Letters | Hong Kong’s Carrie Lam let down scarred city with policy address: will she have another go at healing it?

The chief executive’s policy address had a few good bits, such as welfare initiatives, but was criticised with good reason by lawmakers of all stripes and the media

Reading Time:2 minutes

Chief Executive Carrie Lam leaves the Legislative Council chamber on October 16 without presenting her policy address after opposition lawmakers disrupt proceedings. The address was later delivered via video. Photo: Reuters

Published: 7:25am, 29 Oct 2019Updated: 7:25am, 29 Oct 2019

The ongoing riots in Hong Kong have sparked off a debate, dividing our community and spreading tension in the city. Citizens are on tenterhooks even strolling down the streets, not knowing if they would get caught up in violent clashes. People from all around the world have also voiced concerns about the protracted civil unrest, as the events threaten universal notions of human rights and democracy.

Therefore, everyone had been on the edge of their seats to see what Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor had to offer in her third policy address, hoping she would reach out to protesters by responding to the remaining four of their five demands. However, it turned out that Lam was still condemning the protesters for their acts. By missing the boat on healing the social divide, she ended up being criticised by both the opposition and pro-establishment camps.

It can’t be denied that Lam did a decent job handling aspects such as education and welfare in the address. The annual student grants and improvements in Comprehensive Social Security Assistance are policy initiatives people are pleased with.

But beyond that, the criticism of Lam’s efforts from politicians and the press was fair. Lam chose to hide behind television screens for her policy address, which was also the first time ever that the Hong Kong chief executive did not present the address in the Legislative Council chamber.

This not only showed that she was too timid to face the pro-democracy lawmakers’ questions, but also that she was insincere about building a bridge between the government and the protesters.