I wish to comment on the letter headlined 'Violence should not have happened' (April 5).
Regarding the scuffle outside government offices, James A. Elms says eloquently: 'We need a society where there is harmony and peace, in that order'. I could not agree more. And our police force generally have that approach in mind.
However, when politics is involved, then unfortunately our police have their hands tied. Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa needed to get to work that morning and therefore the assembled protesters had to be moved. As there was not enough private security available, our well-trained police were called upon to assist in removing them. Quick tip for Mr Tung: when you leave for the day, shut the gates.
Comparing the July 1 demonstration to the above confrontation clearly demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how protests are policed. I have had over 19 years of policing experience in England and Hong Kong. The first principle is always based on the state and size of the crowd; obviously the small number last week was easily despatched. A peaceful march of 500,000 protesters is generally treated with respect and politeness. If agitation is to follow, the police will allow the majority of the crowd to disperse peacefully and deal with what normally is a tiny minority at the end.
Finally, Hong Kong is not seen as lawless by the rest of the world. The incident outside the government offices only made local headlines because it was a poor news day. Hong Kong people should be proud of how law-abiding our citizens are and how restrained our police force is in dealing with protests. There are many places in Asia where protests do result in real violence to which the police react accordingly. Let's keep it to 'handbags at dawn' scuffles in Hong Kong.
JONATHON LEE FRASER, Central