estates. A lot of lies were spread, telling new arrivals from the mainland that if the bill was passed, they would be grabbed by mainland law enforcers overnight without seeing their lawyer,” she said. “The government was completely ineffective, and lost control of the narrative.”
She was particularly annoyed that senior officials had failed to respond to criticism of the bill in the international media. Instead, Exco members like herself and others had to step up. Ip asked: “What kind of government declines to speak to the foreign media, given the magnitude of the international attention the bill provoked?”
In hindsight, Ip agreed that the government should have allowed a longer public consultation period and narrowed the scope of the bill to cover murder cases only. “We were persuaded by the chief executive that we wanted to deal with the Taiwan case,” she said, adding that she did not believe she had done anything wrong in giving her support to the bill then. “How to control the narrative, how to mount counterpublicity and whether to put the brakes on the bill were for the chief executive to decide. We did our part by giving advice.”
Ahead of the June 9 march, the government made a second round of amendments to the bill. It further tightened the scope of extraditable crimes and introduced human rights safeguards for ad hoc agreements with jurisdictions that request extradition. Major business groups and political parties welcomed these changes, but critics wanted the safeguards written into the law to make them legally binding.
Business and Professionals Alliance lawmaker Priscilla Leung Meifun, a member of the Basic Law Committee, said: “I called an official and asked the administration to make a further concession by writing the human rights safeguards into the law, but I got cold-shouldered.”
On June 9, the third extradition bill march was a massive procession that went on until late at night. At 11.09pm, before the protest organizers wrapped up, the government issued a statement making it clear that nothing was about to change. It said Legco would resume debating the bill on June 12 as scheduled.
A senior civil servant said he and his peers were taken aback, because that statement just made matters worse. “What the government did went against our common sense. We are not trained that way.” The pro-establishment camp was shocked too. A Beijing-friendly lawmaker said: “I supported the bill, but after reading the statement, I seriously considered not casting my vote. The government’s attitude truly crossed the line.”
Lam’s change of heart came only after protesters besieged the Legco complex on June 12 to prevent lawmakers from entering to begin scrutinizing the bill. Violent clashes broke out, and social media was soon awash with images of bloodied protesters and police officers.
On June 15, a grim-faced Lam announced that the bill would be suspended. She admitted shortcomings in her government, expressed sorrow and regret for causing inconvenience and disputes in society, and promised to be humble, but made no apology.
The next day, an estimated 2 million people thronged the streets, condemning Lam and demanding more than the withdrawal of the extradition bill. Now they also wanted an inquiry into alleged police brutality, an end to referring to the June 12 protest as a riot, amnesty for those arrested during the protest, and universal suffrage. The turnout was a new record for Hong Kong.
Lam issued a written apology on the same day. On June 18, she made a formal apology in person, but rejected all the other demands. Lam then retreated from public view until June 27. She canceled the weekly Exco meeting two weeks in a row, and called off a public forum related to district council elections in November.
Ronny Tong Ka-wah, another of Lam’s advisers, recalled that she teared up during urgent Exco meetings after the two massive protests. “I didn’t take it as a sign of weakness. That showed she had feelings,” he said.
But the old impassive Lam returned after July 1, the day hundreds of black-clad protesters stormed and vandalized the Legco complex. At a 4am press conference, Lam said she was outraged and called on the community to condemn the violence and vandalism. That day marked her second anniversary as city leader.
Too much for a bureaucrat to handle
A source close to the administration said Lam missed the opportunity to stem the crisis when she dismissed advice to withdraw the bill after the second mass protest, and to ask the police chief to stop referring to the June 12 protest as a riot.
It took almost three months more before Lam finally announced on September 4 that the bill would be withdrawn, a move which sources said required the approval of President Xi Jinping.
Behind the scenes, Lam appeared to distance herself from Beijing, hinting that she had limited power and that her hands were tied. In a leaked transcript of a private gathering held in August, Lam said she had little choice, given that the massive backlash against the bill had elevated the issue to a national level problem, and “a sort of sovereignty and security level” matter. Once that happened, the “political room for maneuvering is very, very, very limited,” she was recorded as saying to a group of business leaders.
Lam rejected speculation that she herself, or someone from the administration, had deliberately leaked the recording in order to shift the blame to Beijing. She was also reported to have said at the same gathering that she would have quit if she had the choice. But again Lam denied saying so. “I have not given myself the choice of taking an easier path, and that is, to leave,” she said in a statement after the leaked recording emerged.
Lawmaker Ip revealed that, at one point, she and other Exco members had considered resigning en masse, but Lam had stopped them. “The chief executive said we were on the periphery, merely giving advice, meaning if anyone had to be held accountable, Exco members would not be the first,” Ip said. Political scientist Ma Ngok, of Chinese University, said: “In other countries, the leader and officials would have stepped down if such a large number marched on the streets.”
Two sources close to the government said Lam’s troubled tenure exposed the weakness of a leader lacking global political exposure and the experience of elections. “During most of her career, Lam was a bureaucrat tackling domestic issues,” said one. “If she could have understood the political headwinds of the US-China tensions and seen how the bill could get entangled in that, she would have thought twice from day one.” The other said: “Lam and the absolute majority of ministers are former civil servants who lack experience in elections. That’s why they underestimate negative public sentiments.”
New year, and a pandemic takes over
The new year brought Lam unexpected respite from the protests, only because of the arrival of the deadly coronavirus pandemic. She now led the administration’s efforts in combating the biggest public health crisis in years. Health professionals went on strike when Lam refused to seal Hong Kong’s border with the mainland, but she introduced a series of bolder-than-expected measures to deal with the outbreak.
To slow the spread of the coronavirus, Hongkongers had to get used to social-distancing measures that include a ban on public gatherings of more than four people and the temporary closure of places of worship, pubs, cinemas, spas and massage parlors. Restaurants were told to operate at half capacity and employers were asked to let staff work from home. The government announced a total relief package of HK$287.5 billion (US$37.1 billion) in cash handouts, tax breaks and a raft of subsidies aimed at easing the financial burden on residents and businesses.
While the Covid-19 outbreak ravaged countries worldwide, including in the US and Europe, by late April Hong Kong managed to keep the coronavirus under control. New infections were in single-digits and as of April 24, it recorded 1,035 cases and
