Whose fault is it?

Val migrated to Australia some years ago but returned to Hong Kong last year.  She lives in Hong Kong now and visits Australia occasionally.  Li was a former resident of Hong Kong but makes Melbourne his home now.

LI:  Protesters have become increasingly violent in Hong Kong.  They set fire to buildings, vandalised train stations, attacked police with bricks, steel rods, petrol bombs and more.  A police officer was slashed in the neck with what looks like a box cutter from behind.  How can you still support this sort of violent protest?

VAL:  No.  I don't support violence.  However, I believe the crux of the problem lies in a mediocre and incompetent Hong Kong government, turning a group of ideally motivated citizens into mobs.

LI:  Are you saying it is not the violent protesters' fault?

VAL: It is the government's fault.  The young protesters feel that they don't have other options but to take up violent protest.  The government has ignored their plea.  They feel that violent protest is the only way that the government will listen.

LI:  A person's decision to do something is affected by many factors: his personality, his training, influences from friends etc.  Is it fair to say that the protester's decision to commit violence is solely caused by the government?

VAL:  I accept there are the other factors, but the government's behaviour was the deciding factor.

LI:  So you are saying in spite of the person's personality, training etc. when they were faced with the situation, they didn't have any choice.

VAL: Yes.

LI:  Shouldn't the same rationale apply to government officials?  According to your rationale, they could not have done otherwise.  They had to do what they did.

VAL:  Perhaps the situation is different - the protesters don't have options, while the government does have options.

LI:  Let's look at your argument.

Premise 1:  [Protesters] want [certain demands]
Premise 2:  [Government officials] do not agree to [certain demands]
Conclusion: [Protesters] feel they must resort to [violence]

For the government, a similar argument can be put.

Premise 1: [Government officials] want [extradition law]
Premise 2: [Protesters] do not agree to [extradition law]
Conclusion: [Government officials] feel they must resort to [pushing the bill through]
     
Similarly
     
Premise 1: [Government officials] want [peaceful protest]
Premise 2: [Protesters] do not agree to [peaceful protest]
Conclusion: [Government officials] feel they must resort to [suppression]

These arguments look the same.  If the first argument is sound, shouldn't the other two arguments be sound as well?

VAL:  I am not sure, but if we accept that people do not have free will, then all your arguments have to be true.

LI:  If people accept there is no free will, then it is easier for them to let go of hatred.  Why hate others when they have no choice?

VAL:  Let us hope there will be more kindness and less hatred in Hong Kong.

LI:  Perhaps some people in Hong Kong can draw inspiration from Laozi, who says:

"I treat those who are kind with kindness.
I treat those who are not kind also with kindness.
This is the kindness that is consistent with Dao."
" 善者吾善之，不善者吾亦善之，德善。"