Advertisement
Advertisement
Letters | Carrie Lam is talking to Hong Kong people, but is she listening?
- The chief executive’s September 26 dialogue session restricted the number of participants and allowed her to choose not to answer. Are Carrie Lam and her officials sincere about tackling Hong Kong’s problems?
On September 26, a total of 110 days after the extradition protests began, Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor held a community dialogue session, to try to communicate with different people in Hong Kong, or rather, just 150 Hongkongers.
Hongkongers have made their demands clear since June 9, or even before. Since then, as the government ignored these demands, the protests have become more aggressive.
Over the last 100-odd days, the people of Hong Kong chanted slogans, sang songs they wrote themselves (such as Glory to Hong Kong ), volunteered medical care, started hunger strikes, formed human chains, started petition campaigns, organised general strikes, obstructed public transport services, launched boycotts against pro-Beijing shops and organisations, created memes mocking the police and the government, set up Lennon Walls in various districts and neighbourhoods in Hong Kong, and so on.
It’s been almost four months, and Lam has only withdrawn the bill, but not met the remaining four demands. Her actions are like borrowing HK$100 (US$13) from a bank with interest of HK$400 to be paid after four months. Returning only HK$100 means that the interest owed has not been paid.
She also set up a community dialogue on September 26, in which a mere random 150 out of 7.5 million Hong Kong people (0.002 per cent) could participate; worse, each person was given a maximum of only three minutes to ask a question which Lam could choose not to respond to. And even when she did respond, the responses were not good enough or even acceptable for most Hong Kong people.
So, are Lam and her team sincere about solving the problems in Hong Kong? It is like she is trying to pick up a piping hot bowl of water without gloves. It is not impossible but, I assure you, it is not easy.
Magnus Chan, Tsuen Wan
Lam is applying the rule of law – unevenly
The rule of law applies not only to young protesters who engage in acts of violence, but also to the police.
When the police use excessive force, refuse to identify themselves while on duty, or harass members of the press for harassment’s sake, they have infringed the laws that govern their behaviour on the job and must face the consequences.
In Lam’s government, “the rule of law” is unevenly and unfairly applied. When she uses the phrase “the rule of law”, does she really understand what she is saying?
Gloria Fung, Ontario
Post