By Teh Su Ching

HONG KONG leader Donald Tsang's star appears to have dimmed.

A poll conducted by Hong Kong University three weeks after the Chief Executive delivered his annual policy address found his popularity slipping just below 50 per cent.

The low rating reminded many people of Mr Tsang's unpopular predecessor Tung Chee Hwa, who was forced to step down midway through his second term in March 2005.

The poll finding came as a bit of a surprise since Mr Tsang's policy address last month received an approval rating of 53 per cent.

But a few storms that Mr Tsang ran into recently could shed some light on this.

It started with the light-bulb affair.

In his policy address on Oct 14, Mr Tsang announced that the government would give each household a HK$100 (S$18) voucher in February to buy energy-saving light bulbs, as part of a wider plan towards using greener and more sustainable forms of energy.

But as Hong Kong's two major electricity companies would be allowed to charge about 55 HK cents???more for each kilowatt-hour of electricity, the consumers would actually be the people paying for the green effort.

This perceived collusion between government and business was followed soon after by newspaper reports that the father-in-law of Mr Tsang's son was a leading distributor of energy-saving light bulbs and would therefore stand to benefit from the new green policy.

The media revelations immediately sparked allegations of conflict of interest, as well as criticism of the government for treating the people like fools.

Even before this storm could blow over, reports said that the wife of Mr Tsang's younger brother had used the Chief Executive's status without his knowledge to recover 60 per cent of an investment she had made in Lehman Minibonds. She allegedly received her compensation before other investors did.

As public outrage grew, even the normally politically neutral head of the Catholic Church in Hong Kong publicly urged Mr Tsang, a Roman Catholic, not to further alienate the people who handed him a second term in 2007.

All this led political commentator Michael Chugani to describe Mr Tsang as a victim of Hong Kong's freedoms.

Hong Kong people, he said, 'have all the freedoms of democracy without actual democracy. They can use, or abuse, democracy's freedoms without the restraint that democracy demands'.

To Mr Chugani, Mr Tsang has become a scapegoat for problems beyond his control, and Hong Kongers are only too happy to use him as an outlet for venting their frustrations.

It is easy to match the leader's hapless smile and receding hairline to a wide range of problems currently facing the Special Administrative Region: from rocketing prices in a property bubble that has yet to burst, to a ravaged financial services sector in a market the government is still reluctant to regulate.

Perhaps none of these problems was his fault. But his initial sanguine attitude was mistaken for indifference. As his troubles mounted, he became defensive, which did more damage to his public image.

When the light-bulb scandal first surfaced, Mr Tsang professed not to have lost sleep over it. Then came the Minibonds reports alleging favouritism, which fanned public discontent.

A Democratic Party lawmaker went as far as to suggest on a radio talk show that Mr Tsang could be forced to step down if the Legislative Council were to veto his policy address.

The Chief Executive's response was to lash out at the media for leading what he called a 'groundless smear campaign'.

'The open, transparent and consistent government policies were twisted to become an idea for personal gain,' he said.

'When my relative went to negotiate with the bank, I was totally in the dark.'

Pleading ignorance might have been the only defence available to Mr Tsang in the face of tabloid reports that have very often been irresponsible.

But then again, 'in the dark' is not a place that a leader should find himself in.

This article was first published in The Straits Times.

For more The Straits Times stories, click here.