✔ 最佳答案
Indeed this is a very interesting topic to investigate, so I guess we should analyze the pros and cons, and possible intentions of using sophisticated terminology in their speech.
When government officials make their statements, their speeches almost ten out of ten are screened by professionals who look for any conflict of interests or contradicting elements or inappropriate terms. So first of all, government officials may be oblivious of the tone their statements may be. Secondly, the English culture in Hong Kong's government may have been deeply rooted for so many decades that people would find it not professional to do otherwise. Other than this, the chiefs of heads in Hong Kong do come from a certain level of quality education in which English was predominant when they were at these institutes. Therefore their English proficiencies should be at a certain level at which they are confident in using English for public speeches.
On CNN, analyst and specialists talk in a lighter tone mainly because when events occur, they are given very little time to prepare for a very professional – wordy speech. They also do not have the absolute need to make their speeches look perfect because they are broadcasted as subject matter experts to explain about already difficult ideas, events or issues. Making it any more complicated would only cause that particular channel to loose its competitiveness with other channels as no one would choose to watch their broadcasts.
The cons are huge as they can lead to huge misconception of ideas expressed by these elite figures in the society, especially those in the government. I hardly see a pro for this, as their ability and capacity to use professional English does not correlate with their performances at work. Therefore I see it purely as an act of professional culture that has been simmered into the public office through decades of being an English crown colony.