When Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa proclaimed that the 'great majority of Hong Kong people are patriotic', my curiosity was immediately aroused about the malicious few. Assuming we can eliminate the more glamorous sort of menace - there are probably few spies lurking in Mid-Levels, siphoning military secrets to hostile regimes - one is left with few possibilities. For the sake of argument, I will guess there are three types of potential offenders. Let's call them foot-holders, safety-netters and dissenters, each, depending on one's perspective, a threat to the sort of group identification patriotism requires. Foot-holders are those Hongkongers who have secured some sort of foothold in another country. They, or at least some of their family members, have acquired the right of abode in Canada, Australia or some other developed, socially beneficent nation. They keep up their presence in this alternative homeland - maybe by a system of filial rotation - as a place to fall back on if things do not work out as they would wish in Hong Kong. It is a safe place to which they can retreat in times of political or financial uncertainty, in illness or in old age. Foot-holders' psychological investment in Hong Kong is reduced and this state of affairs is unlikely to be lost on their less affluent and less well-connected compatriots, putting a distinct damper on any potential sense of fellow-feeling. Safety-netters, perhaps through bad luck, lack of influence or poor planning, do not hold a rainy-day passport. Yet they have the means and knowhow to cover their bets, say, by educating their children or investing their savings overseas. Again, this is hardly a celebration of compatriot empathy. Dissenters actively strive to improve things in Hong Kong from the inside. For some, perhaps many of the 500,000 who turned out last July 1, this engagement implies a greater love and commitment to their country. However, this view may not be shared by leaders who subscribe to the 'patriotism principle', which appears to hold that patriotism, by definition, implies public support of one's government and its policies. Given the political vicissitudes Hongkongers have experienced over the years, it is hardly surprising that they have learned not to be passive; not to leave their future in the hands of the government. Seeking to construct ones own social safety net - in Hong Kong, the mainland or abroad - is surely a sign of maturity; a willingness to accept responsibility for ones own destiny. Yet patriotism is universally compelling. It is psychological comfort food - at times even psychological Viagra. It can be as soothing as a mouthful of Haagen-Dazs and as intoxicating as a Mexican wave. That is why politicians treat the topic so religiously. People everywhere want desperately to belong. Politicians try to construct an entity with which people would willingly want to associate. Organisational psychologists isolate two main characteristics of this phenomenon. Each contributes to the intensity with which people are likely to attach themselves to an entity. The first factor is the cohesiveness of the group; the second is how the group rates, compared to other groups. Broadly speaking, it seems the more unified and higher status the group (or nation), the more ready individuals are to identify with it. Governments cannot impose a feeling of patriotism. But it is standard practice to encourage it. Parades, for example, have a bonding effect on populations, especially when they feel under attack. If these shows of force are persuasive enough, they evoke particularly fervent identification among socially disempowered sections of a population. The effect is analogous to the Stockholm Syndrome, the phenomenon by which individuals come to identify blindly with those who hold sway over their day to day lives. It is an example of a secondary defence mechanism; a matter of psychological if-you-can't-beat-them-join-them survival. Patriotism can easily become a cover for control, racism and aggression. Yet, the potential benefits are staggering. Patriotism enhances self-esteem, raises personal aspirations and can provide the backdrop to some of the most fulfilling and meaningful experiences community life has to offer. As an expatriate, however, I am apt to agree with the definition of patriotism as the conviction that ones country is superior to all others simply because one was born there. As the renowned cellist and humanist Pablo Casals put it: 'The love of one's country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border?' Jean Nicol is a psychologist specialising in issues of cultural identity and change in an era of globalisation everydaypsychologist@yahoo.com