Commentary
Former Hong Kong chief executive Carrie Lam failed to make the list of the top the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) political advisory body, which means that she will not follow in the footsteps of former chief executives Tung Chee-hwa and Leung Chun-ying to serve as the vice chairperson of the committee and join the list of “national leaders” under the CCP.
Some experts on China affairs analyzed that Carrie Lam is no longer of value to the CCP’s overall “united front” tactic, and her values are incompatible with the CCP’s political culture. Some commentators believe that it might have something to do with her quote in public that “love of the country does not necessarily mean love of the party,” a saying that is seen as incompatible with CCP ideology.
CCP’s ‘United Front’
Shi Shan, an expert on China affairs, said in his online program “Shishan Viewpoint” on Jan. 17 that the CCP “will definitely not give her [Carrie Lam] the central advisory post” because she, like former chief executive Donald Tsang, has no value in the CCP’s “united front.”According to his analysis, Tung and Leung both have a certain value to the “united front,” allowing them to join the central committee. The former is a businessman and has a good relationship with others within the business circle. On the contrary, Shi said that Lam, trained by the British bureaucrats, “couldn’t play the political games of mainland China ... so it’s better to retire for good.”
Lam was interviewed by the mainland media outlet “Southcn.com” in Nov. 2022. It was her first interview since she left office in July. When asked whether there will be new jobs to “serve the country” in the future, Carrie Lam said that she does not need any new jobs but only wants to have the opportunity to promote “one country, two systems” in key universities across the country.
Although in 2019, Lam did what she thought would best please her “boss” without hesitation and suppressed Hong Kong people’s pursuit of freedom and democracy, she clearly had no idea about the rules of the game in the CCP’s political circle. It all indicates she knows nothing about them, and maybe she is not interested either.
Hong Kong Administrative Officers
Chau Sze-tat, a current affairs commentator, said in his online program that Lam’s first mistake was failing to continue her tenure, so is now being put further on the sideline. He believes she was not shortlisted for the new posting because she was considered “untrustworthy due to her background and training for the CCP. ”Mainland officials are extremely wary of Hong Kong administrative officers (AOs) and will no longer entrust AOs with important responsibilities. If not so, this year’s chief executive would have been Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, an AO, and not John Lee Ka-chiu who is a policeman.” He also pointed out that many major officials are promoted from the ranks of disciplined or professional technocrats.Hong Kong civil servants, from the British era until 2019, always adhered to the principle of “political neutrality.” That stance undoubtedly guaranteed the fairness and justice of the Hong Kong government in performing official duties in the past. Among the civil servants, AO is an elite class who grew up within the past colonial government. From ideology to political experience, if anything, they are incompatible with the culture of the CCP.
Chau also believes that Lam was resistant to mainland officials during her tenure, and she tried to stay at a distance even when working with the Liaison Office. For example, in 2019, Lam deliberately refrained from returning to Hong Kong after the Boao Forum for Asia in Hainan to avoid attending the presentation by Wang Zhimin, then director of the Liaison Office, explaining the spirit of the “Two Plenaries.” At the religious gathering of Tsz Shan Monastery in the same year, she did not shake hands with Wang despite the invitation of Li Ka-Shing, a senior consultant of Cheung Kong.
‘Love of Country Does Not Necessarily Mean Love of the Party’
As a high-ranking official, Lam once said publicly that “love for the country does not necessarily mean love for the party.” Chau believed that this violated the taboo of the CCP’s “party and country are inseparable twins.” In 2013, as the then Chief Secretary for Administration in promoting political reforms, while facing public doubts that the chief executive should “love the country and love Hong Kong,” Lam quoted the late CCP leader Deng Xiaoping’s remarks, emphasizing that patriotism does not necessarily mean loving the Communist Party. Patriotism means loving one’s own nation, supporting “one country, two systems,” and cherishing Hong Kong’s long-term prosperity and stability. Deng never mentioned that loving the country is equal to loving the party.By March 2021, Lam claimed that the CCP had improved Hong Kong’s electoral system in order to implement “patriots governing Hong Kong.” Patriotism does not mean that one must love the party, but she emphasized that one must respect the leadership of the CCP and socialism with Chinese characteristics. At that time, Lam said that loving the party was the duty of a party member, and she was not a member of the CCP. But under the principle of “one country, two systems,” one must accept and respect the central leadership, and no one should do anything to undermine the system.
Rumors in 2022
As early as November 2022, after Tam Yiu-chung, a member of the CCP’s rubber-stamp legislature, announced that he would not seek re-election, there were rumors that Lam may run in his place. However, scholar Chung Kim-wah predicted at the time that Carrie Lam did not have such a “red” background as Tung Chee-hwa and Leung Chun-ying, and she was not a person who had been fully trusted by the CCP so far. In addition, the outbreaks of the anti-extradition movement during Lam’s tenure as chief executive caused many officials in Beijing and other parts of mainland China to have a negative opinion of her, lessening their desire to promote her further.Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
