Insiders from the camp disclosed that in their meeting with Lam at Government House, Lam apologised for disappointing her pro-government allies.

“There was great grievance and some criticised Lam to her face,” a lawmaker who spoke on condition of anonymity said.

It was understood that after the massive clashes between protesters and police on Wednesday, Lam met and exchanged views with several party chiefs from the pro-establishment camp. But some members of the camp, who were left out, were unhappy that they did not get any advance notice of the abrupt U-turn.

New People’s Party chairwoman Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, for example, remained supportive of Lam on Friday afternoon.

Another lawmaker said that during the meeting with Lam on Saturday, at least one legislator became emotional and sounded tearful as she criticised Lam for mishandling the issue.

“Lam conceded that she was effectively banging her head against a wall when she decided to push ahead with the bill,” the source said.

At a press conference on Saturday, Lam, who refused to apologise to the public, was also pressed on whether she had ended up making the pro-establishment camp feel foolish for backing her so firmly before her U-turn.

As it happened: Carrie Lam backs down and ‘suspends’ Hong Kong extradition bill

But Lam sidestepped the question. “Our common goal is to keep Hong Kong from chaos, severe polarisation and violence,” she said.

“I am deeply grateful for their strong support throughout the process,” she said, adding that she hoped they would understand her decision.

Lam also hinted that she would engage the pro-establishment lawmakers earlier in future policymaking plans.

The lawmaker who spoke anonymously said Lam would be held to account in her future dealings with pro-establishment allies.

“This incident was damaging to her relationship with our camp,” he said.

The pro-establishment camp, whose business-sector members had initially been lukewarm about the bill, had rallied around Lam and the legislation, especially after Beijing and the liaison office canvassed for their support last month.

Wang Zhimin, director of Beijing’s liaison office in Hong Kong, has invited the pro-government lawmakers to attend a special meeting on Sunday morning. Wang is expected to explain why Beijing supported Lam’s decision to suspend the legislative process to the bill.

The pro-establishment politicians were primarily concerned that Lam’s U-turn could affect their efforts in preparing for the District Council Election in November and the Legislative Council elections in September next year. Sources in the camp said that the sudden suspension was a blow to their credibility and standing with voters, and would make their campaigns much harder.

How is the passage of Hong Kong extradition bill different from aborted Article 23 legislation in 2003?

On July 1, 2003, half a million people took to the streets to oppose the Hong Kong government’s national security Article 23 legislation, fearing their civil liberties would be compromised.

Despite securing support from some pro-establishment groups, the city’s top officials decided they did not had enough votes in the legislature and aborted the bill.

The pro-establishment parties that supported the legislation suffered embarrassing defeats at the district council polls held later that year, with commentators saying voters were punishing the politicians for backing a bill that threatened the city’s freedoms.

Lawmaker Leung Che-cheung, of the city’s largest pro-establishment party, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, said his party was now faced with the challenge of explaining to supporters the rationale for the U-turn.

“If the law was passed, it could have proved that the public’s worries were just fearmongering by the pan-democrats. Now, the uncertainties are unfavourable to us,” he said.

Thousands of protesters block city streets and prepare for worst as riot police gather nearby

Pro-establishment lawmakers also noted that it was not the first time they had been angered by Lam’s policies.

Earlier this year, her government twice withdrew a contentious plan to adjust cross-harbour tunnel tolls. In January, Lam deflected criticism from lawmakers over a rise in the age limit for elderly welfare payments from 60 to 65, pointing out it was the lawmakers, including the pro-establishment legislators, who had approved the change in last year’s budget.

A member of the camp from a business background said that in light of the latest developments, Lam must make strenuous effort to mend ties with her allies.

“Don’t think the pro-establishment camp is unable to mobilise thousands of people to take to the streets to oppose policies we dislike,” he warned.

But not all pro-Beijing politicians were disappointed with Lam.

Kennedy Wong Ying-ho, spokesman for an alliance that claimed to have collected 930,000 signatures from residents supporting the extradition bill, said he understood the chief executive’s decision to suspend the passage of the legislation. He declined however to answer if he thought the U-turn seemed too sudden.

Additional reporting by Tony Cheung