I refer to the letter from Allan Dyer (“ London unrest very different from Hong Kong strife ”, December 3). Yes, I agree that the Hong Kong unrest differs sharply from the Tottenham riots of 2011. It is a movement with a clear political objective, despite its initial camouflage as a protest against the rendition bill. Starting with peaceful protests on June 9 , the demonstrations quickly degenerated into road blockage and vandalism . As the protests dragged on, the political objectives have become increasingly clear. The organisers were not joking when they sang: “Restore Hong Kong (to its former colonial master?), Revolution of our Times” – to use a more literal translation of the Chinese original ( 光復香港, 時代革命 ) – or when they waved American flags. The insistence on “ Five Key Demands, Not One Less ”, the refusal to compromise even after the government had withdrawn the rendition bill, the turning of university campuses into arsenals , the sabotage of major public infrastructure and the increasing sophistication in their deployment of lethal weapons, all point to the fact that the real objective of protesters and their behind-the-scenes backers is to overthrow the government, and cause as much trouble for China as possible. The violent methods adopted are akin to those used by terrorists . The movement is not a civil protest nor a short-lived convulsion caused by isolated incidents. It is subversive, separatist and anti-China in character. As such, it is radically different from the Tottenham protests, which were triggered by a fatal shooting by police. The Hong Kong protests should have been dealt with by using greater force, and anti-terrorist and anti-subversion legislation. Unfortunately, none of this is in place. A review to look into the deep-seated ills of society, as promised by the chief executive, is of course different from an inquiry , but why set up an additional inquiry into police conduct when we already have an Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC), aided by a panel of overseas experts , unless the sole purpose is to make sure heads will roll? A statutory commission of inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Ordinance does not have much more powers than the IPCC, nor is it suited for an inquiry into a prolonged and complex political unrest. And why penalise the police when we have been relying on them to hold the fort, without military support as in the colonial days? Have we all become so naive as to believe that a further concession at this stage will lead the rioters to auto-abort their use of force? Regina Ip, member, Legislative Council