Culture of complaints belies the truth
A culture of blame is emerging in Hong Kong. Betty Tung Chiu Hung-ping, the wife of the former chief executive, once said Hongkongers were good at complaining. Examples are easy to find.
Regular people have taken their annoyance with the government to the courts over issues such as the listing of the real estate investment trust, and the ban on backyard poultry.
Taxi drivers last week blocked traffic in Central to vent anger at the government's practice of hiring light goods vans instead of taxis to transport staff. Disgruntled workers surrounded government offices last month to demand wages owed by a construction company involved with a government takeover of a public housing project.
And on a daily basis, people call into radio programmes to unleash their frustration over government policies, be it welfare, education, or public housing.
Political squabbles have become the order of the day. Income disparity has been widening. Family problems have been on the rise. You name it. Hong Kong, it seems, is a rancorous place.
Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen suggested in his policy address in October that people have 'fewer arguments to avoid missing good opportunities through idleness and indecision'.
Delivering the budget last month, Financial Secretary Henry Tang Ying-yen was more concise: less argument, more action.
But a survey released last week paints a less gloomy picture. Chinese University's Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies asked 1,006 people whether the city was harmonious. Nearly 40 per cent said yes, 22 per cent said no, and the remaining 40 per cent said somewhat.
The pollsters pointed out that the respondents who did not hold a definitive view tended to change their opinion, depending on current circumstances.
When asked to name what issue most affected harmony, respondents put economic disparity at the top of the list, at 64 per cent, followed by clashes between big business and public interest (54 per cent), and third, political fighting (53 per cent).
The survey also asked people to rate, out of a maximum of 10, the government's efforts in areas that affected harmony. Keeping itself clean and just was scored highest, at 6.6. At 6.5, came ensuring the legal system was sound, protecting individual freedoms and protecting people's private property.
The promotion of pluralistic values and respect for other nationalities and cultures scored 5.8, and economic development and job creation was given 5.7. The promotion of democracy scored lowest with 4.9 points.
And contrary to assumption, it is the middle class who are satisfied most with the government's performance in ensuring social harmony, compared with the other classes.
The survey was conducted in the middle of last month when the mood was relatively calm, which may have influenced the results. But they do show a degree of maturity, sophistication and acceptance of the level of contradictions, conflicts and arguments in our society.
People have a high level of trust in our institutions and culture, such as a corruption-free government and a system of rule of law and tolerance. Public concern over social disharmony appears to stem primarily from government failures, at the policy level, to address the issues of poverty, fair competition and democracy.
Disappointment has bred mistrust in the government's commitment towards promoting a culture of care for the poor, promoting a fair and just society and democratic participation through policy change. A growing sense of the public's maturity towards conflicts contrasts sharply with the paranoia about disagreement among the powers that be, which ironically causes the discord between government and people.
