The sight of Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor exchanging views with citizens face to face has not been witnessed for so long that it justifiably made headline news earlier this week. Even though the occasion was largely confined to those hand-picked by her administration, it was arguably better than having no dialogue at all. With society still deeply divided in the wake of Lam’s unpopular extradition bill and the ensuing national security law imposed by Beijing, it is still incumbent upon her as Hong Kong leader to reach out to a wider spectrum of society. The chief executive has held dozens of consultations in different formats on her policy address since July, but Sunday’s session was the first involving the public. It was also the first in almost two years since her town hall meeting at the height of the social unrest in 2019. Carrie Lam questions value of political opposition that doesn’t contest elections The return of direct public engagement shows society is stabilising following the enactment of the national security law last summer. But the highly orchestrated event also raised questions over public access and how representative it was. Most of the 100-odd participants were district figures chosen by the Home Affairs Department, and the remainder drawn by a university polling unit. About half attended the session at the Xiqu Centre in the West Kowloon Cultural District and others joined online. The dialogue two years ago failed to calm the unrest. On that occasion, Lam was apparently stranded at the Causeway Bay venue because of chaos outside. That probably explains the cautious approach this time when she was questioned on a wide range of subjects, including the consumption voucher system, land and housing, arts and culture, district development, transport, national education, ethnic minorities and cross-boundary students. No time for Hong Kong by-elections to fill vacated district council seats: Carrie Lam Without doubt these are issues of public concern. But, even if the government has no intention of shunning dissenting views, the dominance of establishment figures means such opinions may not be heard. There is a difference between a mere public relations exercise and genuine consultation. In any case, those across the political spectrum should be given the same access as long as their views are expressed rationally and within the law.