This summer’s unrest is another transformative process — if a painful and, at times, depressingly violent one. I reject the use of violence to achieve any political, economic or social outcomes. Violence is not among the actions or values that most people associate with Hong Kong, which has a reputation as a safe and welcoming city. The radical actions of some rioters cannot dictate how to steer Hong Kong through its current difficulties.

Both the community dialogues and my Policy Address are part of a necessary reconciliation process. Deep wounds have been opened in our society. These will take time to heal. But it remains this government’s hope that conversation will triumph over conflict and that through its actions, calm can be restored and trust can be rebuilt within the community. To help create the atmosphere necessary for the community dialogues, I announced earlier this month the formal withdrawal of the bill to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, the so-called extradition bill. The amendments, which were designed to address the shortcomings of existing mechanisms for the surrender of fugitive criminals, were the catalyst for the protests.

For months now, the world has seen Hong Kong’s people exercising their freedom of expression and freedom of protest. Peaceful protest has been a hallmark of Hong Kong society for decades, and it will remain so. The police have long facilitated such gatherings, which are 10 times more frequent now than in 1997. And the police did so this summer: From June to mid-September, more than 80 percent of requests for marches and gatherings were granted. But a worrisome pattern has emerged recently, with some organizers arranging large-scale marches that inevitably end in violent confrontations, vandalism and arson. The police must carefully weigh the people’s right to protest against the risks of violent disruption to public order. (It should also be noted that if the police object to a certain protest, the organizers may lodge an appeal before an independent body.)

I believe that the rule of law, upheld by an independent judiciary, is a bedrock of Hong Kong life; it can never be compromised. But precisely because the rule of law is a bedrock principle, violent protests and wanton vandalism must stop. This is one reason that this administration cannot accede to some protesters’ demand that all charges be dropped against those who have been arrested. Doing so would run counter to the rule of law. It would also contravene the Basic Law, which states that prosecutions must be taken forward, free from interference, by the Department of Justice.

Freedom of the press and freedom of information have also come into focus lately, partly because of the tsunami of media coverage about the protests, as well as other social, economic and political issues to do with Hong Kong. The city is a free and open economy and a global financial center, and the government understands that unfettered access to information is a prerequisite for the integrity and viability of its market — even though the media do not always paint Hong Kong in a positive or even impartial light.