HK's chief executive selection reverts to two-horse race

CY Leung to be next chief executive?
A semblance of order has returned to the chief executive selection process after Beijing's original man, Henry Tang, made himself un-selectable. Two more hopefuls almost joined the race. That would have made the circus spin out of control.


The selection criteria requires the winning candidate to secure at least 601 votes from the electoral college of 1,200. Too many contenders would have endangered that outcome.


Tsang Yok-sing, president of the Legislative Council, pulled out just before nominations closed. He was advised to do so. The DAB had 'reserved' a block of 140 votes pending his decision. 


Regina Ip failed to aggregate the minimum 150 nominations from tycoons, functional constituencies and the DAB - Beijing's largest above-ground representatives in LegCo. The baggage she carries made the puppeteers nervous. No nod for her.


This was a moment of truth for the former secretary for security who fancied herself the most competent chief executive choice. The DAB has not forgiven her ingratitude after being gifted its support in the 2008 HK Island constituency election. The professional constituencies showed her the door. 


Tycoons want Henry to stay. Citizens say nay
It was a disastrous few weeks for Henry Tang. Despite negative feedback from daily press, disillusioned supporters and the polls, candidate Tang carries on like nothing happened. Neither shame nor rejection has reached him. 


The 18 Feb edition of The Economist has him as the "sort of amiable, vaguely trustworthy duffer..." which sums up Henry.


At the first debate held 3 March featuring the three CE hopefuls at City University before a 500-strong audience of the public and environmental activists, the post-debate votes re-confirmed Henry Tang's rejection - he got 2 percent whereas CY Leung received sixty-three percent while Albert Ho of the Democratic Party had 23 percent. 


Everyone knows that the Democratic Party is unacceptable to Beijing. Albert Ho had earlier jokingly told the Financial Times of London that if he ever got selected by the 1,200 electoral college, it would be finally revealed that he is a mole of the Communist Party! 


It will be a huge relief for Hong Kong to be spared being bossed by Henry Tang. China has to whisper to the selectors so he does not. It cannot risk another massive street march like the 2003 outrage which felled Tung Chee-hwa and Regina Ip for defying HK citizens in attempting to pass into legislation the Article 23 Security Bill.


It proved then that using a rubber-stamp legislature to enforce Beijing's diktat is not the way to rule. HK citizens are acutely aware of their rights and will face down any government that schemes to whittle away its existing freedoms of assembly, protest and press. So long as HK is denied universal franchise, its citizens will remain suspicious and super-vigilant.


Public unforgiving of govt-tycoon collusion
There is a sea-change in public attitudes to the privileged elites. Their ability to flout rules which ordinary citizens have to live by, is being aggressively challenged. 


The widening wealth gap, unaffordable housing, lack of a safety net for the poorest and enormous budget surpluses not being used to solve systemic problems, all rankle badly. They speak of an administration badly out of touch with the people it rules.


The rough treatment incumbent chief executive Donald Tsang got in the press and in LegCo for consorting with tycoons aboard luxury yachts and private jets, and accepting a penthouse below market rent for retirement, was a signal lesson for legislators, civil servants and the next chief executive. 


The simmering resentment against big business-government collusion has erupted too strongly for a return to 'business as usual'.


The 'two systems' are irreconcilable
Although Henry's extra-marital dalliances and illegal property extensions seem trivial by China benchmarks, the furious public response starkly etched the gulf separating Hong Kong and mainland attitudes to public officials and their conduct. 


Leaders and party functionaries in China wield enormous clout. Citizens fear their ability to abuse power arbitrarily. Offending even a minor apparatchik can be costly to self and family. Terror rules. 


Challenging injustices can be risky to life and limb as the villagers of Wukan discovered when they protested the illegal sale of their lands by party officials. Their protest committee was detained and their leader beaten to death in prison.


In Hong Kong, civil servants are expected to be polite, helpful and correct in the discharge of their duties and responsibilities. Hong Kong citizens do not fear civil or uniformed public servants. There is mutual respect. Society operates efficiently without the need to bribe or beg public officials. 


HK residents are confident their courts and legal system will protect their fundamental rights. They do not expect to be kidnapped by their government in the dead of night or be beaten to sign fictitious confessions in prison. They expect their police to be law abiding and not thugs in uniform.


CY Leung right man at the right time?
Hong Kong lost 15 years through incompetent leaders appointed by Beijing. Tung Chee-hwa was a washout and Donald Tsang a nervous schoolboy waiting to be scolded on 'work-report' trips to Beijing. He will be thrashed royally this time round.


Neither had the charisma, conviction nor confidence to drive policies forward to make HK a better place for its residents. Henry Tang if selected, would stretch that to 20 years of treading water. 


The scandals which crushed Tang's CE ambition and ruined Tsang's legacy, did enormous good in surfacing fundamental issues about purpose of government and public accountability of officials.


CY Leung has conducted a measured and dignified campaign so far. He has invested serious time visiting the grass-roots to appreciate the needs of the neglected sectors of HK society. 


He is thoughtful, does his homework and crafts programs which he should now be articulating more forcefully. It is these very qualities which make the tycoons nervous. 


CY Leung does not need to keep proving his loyalty to Beijing - a constant distraction which drained Donald Tsang. If anyone can speak for HK and be heard in Beijing, CY can. 


No time to waste
Budget surpluses are there to be deployed judiciously for social good and equitable economic growth. That is a principle the property and construction tycoons vehemently oppose. They would rather pour concrete for highways, runways, railways and bridges at huge expense whether needed or not, or detrimental to environment and public health. 


It is the public purse the tycoons scheme to stream for decades into their pockets with the collusion of government. It is time for Hong Kong to plot a new course. The cosy government-big business nexus has to be curbed. A fairer distribution of opportunity and access has to include a broader swathe of small entrepreneurs and medium sized businesses. 


Housing affordability for the poor and the middle class has to be addressed. It is just too fundamental to be neglected any longer. What about the decade-long dodge on improving air quality and reducing traffic pollution? What about effective fair competition rules to bust cartels? 


What about the wasteful Trade Development Corporation which is uneconomic and heavily subsidized, running trade exhibitions which the HK private sector is fully competent to manage without subsidies? 


If CY does address these long-neglected issues in a forthright way, he can reinvigorate Hong Kong and gain the respect of its business sector and residents. He has to carry a big stick to get the civil service moving. They are masters at forming committees to 'study' issues and waste time as a tactic for inaction. 


He must find a competent and respected chief secretary to replace the woefully inadequate and inarticulate Stephen Lam. CY will need an effective civil service overlord who can make things happen and is not the classic time-server and pen-pusher.


There are also too many consultants feeding at the trough. It will be useful to make all their reports open to public scrutiny. Why should consultant reports on public projects remain government secrets? How many of these consultants are proxies for big business interests? CY has to hack through all that fast. 


The next chief executive has his work cut out for him. If he gets his act together fast he can re-energize Hong Kong. He may even get re-elected by a landslide through universal franchise in 2017. The one mistake he should not make is to revive the Article 23 Security Bill which HK citizens unequivocally rejected in 2003.


ENDS

Zero-tolerance for Jerk bosses?

Hack away bad managers or hire good ones first?
Any system which tolerates and sustains toxic managers is already dysfunctional. Any CEO (assuming he is not a jerk himself) wishing to re-align company culture must weed out toxic bosses as priority. That immediately signals detoxification of power as corporate policy to abusers and their hapless victims. 


It warns power-poisoned managers that respect for human beings is a core-value of the organization that will not be transgressed. Such diseased bosses at all levels will be axed as top priority. Their abused staff will out them and the CEO will axe them.


Systematic removal of abusers of power will generate huge relief within the company, retain good employees and attract top talent from other organizations where such abuse is tolerated. 


Fix the problem or forever lose good people
When competent staff at all all levels routinely leave an organization and the ones left behind with tenure are mediocre, it can be traced to a culture of abuse emanating from the top.


One can always pay over market rates to attract top talent. It is impossible to retain them if the power-abuse culture continues. 


So if an organization wants an industry reputation for being an attractive place for high performers, it must shred its power-abusers first as a matter of policy.


Why axe jerks in management fast?
Staff will be able to re-focus on the real objectives of the organization rather than slavishly kiss-up to survive. They would not be distracted by whims, moods and arbitrary decisions of power-diseased managers.


Managers are an expensive resource. Because they are given power over people within hierarchies, their impact, for good or bad, is magnified. Power bestowed and not earned, can be taken away. An effective people-manager dervives his power from his team.


A manager with his head screwed on right and focused on end-results by coaching, leading and mentoring, will multiply positive energy. Apart from guiding his group, he would also defend them from jerk managers around or above them when necessary.



Conversely, a jerk manager will be wasting his and his subordinates' time in power-diseased behaviour. The collective mind of the disoriented group will not be on meeting meaningful objectives but on basic survival from abuse. 

What about competent specialists behaving badly?
There are situations of particular expertise which is rare and vital. If such an expert is also a source of negativity to people around and below him in the organization, two avenues have to be pursued in tandem - search for a replacement and re-define his role to one of solo problem-solver.


The jerk has to be isolated from poisoning the many. A competent replacement has to be found in due time so that the offender can be donated to a rival company. He has to be jettisoned at some point. The sooner the better.


No company has the right to knowingly damage the psychological health of its staff by allowing power-diseased managers to continue.

360 feedback to check power abuse
Many organizations are dogmatic about their annual ritual of performance evaluation, yet shrink from implementing a 360 feedback review process in parallel!


That is the surest clue to a culture of abuse enshrined in a hierarchy of abusers at the top dishing it out to levels below. 


As with all the studies of abuse in families, prisons, churches, cults and the military, it is the abused who become abusers in turn.


Until this cycle of toxic power-abuse is broken, it will not be possible to shape a healthy way to optimize performance in organizations.


ENDS