If it took a violent protest for Carrie Lam to listen to the people, what is the message being sent?

I am writing in response to Alex Lo’s “Don’t make police the enemy in wake of protests” (June 18), in which he made several claims that need to be examined.

First, most protesters at the June 12 rally against the extradition bill were well-behaved and only a small subset of them were “violent”. Lo failed to note that these well-behaved protesters – and journalists – were also attacked by the police.

Video evidence exists of how a group of riot control police swarmed an unarmed protester carrying water bottles, fired tear gas indiscriminately into the middle of the crowd standing outside Citic Tower (designated by the police as a legal protest area) and shot rubber bullets directly at the face of a protester. These peaceful protesters were also attacked.

Secondly, Lo said the police “possibly” reacted excessively. While he has a right to his opinion, I would like to point out that a number of protesters who were hit with tear gas and rubber bullets were just standing there and were not violent, so how is the response proportionate?

We need to remember that the police were better armed, and better protected, than the protesters. Officers had shields, gas masks, body armour and so on, while most protesters had only a helmet and a mask.

Beyond that, Lo should have also considered why the protesters became violent. When a million people came out onto the street, the chief executive chose to ignore them. Only after there had been violence did she respond. On this basis, is she implying that only violence will lead to people’s voices being heard?

Hong Kong lacks the democratic institutions to hold the chief executive accountable for her actions. The chief executive’s actions sent a message that violence is the only way to get her to listen.

A. Chan, London

Protesters were waving a false flag of freedom

Watching from abroad, and despite the glorification of the “protesters”, I am repulsed by what I’ve witnessed of the events that have taken place. The inherent coercion in power’s appeal to the gullible masses to “protest”, if not also the alcohol that often features in popular mobs at sports riots, has never ceased to amaze me.

If we’re to be clear in the fog, then let’s be clear on one thing only: the agitators are waving a false flag of “freedom”!

Rev. B. Nich. Roberts, Denver

No place for mob rule in Hong Kong

I am writing to support the Hong Kong police, our last line of defence. No other country tolerates such mob rule as the 15-hour siege of police headquarters which took place last Friday. Since so many countries support the hooligans, they should open their doors to them, and leave us, who consider Hong Kong the best place to live, alone.

G. Chan, Happy Valley

Quest to match the capable with the willing continues

I am echoing the thoughts expressed by Mr Franklin Koo in his article, “How to pacify angry public”, on how unaffordable housing is the biggest issue facing Hong Kong. The article mentioned our secretary of finance, who was formerly secretary of development. This reference brought to mind what the richest of Hongkongers, Mr Li Ka-shing, once said: “Capable people are not coming forward, but incapable people are vying for the jobs.”

Ringo Yee, Tuen Mun