I understand the nuance of his answer, but in my view the acknowledgement that something like that could even be possible is a tacit admission that this is not

I understand the nuance of his answer, but in my view the acknowledgement that something like that could even be possible is a tacit admission that this is not intended as an emergency fallback to be used only when absolutely necessary. The smart response to that question (not that he had the best political instinct to begin with, but...) would've been the same kind of non-answer Carrie Lam gives: we cherish Hong Kong's freedom of speech, et cetera. But he didn't say that, and even he has to know that answering the way he did will ring alarm bells. Talking up the need for legislation to address homemade bombs and property destruction is one thing; curtailing political speech in the name of security is quite another.