I always enjoy meeting Hong Kong's young people because you are our future. There are endless possibilities for your own personal development.
You can become a doctor, an artist or a scholar. You might even want to become a pop singer. Nobody would dare laugh at you for dreaming of stardom because you are still young, and being young is your advantage. As for me, a man in his 60s, well that's another story.
When I filled out the nomination form for the Chief Executive election last year, I listed my occupation as a "politician", and I am still being teased about that. If I say that I would like to be a singer, the public would make even more jokes out of it, although the CD may sell well �V provided it has my famous whistling in it.
Last month, some of you may have heard my Letter to Hong Kong, which was broadcast on the radio.
In it, I spoke about the significance of pragmatic politics to resolve disputes, and I cited as an example the story of Jean Monnet, the Father of the European Union.
Some people interpreted my remarks as meaning that we would have to wait 50 years for the introduction of universal suffrage in Hong Kong, just like the Europeans had to wait 50 years for the EU to be a reality.
Pragmatism overlooked
Actually, what I wanted to point out was that the only way forward for Hong Kong is through pragmatic politics. "Pragmatism" is a political style most easily overlooked because of the following misunderstandings and doubts:
* First of all, the general public identifies with individualism and heroism in the political arena. Pragmatic leadership is not so marketable.
* Secondly, does pragmatic leadership parallel the administration of business, in which making a profit is the prime objective? What are the differences between doing business and engaging in politics?
* Thirdly, does the showmanship of a politician contradict the spirit of pragmatism? How do we carry out political communication if we adopt a pragmatic leadership style?
* Fourth and finally, if we adopt a pragmatic leadership style, how do we strike a balance between upholding our values while at the same time refusing to become too dogmatic, or to hold extreme views?
Looking through both Chinese and world history, we may feel that the biggest history makers were great political figures such as Winston Churchill, Napoleon Bonaparte, Dwight Eisenhower and General Douglas MacArthur.
When we look at China's history, the role of political heroes seems more pivotal, with every change of the times initiated by heroes such as Emperor Qin, Liu Bang, Xiang Yu, Cao Cao and Liu Bei.
No wonder political leaders and heroes are so highly admired and praised. And no wonder political leaders around the world are tempted to view or promote themselves as heroes, able to change the world in the eyes of the public.
Another type of leader
Over the past decade, another type of leader has come to the public's attention - the CEOs of multinational conglomerates, the stars and legends of the business world.
The glorious success of various companies has been portrayed by the media as the sole doing of these talented, high-flying captains of industry.
As if by magic, with just one idea, they can reap massive profits; with a clever acquisition, the entire fortunes of a company can change dramatically. Their every word and every move makes newspaper headlines.
From historical heroes to business legends, we can see that people prefer "idols" as their ideal leaders.
The fact, however, is that a successful leader is not necessarily a genius. Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell was portrayed as a hero by the mass media.
He once said: "There are no secrets to success. It is the result of preparation, hard work, and learning from failure."
Considering that he was often portrayed as a steel-willed Desert Storm military commander, such words might seem like an anticlimax.
But, they also reveal just how monotonous is the work of leadership. Nothing stirring or romantic, as some may think. For that type of feeling, you're better off watching a James Bond movie.
No one-man show
To me, leadership is never a one-man show. A leader is responsible for giving direction, resolving issues, hunting for capable people, and motivating those under his charge. Ultimately, a leader earns respect for his administrative skills.
So, being the Chief Executive is a rather unglamorous and down-to-earth job when you really look at it closely. Any leader will never achieve anything if the aim is to pursue personal success and glory before achieving results in work.
Heroes are often made by historians years after they have left office; so, it's not an honour that you should pursue when you are in a leader's position.
If a good leader is recognised because of his administrative skills, we naturally think of the business sector where practicality prevails.
Business leaders work with figures on a daily basis. From the financial statements it is very easy to see whether a company is making a profit or a loss; and it's very difficult to muddle along to keep the board of directors or shareholders in the dark.
So is it logical that a talented businessperson could become a pragmatic leader in the political arena?
Undoubtedly, there is a pragmatic side in business administration, but there are also intrinsic differences between leadership in the political arena and in the business sector.
Business and political leaders
In my view, a talented businessperson, like anyone, can become a good political leader if he or she understands the logic of politics.
In the business sector, great importance is attached to company results. How a company policy is made is not so important as long as a healthy financial statement is presented when the annual results are announced. And when a company's share price goes up, the business leader's job is done.
The board of directors does not really care about whether the CEO makes decisions on his own, or likes to brainstorm with a team. In a nutshell, the CEO's job is to present good figures.
The political world is not the same. A politician must put words into action to live up to his promises. The process of policy making can never be ignored.
A politician has to keep persuading the public, public representatives and the mass media. To a political leader, "process" and "result" carry the same weight.
When it comes to business decisions, a set of clear standards is in place to assess the outcomes - that is the "profit" or "loss" as reflected in a company's financial statements.
In the political world, however, there is no clear set of standards to assess political decisions, and it is always the "process" that counts.
If the "process" is ignored, the community might not be able to form a consensus on government policies, and hence they cannot be implemented, however sound they may be. Even though the policy making may be efficient, the effectiveness is sacrificed.
It is rather abstract to manage politics. As a metropolis, Hong Kong embraces the free flow of information. The expression of diverse views is welcome.
We have a huge middle-class spectrum, which means that social interests are bound to be diverse and divided.
Consensus needed
It takes so much effort to form a consensus when formulating policies; and politicians must go out and liaise with the people to better understand their views as well as to communicate his own views to them.
So is political communication an equivalent of showmanship? When adopting pragmatic politics, should politicians reject this kind of tactic?
Former US President Abraham Lincoln was known as a man of strong principles. In regards to social justice and ending slavery, he allowed little or no compromise.
You might think he always wore a stern look and ignored channels in mass communication. In fact, he was just the opposite. He was actually a man of humour.
Lincoln was once asked why numerous jokes were used in his speeches. Can you guess what he answered?
He replied that he was always criticised for recounting these lively stories because they would impair his dignity as President. But he found that lively stories and vivid examples were much more impressive than the various tactics proposed by critics. So he paid no attention to the criticism.
Lincoln was the tallest President in US history, but he still loved wearing a tall hat in public, which made him stand around 7-feet tall. He was therefore always the focal point.
Though Lincoln loved showmanship, I believe nobody would deny that he was a sincere man with firm beliefs.
So how can a man of such high rank also show his sincerity? I think he should first refrain from assuming an air of superiority. He should go out into the street to reach out to the people, to know their needs and views.
Public policies are not only about charts, figures and dry scientific arguments - they are also about social beliefs and values. Political communication works to combine them.
If we know people's fears or what they may accept, we can make appropriate adjustments when formulating policies and therefore remove obstacles to implementation.
Showmanship
Politicians cannot rely solely on showmanship to accomplish anything. Politicians who are good communicators must also demonstrate their sincerity by getting down to work to achieve what they have promised.
Where does the "sincerity" come from? Salespeople also demonstrate a great enthusiasm when presenting their products, but do we know whether they are telling the truth or not?
This goes back to the question of the nature of politicians. I believe aspiring politicians must be people who hold onto virtues and values like justice, equality, freedom and democracy, and who have a mission to change society. This is what we call passion and sincerity.
Politicians must embrace values and beliefs and have a passion to commit themselves to lofty goals. But this also presents the risk of being shackled by ideology.
Politicians with no values or beliefs will become politicos who pursue only self-interest but maintain no principles, while those who place unyielding emphasis on political belief will become inflexible, closed-minded and will be eventually displaced by time. This is the greatest challenge to pragmatism.
Undeniably, politicians should present to their people a vision for the future, pointing to the way ahead. Politicians have a duty to tell people the situation in the real world and how can their vision be realised, rather than just what an ideal world should be.
Sir Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." I would say, conversely, "If I see nothing it is the burden of ideology on my shoulders that pushes me down."
Around the world, ideology still fascinates governments, politicians and people. It is like a charm or a panacea that makes politicians believe they can resolve all issues simply by following a certain doctrine when making policy, and then relying on propaganda to mobilise the masses to follow.
When ideological thinking replaces rational policy analysis and political judgment, it becomes the greatest enemy of political leadership.
Ideology universal
Ideology has a universal appeal to politicians. Here, I want to talk about the story of Tony Blair.
Despite facing trouble at home, Tony Blair is the longest-serving Labour Prime Minister in the UK since WWII. Do you know Tony Blair's key to success?
Clause IV of the British Labour Party's constitution on wholesale nationalisation was formulated to address the issue of exploitation during the early years of capitalism.
By the 1990s, the global economy had undergone fundamental changes. Tony Blair replaced the clause in 1995 with a new statement of aims and values, transforming the party into 'New Labour' and proposing the Third Way to win a landslide victory in the general election. He is now in his third term as PM.
Political leadership is all about looking into the future, not turning back to the past. To do that, we must cast off all ideological doctrines and adopt a pragmatic and rational attitude to map out policies that move with times.
Tony Blair rose to the challenge because he had the courage to break the shackles of the Labour Party's ideological doctrines on nationalisation, and pragmatically chart a new road for New Labour.
Another successful story is Deng Xiaoping, who is known as the chief designer of China's reform and opening-up policy. He advocated the Four Modernisations and the guideline of "practice is the sole criterion of truth" to free our country from ideological shackles so it could forge ahead with economic development, and embark on an era of reform and progress. All this was created by the immense power of pragmatism and rationalism.
For another example, let me say a few words about "positive non-interventionism", which has recently been the talk of the town.
Philip Haddon-Cave put forward this concept: the Government will make policies with a "positive" attitude by assessing the short-term benefits and long-term costs of any Government policies scientifically, and weighing up carefully the arguments for and against an act of intervention before coming to a decision.
He maintained that the Government should never make decisions on the basis of some kind of sloganised ideology. This is indeed a practical style of policy making.
'Laissez-faire' explained
He thus freed Hong Kong from the "laissez-faire" doctrine and redefined the Government's role in the social development of Hong Kong in the '70s and '80s.
Sir Philip Haddon-Cave's pragmatic approach proved to be a success, and it laid a strong foundation for Hong Kong to become an international city.
A number of financial secretaries who followed in his footsteps felt that the term "positive non-interventionism" was self-contradictory, so they suggested other terms. But the philosophy behind our prudent financial management has not changed in the past 30 years.
The ability to execute a policy is the key to successful, pragmatic leadership. While a major part of a politician's work is to communicate with the people, it is easy to talk big, but do little.
One who has the ability to deliver on his promises is one who understands well the relation between the major principles and specific details of each policy.
A successful political leader is on top of every detail. Some government policies are unsuccessful even though they present good concepts. It is because the administration fails to attend to the specific details in the implementation process. If that occurs quite often, people will gradually lose faith.
In doing business, you may earn all back in one single big deal to recover the losses of nine small deals, but this never happens in politics.
Even if you fail on one occasion, you will lose out. So, in launching a new policy, we must plan carefully and deliberate thoroughly on implementation details, and make all necessary revisions to ensure the policy objectives can be achieved. This is the mark of leadership.
If you embrace your own values and beliefs, have a passion to fulfil your mission, have sound judgment, and are willing to communicate with people, you possess half the qualities of a leader.
The rest is about your ability to cast off the shackles of ideological doctrines and focus on the execution of your work, which might be a bit monotonous sometimes.
Young students usually possess the first part of the equation; but the second part might be harder to master.
As I mentioned earlier, I was teased when I filled in my occupation as 'politician' on the nomination form for the Chief Executive election last year.
Some said that I was being arrogant by claiming to be a politician. You might not know that being a 'politico' is even more difficult than being a "politician". Why?
It is because politicians need to be able to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. Politicos are in an even worse situation. They must also have the ability to explain why it didn't happen.
What I have said today is all about what I believe to be the qualities of pragmatic leadership. It is also the goal that I will pursue.
As to what I can and can't accomplish, I will not explain it because I am not a politico. I will let you make that assessment.
This is a translation of the opening remarks by Chief Executive Donald Tsang at an Assembly of the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
