I read your article “ Unity trumps differences ” (June 7) with a heavy heart. Like Anna Chan who was referenced in your article, I was one of the 500,000 who thronged the streets in the July 1, 2003 demonstration in the scorching heat, with an air of unbelievable patience and ubiquitous civic-mindedness. Winding the clock forward by 16 years, my sense of struggle for freedom was crushed by the wanton destruction perpetrated as a group of protesters went on the rampage last year in the Legislative Council building . What followed was a series of incidents that could only be described as senseless and widespread damage to our public transport infrastructure and disruptions to the daily lives of ordinary residents in Hong Kong, not to speak of the fear among many ordinary residents of running into mob violence while going about their daily lives. The unspeakable setting on fire of a bystander was the last straw for many Hongkongers like myself. While I can understand the sense of frustration of the young protesters who wrought destruction across the city, I cannot bring myself to defend their wanton actions by any measure of civility or public decency, let alone my own conscience. Their senseless rampage brought to mind the hellish actions of the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution. Perhaps this is no coincidence, as both groups have touted their cause as a revolution. All in all, a movement that is co-opted into a wanton disregard for human decency and civility is not one that I can support, no matter how noble its cause may be. I feel the same sense of unease, in the same way most Hongkongers do, about the imminent national security law to be promulgated by the central government. It is no exaggeration to say the chicken has come home to roost for the violent protesters. The actions of the violent protesters have presented on a platter to the central government the justification to impose a national security law on Hong Kong, a law which 500,000 Hongkongers managed to stave off in a peaceful and civilised manner in 2003. Nick Wang, North Point New law leaves Hongkongers on the horns of a dilemma A new national security law tailor-made for Hong Kong will soon come into being. It will outlaw secession, subversion against the central people’s government, foreign interference and terrorism, and will be incorporated into Annex III, bypassing Legco procedures, under the provisions of Article 18. Mainland security personnel could be posted directly to Hong Kong to execute or enforce the new legislation, if deemed necessary. All of this has sparked loud protests from the public at large, with Hongkongers protesting that they had no part to play in the law, from its enactment to its execution; and fearing the diminishing and vanishing of freedoms overnight. The law has been slammed by Hong Kong professionals, especially those in the legal sector, for its blatant violation of the Basic Law. Concerns have also been raised internationally, notably from Britain, the US and the European Union. It is apparent that the People’s Republic of China is tightening the free rein given to Hongkongers thus far, perhaps due to the social unrest and “black violence” seen since last June and sparked by the now-withdrawn extradition bill. Ordinary Hong Kong people are on the horns of a dilemma. With no security law, radical political groups are likely to press for their demands by causing mayhem and violence in our society. However, if the national security law is to be enacted and enforced in such a dictatorial way, it can be foreseen that Hongkongers will lose all their rights and their freedom to express even a little discontent with either the Beijing or Hong Kong government. Randy Lee, Ma On Shan