As for the protest slogan, I understand guangfu to mean “revive” or “resurrect” rather than “liberate”. There was a time when Hong Kong strove for excellence in an imperfect world. Instead of being a pretext for government inaction as it is now, “stability” was the guarantee of optimism and individual aspiration. Before it became an empty public-relations catchword, “prosperity” used to lead to progressive reforms which addressed social grievances.

Our times do call for a “revolution”. Consultation politics has proven ineffective. Hong Kong needs a tenable and credible form of democracy. Without a public mandate, the government lacks the political strength to overhaul our dysfunctional economy. Vested interests’ monopoly over resources has long enough strangled productivity growth and social mobility.

Beijing should acknowledge that Hong Kong independence only appeals to a few. An overwhelming majority on the streets advocate for what the Basic Law has promised. The protest slogan is in line with the demands for an independent commission of inquiry and universal suffrage. They remind Beijing that only a political revolution from above can defuse the current crisis, improve governance and eradicate the causes of the chaos.

I refer to the views expressed by former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa and other pro-establishment politicians that external forces are influencing the actions of people in the recent street protests (“Former Hong Kong leader Tung Chee-hwa accuses the United States and Taiwan of orchestrating ‘well-organised’ recent protests”, July 31). This reference to outside influence, coming from a former Hong Kong chief executive is completely irresponsible and serves only to inflame the situation, giving Beijing a seemingly legitimate reason for physical intervention.

As for evidence of such influence, the only two issues I am aware of are the donation of hard hats to protesters from student sympathisers in Taiwan and that of liberal studies, raised by Tung himself, allowing students to think “outside the box”. Without hard evidence, Tung and others aligned with him do not have much of a case.

Tung’s complete lack of understanding of Hongkongers’ aspirations is evident. He appears to consider the millions of well-educated Hong Kong citizens who marched in opposition to the extradition bill and presumably the hundreds of thousands who protested earlier against the Article 23 bill, as illiterates who are easily led and cannot think or act for themselves.

He could well live to regret the result of any heavy-handed approach by Beijing on the back of his and other like-minded politicians’ unsubstantiated comments regarding outside influence.