Leung Chun-ying's game of patience was the right strategy against Occupy

One enduring question about the Occupy movement concerns how it was handled. Many fault the government for not listening to or misjudging public sentiment, but the reality shows that the administration should be credited for a job well done.

The fact we have just enjoyed a relatively peaceful Christmas, with our economy intact, employment stable, and with tourists still flowing in, shows what a close shave it was. Had the situation been bungled, it would have definitely been "the nightmare before Christmas".

Probably the most difficult part in handling Occupy was that it was a headless monster. There was no visible leadership, nor was there a focused demand. Was it about a retraction of the National People's Congress decision on the 2017 chief executive election or the downfall of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying? Was it about real universal suffrage, or even independence?

Matters were complicated by the unexpected outpouring of support for protesters, plus a vocal and largely anti-government media. Worse, the public reaction to standard procedures to prevent rioting led to an explosive backlash against the administration.

One more wrong move could have led to a massive blowout, a Frankenstein monster no longer in the control of its own creator - or, worse still, intervention by the People's Liberation Army.

During the prolonged stand-off, nobody really knew what to do. Nothing seemed to work: the dialogue between the administration and student leaders started well and then fizzled out; Robert Chow Yung's anti-Occupy signature campaign of 1.8 million got nowhere; fightbacks by anti-Occupy demonstrators were met with a media backlash. When several policemen seemingly took matters into their own hands, it seemed that we'd hit rock bottom.