Carrie Lam has done all she can to meet the five demands. Protesters must know their limits

Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor’s announcement on September 4 to formally withdraw the rendition bill marks the Hong Kong government’s third failed attempt to implement a measure aimed at promoting national interests or a stronger connection with mainland China.

In July 2003, then chief executive Tung Chee-hwa announced his decision to postpone the enactment of the national security bill after a putative half a million people took to the streets to voice their objections.

In September 2012, then chief executive Leung Chun-ying announced that schools would not be required to implement a new Moral and National Education plan after large numbers of protesters besieged the government headquarters for 10 days.

Far from being a suppressor of the masses, the government has now established a solid record of retreating in the face of mass demonstrations. Yet, in the present conflict, the past is not prologue. Lam had announced on June 15 she would delay the extradition bill, in the same way Tung and Leung did in 2003 and 2012, but the masses did not retreat and kept coming back with greater ferocity.

Although the protesters keep pressing Lam to agree to all their five demands, the government has truly gone as far as it can to respond to them. The withdrawal demand has been met, albeit belatedly.

Regarding the demand for an independent commission of inquiry, it has been never been entirely clear what exactly the commission is supposed to investigate, as different ideas for its purpose and ambit have been floated.

If the protesters’ object is to investigate alleged police misconduct during protests, the government has already responded by boosting the membership of the statutory Independent Police Complaints Council and including respected members of the legal profession and the civil service. In addition, a high-powered panel of international experts – from Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada – has been set up to provide oversight to the investigation.

The government could not have done more to make the oversight mechanism more professional and independent.

Naturally, if the protesters’ object is purely to seek vengeance – “an eye for an eye,” as some chanted after a young woman was allegedly injured in the eye by police during a protest – no measures to strengthen the independence and professionalism of the oversight mechanism would satisfy them.

But the politics of hate and retribution is the last thing our society should obsess about if we truly wish to achieve reconciliation.

As for the demand not to describe the protest on June 12 and subsequent ones as riots, a categorisation that could attract custodial sentences of up to 10 years, the answer is that the chief executive plainly does not have the power to give such a wholesale exemption.

Under the Basic Law, the Department of Justice “shall control criminal prosecutions, free from any interference”, a principle reaffirmed by the Court of First Instance when it rejected former civil servant Kwok Cheuk-kin’s application for a judicial review of the secretary for justice’s decision not to prosecute former chief executive Leung and legislator Holden Chow Ho-ding for various alleged criminal offences.

Will those in the middle please step forward to save Hong Kong

Nor does the chief executive have any power to grant a blanket amnesty, as demanded by the protesters. Any capitulation to such demands would engender severe, long-term consequences for the rule of law in Hong Kong.

The granting of universal suffrage is touted by many as a remedy for the present conflict, on the grounds that broader public participation in the election of the chief executive and all legislative councillors would strengthen the government’s responsiveness to the public in tackling our city’s problems.

However, leaving aside more philosophical questions about whether a democratic system is the most effective cure for our problems, universal suffrage is simply not something that will happen because Lam says so.

The road to universal suffrage is riddled with complex procedures laid down in the Basic Law and, in Hong Kong’s experience, littered with highly charged and divisive debates. A Beijing-backed electoral reform package was vetoed by the Legislative Council in June 2015 after a prolonged societal consultation.

In stark contrast to previous mass protests against China-related proposals, this time, the protesters did not go away after the government announced a postponement.

On the contrary, while the numbers of peaceful protesters have dwindled, the hard-core element has returned on a weekly basis (and at times a nightly basis outside police stations) with escalating violence and increasingly provocative taunts at China’s sovereignty.

The world watches but will it stand with Hong Kong protesters?

The forces driving the widespread upheaval are complex. We have young protesters imagining themselves as agents of change, as in the documentary Winter on Fire: Ukraine’s Fight for Freedom. Some are led by pro-independence ringleaders promoting a nebulous concept of self-determination or self-rule.

The movement has been joined by many sympathisers from all walks of life, who are fed up with the government’s poor performance in tackling Hong Kong’s hydra-headed sociopolitical and economic problems through the years.

It will take many more years and decisive action by the government to implement root-and-branch reform and address these concerns. As a start, our leader needs to talk directly with the people, and be seen to be hearing their voices. Lam has pledged to start doing so. But if violence persists, driven by whatever causes, the government would have no option but to take firm action in accordance with the rule of law.

Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee is a lawmaker and chairwoman of the New People’s Party