Advertisement
Opinion | At long last, Carrie Lam has heeded one call from Hong Kong protesters: it’s not much, but it’s a start
- After three months of sometimes violent protests, the government has relented by withdrawing the extradition bill, but more must be done
- End the silence on alleged police abuses, put universal suffrage back on the agenda, and examine why so many young people are directing their anger at Beijing
Reading Time:4 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
The calls for Hong Kong’s extradition bill to be withdrawn have finally been answered, after three months of protests, strikes and violent clashes which have seen the city plunged into chaos. To say that the chief executive’s belated and somewhat begrudging concession is too little, too late is an understatement.
Advertisement
It is not surprising that Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet Ngor’s decision to meet the first of the protesters’ demands – withdrawal of the bill – has been greeted with scepticism. It was swiftly dismissed by protesters and democrat lawmakers. Even some in the pro-establishment camp said it is not sufficient.
The protests will continue. An airport demonstration is planned for tomorrow and the Civil Human Rights Front intends to hold another mass procession. Some of the protesters said Lam’s concession shows the combination of large-scale peaceful protests and extreme action by a minority is working. Clearly there is more work to be done.
But Lam’s decision to withdraw the bill could mark a turning point. It is the first time she has granted any of the protesters’ five demands. Even last week, as the troubles escalated, Lam was refusing to give in.
There was much speculation that Lam had been forbidden by Beijing to withdraw the bill. Bernard Chan, a key adviser to Lam, wrote in this newspaper on August 16 that neither the Hong Kong nor national government would back down. He said: “The central government has made it clear as a matter of principle that no administration can make concessions in the face of violent street demonstrations. This is a matter of constitutional order, and there cannot be any flexibility on this.”
Advertisement
Advertisement