Opinion | Carrie Lam’s arrogance and the ineffectiveness of her advisers brought her to a political precipice

In a television interview after the biggest protest march in Hong Kong’s history, Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor surprisingly shed a few tears, but unsurprisingly they were for herself. Those self-serving tears only confirm why she is in this predicament in the first place. Those tears were not just a bit rich, they were almost taunting to those – both protesters and police officers – who were out on the streets.

Lam’s arrogance is epic and has made her tone-deaf, blind and stubborn, so much so that she has managed to outdo her predecessors Tung Chee-hwa and Leung Chun-ying in creating social rift and pushing public anger over the point of no return in record time.

In fact, Lam has even arrogantly dismissed her “arrogance”. Less than three months ago, Lam put on an over two-hour-long press conference at which she and her team touched on three separately contentious topics all in one go: the interim report of the commission of inquiry into the construction work at and near Hung Hom station under the Sha Tin-Central rail link, the government’s decision to shelve its toll adjustment proposal for traffic rationalisation between the three road harbour crossings, and the proposed amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance.

But it was a lost art for her. She was dismissive of the million people who took to the streets on June 9, believing that releasing a government statement late that night would suffice. The eventual suspension of the bill over the weekend – and her apology – came too late to win her much goodwill.

In her election manifesto, Lam wrote that her “new style of governance” includes public participation and discussion so that “during the formulation of policies we encourage discussion and listen. We should canvass opinions from all sectors of society, especially relevant stakeholders, those who work on the front line and the youth, with a view to seeking consensus in society.”