Source:
https://scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3015513/writing-was-wall-hong-kongs-extradition-bill-so-why-did-carrie-lams Comment
The writing was on the wall for Hong Kong’s extradition bill, so why did Carrie Lam’s cabinet fail to read it?
- With their complete lack of understanding of public sentiment on the controversial extradition bill, the privileged members of the Executive Council have let down Carrie Lam, and possibly done serious damage to ‘one country, two systems’
A woman writes a message next to anti-extradition notes taped to a wall near the Legislative Council in Hong Kong. Executive councillors’ misreading of public opinion might have hurt the Carrie Lam administration and “one country, two systems”. Photo: EPA-EFE
The Executive Council – the Hong Kong chief executive’s de facto cabinet – has thoroughly failed Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor. The political disaster that was the extradition bill is proof of its dysfunction. And while Lam is the one who is ultimately responsible for the failures of her government, she is no lone ranger.
Lam’s teammates – not just Secretary for Security John Lee Ka-chiu and Secretary for Justice Teresa Cheng Yeuk-wah, but others – must shoulder most of the blame.
Two non-official members of the Executive Council had the gall to go on air; one said that “I think we, in Exco, are also responsible.” You think? As a paid adviser to the chief executive, do you merely “think” you might have failed to do your job? This Exco member explained that she “really thought at that time 99.9 per cent of Hongkongers would not be affected by the bill.”
One, of course, does not need to be affected by the bill to have very strong feelings against it. But the Exco member’s failure to prevent the chief executive from seeking to push through the bill affects 99.9 per cent of Hongkongers.
The other Exco member revealed that he had expected Lam to bow during her apology; well, who cares what he expects? The bigger question is whether he had advised Lam to consider public sentiment or urged her to stand firm, as others did. But both Exco members admitted they had underestimated the negative public reaction to the bill.
Perhaps they should be thanked for their honesty, but it is flabbergasting to see how shameless they are about their complete failure in office. Are all of Lam’s teammates like them? It’s little wonder, then, that no one stopped her from pushing ahead with something as politically suicidal as the extradition bill.
Worse, many Exco members are or have been deputies to the National People’s Congress, or members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. Although Exco has evolved since colonial times, its members remain people with privilege and influence. Their views carry significantly more weight than those of regular citizens. They also have Beijing’s ear.
When people with their access to the corridors of power inaccurately assess matters related to Hong Kong, it is detrimental, especially with regard to Beijing-Hong Kong relations, and therefore inexcusable.
We know these people don’t need the money, but nonetheless they are being paid from the public purse to perform a function: to assist the chief executive in policymaking. They all had the benefit of witnessing the disastrous push to enact Article 23 national security legislation in 2003; some actually played roles in that fiasco.
Yet, none quit Exco to raise the alarm this time, as James Tien Pei-chun did over Article 23 then. The bare minimum they could have done was to warn the chief executive about what the extradition bill was becoming. Instead, they seemed content to sit and let the administration reach the point of no return, where irreparable damage might have been done to governance, society and “one country, two systems”.
A number of current Exco members are legislative councillors, and more than one are also district councillors. Between them, they represent the different pro-establishment political parties.
It is unfathomable that all of them, and the parties they represent, did not have their fingers on the public pulse. Failing to reflect public sentiment is a dereliction of duty, as members of both the executive and legislative councils.
If the chief executive is guilty of arrogance, it is hardly a character flaw that is unique to her. Evidently, the disconnect with the public is a disease that has infected the city’s politically privileged.
This, then, may be the only good that has come out of the political disaster: it has revealed the real problems with the governance of Hong Kong. When the Executive Council becomes an echo chamber, it hurts ordinary Hongkongers, the chief executive, and leaders in Beijing.
Alice Wu is a political consultant and a former associate director of the Asia Pacific Media Network at UCLA