Were Hong Kong police officers expected to stand idly by as protesters stormed the Legislative Council?

I wholeheartedly support the right of the protesters to peacefully protest and have my own doubts about the extradition bill, but I cannot support their right to violence without repercussion. When demonstrators charged the Legislative Council, having earlier amassed bricks and metal poles, how could anyone expect the police to stand idly by? If this were taking place in the United States and the US Capitol were attacked, would their police just wave the protesters through?

In contrast, Sunday’s mammoth protest, which affected life and traffic in the area, was almost wholly without incident, with the protesters remaining largely unmolested by the police, as they were on Wednesday morning, even when they blocked main arteries like Harcourt Road.

The right of assembly and to protest is not an unqualified one. Any government worldwide is likely to weigh the risks to public safety versus the stated aims of the protest. And it is fully within its rights to take action, provided, of course, that the action is proportionate and no more than is required to achieve public safety.

A recent statement by legal experts refers to the use of excessive force by the police. It is certainly debatable whether rubber bullets were required against protesters. If accounts of the police allegedly beating people with batons even after they had been subdued are true, it could well contravene the requirement of a narrowly tailored and proportionate response.

But, as the police commissioner said, many police officers had been working for more than 30 hours: “When bricks are flying in the air, perhaps [our] officers did not have time to be polite.” It is equally arguable that any human being’s judgment under those tiring and stressful circumstances could become impaired.

Anuradha Singh, Mid-Levels

‘Communication’ isn’t the problem, the failure to listen is

Communication, Chief Secretary Matthew Cheung Kin-chung (“Cheung admits communication problem”, June 12) is not the problem. The problem is that no one who is used to a society in which they would expect, and in general get, a fair trial will trust a regime under which, in some circumstances, they might not. Any judicial system that is controlled by a government is, and always will be, suspect. 

It is time for the governments of Hong Kong and Beijing to start listening to the people. History shows us that those who do not eventually fall.

Violence and threats have no place in a civilised, law-abiding society, but they do emerge when a society, or a part of it, feels threatened. Please Mr Cheung, Mrs Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor and the rest of the government, listen!

Peter Robertson, Sai Kung