HONG KONG — A day after protesters stormed into Hong Kong’s parliament building, damaging its security systems and defacing the walls and the portraits of leaders, residents are divided over what they did.

While they generally objected to the use of violence and criminal actions, some Hongkongers said that they sympathised with the protesters. 

Ms Iris Chan, 40, a hairdresser, believes that the young protesters had their reasons for storming the legislature even though she deems their actions to be “excessive”. 

“They want Hong Kong to be free. They want Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam to come out and explain,” said Ms Chan, who had taken part in a protest march herself last month against a government bill that would allow the extradition of criminal suspects from the territory to China.  

Another Hong Kong resident in his 50s, who wanted to be known only as Ricky, said that it is “very hard to blame” the protesters for storming government offices because they have been peacefully protesting for some weeks.

“There are a million people out on the street and (the government) still wants to have a second reading of the bill. If it were you, you would also be angry,” he said.

“It’s hard to blame the teenagers. We should trust them… They are not evil, they are just forced to do that,” he added.

He was referring to the Hong Kong government’s initial decision to proceed with the reading of the extradition bill on June 12, following a massive protest on June 9 which organisers said involved a million people.

Mrs Lam announced the suspension of the bill on June 14, after violent clashes erupted between the police and protesters on June 12. Protesters had staged a sit-in at the Legislative Council in an attempt to prevent the second reading from taking place. 

Despite the bill’s suspension, the protesters were unhappy over it not being fully withdrawn. They alleged that there was excessive use of force by the police in dispersing the June 12 protest. Many are also demanding for Mrs Lam's resignation.

Tensions reached a head after protesters crashed through glass panels and stormed the grounds of Hong Kong’s parliament on Monday (July 1), the day when the city celebrates its annual handover to China in a flag-raising ceremony. 

The protesters occupied the Legislative Council complex for about three hours, during which they vandalised the facilities and sprayed graffiti on walls and leaders’ portraits, before police fired tear gas and retook control of the building shortly after midnight. 

Hong Kong media quoted Legislative Council president Andrew Leung, who inspected the damages on Tuesday morning, as saying that the building would take a long time to repair.

“Although some rooms in the Legco (Legislative Council) building were not damaged, the security system, power supply and fire alarm systems are down.”

South China Morning Post quoted another lawmaker, Mr Chan Kin-por, as saying that the damages could amount to “more than HK$10 million” (more than S$1.73 million). 

In a press conference called at 4am on Tuesday, Mrs Lam condemned the actions of the protesters as an “extreme use of violence”. 

But some Hongkongers countered that their non-violent protests earlier had failed and this was why the protestors had turned to a more confrontational approach.

Ms Natalie Fung, 28, told The New York Times: “We have been too peaceful for the past few times, so the police think we are easily bullied.” 

Ms Fung, who supported protesters with food and drinks outside the legislature, added: “The younger people are risking their safety and their futures for us.”  

Recently released from jail, Mr Joshua Wong, who is a student activist and secretary-general of pro-democracy party Demosisto, said on Twitter that the protesters were “not rioters” and were “not violent”. 

“Their objective was never to harm any individuals. They wanted to make the regime hear Hongkongers’ voice, and they had no other option. We already tried everything else,” he added. 

However, some Hongkongers interviewed by TODAY said that the protesters had gone too far on Monday night.  

Ms Eva Xiao, 41, said that the storming of the parliament building was unacceptable. 

“I can accept peaceful marches. You can march on the streets, you can express your voice, you can adopt less radical methods. After all, everyone's life is valuable,” the shop assistant said.  

Another shop assistant, who looked to be above 50 years old and who declined to reveal her name, said that violence cannot be used to solve issues.

"Even if they are unhappy, they can't do that. You can make demands but you can't use such violent methods," she said.

Business groups expressed condemnation of the protesters’ actions at the Legislative Council building.

The Chinese Chamber of Commerce said in a statement that it “strongly condemned” the destruction caused by the protesters, whose actions have gone beyond the freedom of expression and were “extremely regrettable”.

It added that it will never agree with extreme violence that affects social order and public safety as well as undermine the rule of law in Hong Kong.

The American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, which has criticised the extradition bill, said that it supports the right of Hongkongers to peacefully express their concerns, but it joins Mrs Lam in condemning the violence displayed by demonstrators who occupied the parliament building.

“The chamber does not condone violent acts causing physical harm and destruction of property as legitimate means to achieve objectives for the greater good in a lawful society,” it said.

The Law Society also issued a strong condemnation.

“Where the line has been crossed, the police should take appropriate action to prevent criminal violence, secure observance of the law and uphold order for the protection of life and property,” it said.