the long-term effects here and in mainland China will be, but most observers are taking some pride in the fact that the debate even occurred, and proved that a competitive process does not imply the end of rational and civil discourse. End Comment. Hong Kong's First CE Debate -------------- ¶3. (SBU) Hong Kong's first-ever public political debate, televised live on March 1, featured the two principal candidates, incumbent Chief Executive (CE) Donald Tsang and his pan-democratic challenger, legislator Alan Leong. Regardless of who was deemed to have won or lost the contest, many observers agreed that the fact that it was held was itself a major step forward in Hong Kong's political development. The event included some unexpectedly lively exchanges, despite the lack of any opportunity for public participation and the inability of the candidates to challenge each other directly. Nonetheless, Tsang and Leong clashed over several issues, ranging from political reform to air pollution, education, poverty alleviation, and other socio-economic livelihood issues. ¶4. (C) While many thought Tsang appeared restrained, even nervous, the incumbent still denigrated his opponent's lack of administrative and policy-making experience and presumed inability to communicate with mainland authorities. Leong, on the other hand, criticized Tsang's record over the past 18 months, observing that the CE's "most decisive" moment had been the destruction of the Star Ferry clock tower landmark in late 2006. Veteran journalist and political commentator Frank Ching told us on March 2 that he thought Leong had "won on points," appearing at more ease, while Tsang was handicapped by the need to defend his record as incumbent. ¶5. (SBU) As expected, Leong attempted to focus the debate on the need for full implementation of universal suffrage in Hong Kong, preferably in time for the 2012 CE and Legislative Council (Legco) elections. Leong said he did not see any difficulties for a committed CE to convince Beijing to allow universal suffrage in 2012. In one of the testier moments of the exchange, Leong remarked that "I don't see the difficulties in convincing Beijing, unless the CE has no commitment himself." Tsang retorted: "I wish you good luck if that's what you are going to say to Beijing." Tsang, as expected, also observed that Leong had thus far been unable to forge a consensus even within the pan-democratic camp on a strategy for democratization. He once again declined to offer a timetable for political reform, noting his intention to resolve this issue within the next five years. Press: Predictably Divided HONG KONG 00000603 002 OF 002 -------------- ¶6. (SBU) The independent and pro-democracy Hong Kong papers, including "Ming Pao," "Hong Kong Economic Journal," and "Apple Daily" all commented favorably on the fact that a televised public debate was held, saying it had set a good precedent for political communication as part of an open and competitive CE race. The three papers agreed that Leong had out-performed Tsang in the debate. ¶7. (SBU) By contrast, as of March 2 the major pro-Beijing papers had not commented on whether or not the debate was useful, nor had they offered any insight into the central government's impressions of the event. Rather, these papers -- including the "Ta Kung Pao" (TKP),"Wen Wei Po" (WWP) and "Hong Kong Commercial Daily" -- limited themselves to highly positive and harshly negative descriptions of the performances of Tsang and Leong, respectively. For example, WWP observed that Tsang explained his program pragmatically, while Leong just "made empty talk." Similarly, the TKP claimed that Tsang had led the debate by explaining his program in pragmatic terms, while Leong merely offered challenging remarks and empty slogans. ¶8. (SBU) At least two papers -- the mass-market "Sun" and the "Oriental Daily News" -- published negative comments on both the debate format and the performance of the candidates. The "Sun" criticized the election forum for "lacking new thinking," while the "ODN" labeled the debate a "farce" and claimed both candidates lacked charisma. Polls: No Impact Yet -------------- ¶9. (C) According to Hong Kong's most respected poll, conducted by Professor Robert Chung's Public Opinion Program at Hong Kong University, the immediate impact of the March 1 debate was minimal. Incumbent CE Tsang's popularity rating remained high at 65 percent, while that of challenger Leong rose from 17 to 21 percent as he appeared to attract more of the remaining uncommitted respondents. Similarly, about 68 percent of the poll's respondents said they supported Tsang's candidacy, compared to 22 percent in favor of Leong, although Leong may have registered some gains with younger and working-class people. Chung plans to continue daily assessments of public sentiment through the March 25 election. The next public debate is scheduled for March 15. CUNNINGHAM