Letters | As protests continue, Hong Kong can’t wait another three months for Carrie Lam’s next decision

The agility of the protesters’ communication mechanisms are in sharp contrast to the chief executive’s seeming lethargy. Carrie Lam’s preference for closed-door meetings does not inspire trust

Reading Time:2 minutes

Chief Executive Carrie Lam speaks at a press conference on September 3. Photo: AFP

Published: 7:40am, 21 Sep 2019Updated: 7:40am, 21 Sep 2019

Chief Executive Carrie Lam Yuet-ngor’s recent decision to formally withdraw the extradition bill has had many people saying it is too little too late. Her announcement of the withdrawal, after insisting over the last three months that suspension was enough, begs the question, “Why has it taken this long?” Her seeming lack of urgency in decision-making and dribble of press conferences exemplify the government’s problematic handling of the crisis.

Meanwhile, the “be water” demonstrations have varied in style, approach and degree of violence, and drawn participants from across Hong Kong society. The protesters rely on communication apps and real-time information to plan and execute these events. Communication has been fast and frequent internally and externally; their five demands of the government were clear from the outset.

In contrast, Lam has held a handful of press conferences and made few public appearances, choosing to spend her time in closed-door meetings with various local groups, mainly from the business sector. She showed a preference for such closed-door meetings earlier when she offered to meet student union leaders from local universities at the start of this crisis, an offer they rejected. This has proved to be smart – the recently leaked recording of one of Lam’s closed-door meetings and her subsequent distancing from much of what she said in that recording raises questions about what she is trying to achieve in these sessions and about her integrity.

When she does meet the media, Lam condemns the violence and halfheartedly answers questions by repeating prepared answers. When questions become too much, she simply retreats behind closed doors again.

It took Lam three months to directly address protesters’ five demands by finally conceding to only one of them. However, she denied having changed her mind and said she made the decision to resolve the crisis after taking on the opinions of the groups she met. Her reluctance to demonstrate public remorse or to admit to changing tack can only be put down to wanting to save face.