In Hong Kong, slurs and stereotyping pass for debate
Susan Chan says immigrant welfare is the latest example of how we air our disagreements through slurs and stereotypes that get us nowhere

The landmark ruling by the Court of Final Appeal on CSSA has sent shock waves across the city and further divided society. If nothing is done to address the situation, those mainland migrants who benefit financially from the ruling may suffer in the end, as they will find it harder to integrate into Hong Kong society.
People on both sides of the argument have their reasons for supporting or opposing the ruling. This is not just a legal issue; it touches on the frustrations of different groups of people about our social welfare system, the distribution of resources and relations between so-called locals and new immigrants.
We need rational discussion to achieve mutual understanding and settle differences. Unfortunately, this is now rare in our society.
Today, stereotypes and extreme language prevail - people claim welfare benefits "breed laziness" and new immigrants "cheat the system". On the other side, the government is "callous" and "could not care less about the grass roots"; civil servants are getting paid for "doing nothing", the government and the business sector must be "colluding".
Such talk has affected our judgment, disturbed our daily life and weakened our ability to have rational discussion on issues that are vital for our long-term development, including housing programmes, population policy and relations with the mainland.
Last year, many believed the stories of mainlanders abducting children in Hong Kong, even though the claims were illogical, causing panic across the community. Some say the government wants the Northeast New Territories to become a backyard for the rich from the mainland, although we all know that these rich people are already buying property anywhere they want.