Pro-govt Side Sends Mixed Signs On Bill Withdrawal

Mixed signals continue to emerge from pro-government figures about how the government should respond to protesters' demands, with different opinions surfacing – even as to whether the Carrie Lam administration should come out and say extradition law proposals have been withdrawn.

Although the government has suspended the bill, protesters want Lam to declare it has been completely withdrawn, warning a suspension means it could be quickly reactivated.

While Exco member Regina Ip said on Monday that there is no need to announce a full withdrawal, a colleague on the advisory body, Jeffrey Lam, said he was not against such a move.

Ip said the difference between a "suspension" and a "withdrawal" is just a matter of wording, and changing the word used would not pacify protesters and would only trigger a new round of demands.

But Lam, who is also a Business and Professionals Alliance (BPA) lawmaker, said it makes no difference to him if the bill is suspended or withdrawn.

His party had openly called for changes to the government bill after coming under pressure from the business sector.

The leader of the business-friendly Liberal Party, Felix Chung, was more forthright and demanded a complete withdrawal of the bill. He didn't pull any punches on this, saying the government “shouldn’t be that stubborn”.

Ip, while rejecting calls for a withdrawal, did caution that the government should be more careful in future. She said it should follow “normal procedures” when it handles other legal amendments or policy initiatives – including launching a three-month public consultation before submitting proposals to Legco.

The government had only conducted a 20-day consultation on the extradition bill.

The pro-government side has also failed to present a united stance over protesters' demands for a probe into police action on June 12, when clashes took place between officers and demonstrators.