The public will likely be looking for reactions from opinion leaders and shapers on what to think. They are also likely to feel empowered since the concessions are a direct result of their show of discontent.

The following is a summary of the CE's statement from yesterday. How he sees the issues leading to the protest on 1 July and how he sees Hong Kong going forward can be seen from the statement:

1. "My governance": People protested because of the Article 23 Bill and "dissatisfaction over Government policies, and over my governance in particular".

2. Matter of "race"?: Passing the Article 23 legislation "is a matter relating to the national dignity and the glory of the Chinese race. Safeguarding national security is the prerequisite ... for maintaining the good relations between Hong Kong and the Mainland".

3. Pressing ahead: The government must "press ahead" with passing the Bill because its our duty and "Our community will be further divided if we remain undecided on this issue. Now, we are proposing amendments to the three provisions that ... have in fact sparked most of the controversies."

4. Stop agitating: "Division is damaging to Hong Kong. Stability is the cornerstone of our success in the past. I suggest everybody should reflect rationally about how to maintain stability in Hong Kong and to properly manage some of the fundamental relationships, help maintain our stability, including our relations with the Mainland and the international community".

5. Its the economy?: "The most pressing issue we face is to revive the economy". Lets pass the Bill "as soon as possible" so that Hong Kong can "get our economy going again".

1. Legislative coherence: The duty of legislators is to ensure that the laws they pass have been properly drafted and considered. During the scrutiny process of the existing Bill, legislators have already highlighted many areas that needed redrafting and amendment, many of which the government did not accept. With the rush to make further amendments and not giving time for looking at how the entire legislation will hang together denies Hong Kong a chance to be assured of a well drafted Bill.

2. Inherent danger: Rushing such an important piece of law through harbours danger for all concerned. For the government, unclear areas will hamper the exercise of power. For the Central People's Government, poor drafting could lead to problems. For example, the provisions relating to the right of abode in the Basic Law itself was drafted too loosely and hence resulted in court challenges. For the people, a poorly drafted law creates unnecessary uncertainty of their rights.

3. Poor prioritizing: The CE's priorities have never been in getting the details right, which is dangerous for a government. For example, when he pushed through the ministerial system in 2002, he did not spend time to tidy up the respective duties of the ministers, which led to this being highlighted by the review panel looking at the penny stocks incident; and also by the IMF last month. The IMF criticised Hong Kong for a confusing system of overlapping ministerial responsibilities. This problem was brought up during the short legislative scrutiny process but ignored by the government at the time. The government said then that it was important to push ahead. The government said it would sort things out after the IMF's report on Hong Kong.

4. Issue of time: When James Tien (head of Liberal Party and minister without portfolio) returned to Hong Kong on Friday from a short trip to Beijing and apparently met officials in-charged of united front work, he said that he would propose to the CE that the government delay the Bill's passage to "no later than 17 December". That seems to indicate that there was indication from Beijing that a delay was possible. No doubt Tien will be questioned on this by the media in view of the CE now deciding to push ahead.

5. What kind of cabinet?: Tien is a member of the CE's cabinet and must abide by collective responsibility. Many questions surround his visit to Beijing. Presumably, he was asked to go by someone in Beijing rather than as the CE's envoy. By speaking publicly on views that were different from those of the CE, looks like Hong Kong has yet to decide what collective responsibility means in the local context.

6. Interesting apology: The DAB's Tsang Yok-sing, also a member of the cabinet and minister without portfolio, issued an apology to the people yesterday for his earlier statement that people protested because they were "misled".

7. CE's mindset: There is a wide chasm between the CE and the people. His linking of national security with being Chinese continues to make people uncomfortable. His belief that once Article 23 is dealt with, he can get on with the economy also misses the point that Hong Kong people's real issue with the CE is how he sees and handles things. There will therefore likely be continuing challenge to his leadership. The problem he has to face is that Hong Kong people may just not want him to be CE anymore.