Incendiary rhetoric is not the answer
In his article, Lau Nai-keung equates recent actions by anti-government forces with 'revolutionary' activity ('Protesters play with fire by breaking rules', March 18).
Given the examples he cites, though, it would seem that Mr Lau has a comically low threshold for such endeavours. First, he describes the recent voting down of a temporary funding measure by pan-democratic legislators as 'sabotage' intended 'to undermine existing rules and procedures'. In fact, of course, the veto happened precisely because it was procedurally well within the rules.
This was no more or less than the kind of partisan political manoeuvre that occurs on a daily basis in democratic regimes all over the world, but then Mr Lau does not understand the meaning of democracy. Second, Mr Lau has predictably finger-wagging words for anti-budget protesters who (horrors) blocked traffic in Central and got pretty noisy about it when rousted by police.
Again, he equates this behaviour with 'revolution' and uses the term 'dissidents' to describe anti-government individuals and groups. As for the latter word choice, I would associate it more clearly with dissenters struggling to be heard within overtly repressive, authoritarian regimes.
Does Mr Lau think that this is an accurate description of the relationship between Hong Kong citizens and the government?
He concludes with a question for anti-government factions, 'do they want a revolution? If so, then by all means let us settle it by force'. This is not the first time that Mr Lau has come perilously close to equating dissent in Hong Kong with treason, and to calling for its violent, state-sanctioned repression. It is extremely ironic that he accuses anti-government forces (that is, living, breathing Hong Kong citizens) of 'playing with fire', when it is he who invokes the most ominously incendiary rhetoric in support of his position.