Carrie Lam has bought time with Hong Kong extradition bill withdrawal: now she must find the means of change

Hong Kong’s chief executive should sack half of her Exco to bring in change-makers, raise the possibility of widening voting rights, and start hacking away at policies that entrench the elite

Philip Bowring

Published: 9:30am, 8 Sep 2019

Why you can trust SCMP

It may have been too much to imagine that a government which cannot even reform a broken taxi system could have handled a major political issue. But immobility is the hallmark of a system where the entrenched become ever more so and Beijing fears change as dangerous.

As the conservative political philosopher Edmund Burke wrote 250 years ago: “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation”. So, instead of trusting that Hong Kong people have the common sense to understand their own interests and vote accordingly, the government remains locked in a stasis which angers and frustrates many.

That it has taken almost three months of constant turmoil to withdraw an extradition bill which should never have been introduced speaks of the immobility of the system. That no one has taken responsibility for the disaster is even more stunning.

Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor has been quoted as saying she would have liked to resign. If this is true, she should have the courage to follow her conscience and quit.

Is she so beholden to Beijing? If so, she has no business being leader of Hong Kong. If it is not true, it shows an unwillingness to take responsibility for the chaos caused both by the bill and her very belated responses to protests.

Whatever happens now, the reputation of Hong Kong, particularly among foreign, and probably also mainland, businesses has been damaged. All have seen that, for weeks, policy has appeared to be made by the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office and implemented by a police force prone to overreaction and seeing itself as the righteous punisher of dissent, rather than simply keeper of public order (including the freedom of assembly).

Lam has supposedly also been advised by the Executive Council she appoints. But how could she or anyone expect independent, let alone original, advice from most of this group? It is worth recalling that the non-official members of this group consist of the offspring of tycoons, several former civil servants, representatives of business groups, stalwart Beijing loyalists, a once pro-democracy turncoat and the representative of the feudal, patriarchal Heung Yee Kuk.

It would be hard to conjure up a group more opposed to change, more determined to protect their memberships of prestigious but powerless mainland bodies, rather than try to reflect the balance of local opinion. A positive move would be for Lam to sack half of these people and bring in new blood.

Advertisements in local newspapers placed by Hong Kong’s top tycoon Li Ka-shing call for an end to the protest-related violence. Photo: SCMP

Meanwhile, one could even feel a pang of sympathy for the top tycoons wheeled out to condemn the protests, even as they may well remain quietly contemptuous of the chief executive and fearful of Beijing’s inroads into Hong Kong policies. They surely know that their views are meaningless to a population, the young in particular, resentful of their extraordinary wealth built on ever-rising property prices partly resulting from government policies.

The stranglehold of a few giant groups over housing, utilities and retail is surely a contributing factor in the unrest. That will not go away until policies and income distribution change.

But how can they in the current political system? The “functional constituency” system is fundamentally flawed, but many seats could at least have a much wider electoral base, as under the last governor Chris Patten’s 1994 reform – opposed by vested interests and then reversed after 1997.

Does Marxist Beijing really believe that collusion with oligopoly capital improves its standing among Hong Kong people? Or are they assumed to be some dumb lumpenproletariat? Just raising the possibility of widening the franchise would help.

Explained: how Hong Kong’s legislative candidates are voted in

So, too, would some recognition by Lam and her gang that the use of legal tricks to deprive popularly elected pro-democracy representatives of their seats will do nothing but annoy those who voted for them and radicalise others.

The whole process has also brought some suspicion to bear on a judicial system which, to many, seems increasingly willing to bow to the wishes of the executive. That would scarcely be a surprise, given Beijing’s opposition to the concept of a judiciary independent of the executive.

Naturally, Beijing is upset about the separatist ideas of a few, at the appearance of colonial-era flags at demonstrations and the general rise of localist sentiment. But much of this is simply a natural reaction to the constant demands for greater “patriotism”, the importance of closer integration with the mainland, the glorious opportunities of being part of the Greater Bay Area, and the like. The subtext is an attack on Hong Kong’s specific identity and, more generally, of its Cantonese one.

The bill’s withdrawal may buy the government some time and divide radicals from the majority of protesters. But it will not be much time unless the government can find Burke’s “means of change”.

Philip Bowring is a Hong Kong-based journalist and commentator

Post