https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/polit...-through-china
"Lam’s credibility and relations with allies would be difficult to repair, never mind with others in society, he said. “In other countries, the leader and officials would have stepped down already if such a large number of people marched on the streets.”
While she has stayed away from the public eye since June 18 and kept to her official residence, Government House, Lam did hold several closed-door meetings. At one of them, she was quoted as saying: “Many people thought I died, but I won’t die.”
That was the top girl speaking. ■"
Last edited by dynamco; 29-06-2019 at 03:53 PM.
In 2004 but the subject was toxic at the next election and was certainly one of the factors in the change of executive and similarly in the UK. Even now it is affecting the US democratic nominations.
I really am not sure what your point is? Are you suggesting
- Massive protests led to a policy becoming toxic
- Previous support of the toxic policy made later election results much worse for the incumbent resulting in a change of the Executive
- The subject is still toxic today
The mass protests although did not change the immediate actions of government their legacy assisted in change of the executive branch of government. Is that what you are advocating? We wait a while and a PanDem will become CE?
Indeed, even the expos are being cut short:
https://twitter.com/HongKongFP/statu...09048904466432
So let me get this straight.
Anti-war protests happen. Bush pushed on and a brutal war followed. War crimes were committed and thousands of Muslims radicalized around the world.
Anti-ELAB protests happened in Hong Kong. Carrie Lam decided to delay the bill indefinitely. In the end nothing happened.
And somehow the former is better because a few years down the road got Bush and Blair got some bad poll ratings.