It's about fairness, not the widening wealth gap
It comes as no surprise to learn that in Hong Kong the rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer. Now we have more evidence to this effect from the Bauhinia Foundation, the chief executive's favourite think-tank, which published an interesting study this week. But the so-called thinkers are firm in their determination not to draw any conclusion from their findings.
Others will not be so reticent. They will comment freely on the consequences of a widening wealth gap and may even seek to influence government policy in addressing this problem.
Hong Kong is a society marked by greater inequality than many others, but surprisingly there is little appetite for a fully blown welfare state. Although the dedicated band of anti-democrats insist that representative government will inevitably lead to the creation of a Scandinavian-style welfare system, they find it hard to find democratic politicians who actually support this point of view.
On the contrary, Hong Kong exhibits all the characteristics of a self-reliant immigrant society in which progress is largely viewed in individual, as opposed to collective, terms. In other words, people simply do not believe that if society as a whole does well they will necessary be able to follow suit.
The Bauhinia Foundation report provides evidence to support this point of view. It shows that although the economy as a whole is rapidly improving, median household incomes in 2005 remained 15.8 per cent below peak earnings seen in 1997 and trailed 11 per cent below 2001 levels. Earnings at the lower end of the pay scale have been even further depressed. Indeed, the number of people falling into the low-income category hit 17.7 per cent, against 15 per cent in 2001. Meanwhile, the gap between the highest and lowest paid is at or near an all-time high.
Despite self-righteous talk of the poor expecting a free lunch, coming mainly from those who have consumed far too many lunches, most poor do not expect handouts and do not look to the government to improve their lives. They understand that hard work, perseverance and education are the keys to improving livelihood.
What upsets people is not inequality as such, nor even a widening wealth gap but a perception of unfairness. The people living in tiny apartments and working a great many hours every day are acutely aware that the very richest pay practically no income tax because they take their remuneration in dividends, which are also taxed but at a corporate level. They see the ultra-rich brushing past them whenever they need to engage with the authorities. Public servants know that there are two categories of customers: the important who need careful attention and the poor who simply wait in line.
The self-importance and arrogance of the rich can also be galling, especially coming from the progeny of tycoons who are there by the accident of birth. This level of inherited wealth is new in Hong Kong but the second generation has not even started to learn the hardships suffered by the first generation of well-off people, who at least understand what they have left behind. Running a service-sector company, I notice the extraordinary difference in the way these rich kids treat staff compared with the attitudes of others. These brats seem to believe they are superior beings by virtue of wealth.
This delusion would merely be worthy of counselling were it not for the fact that the first government of the special administrative region was run by a rich kid: Tung Chee-hwa, and it fostered a culture of 'money talks'. A favourite riposte to democrats from Mr Tung and his allies was to ask how much they paid in taxes, how many people they employed and so on. This, presumably, was the criteria for being able to express an opinion.
The new regime is headed by a leader from a more modest background. But such is the nature of Hong Kong's political system that the administration is largely beholden to the tycoons who are not only among the small elite that get to vote for the chief executive but also have direct lines of communication with his bosses in Beijing.
It would not be fair to say that these tycoons are universally of a Scrooge-like disposition. On the contrary, many of them are generous and willingly donate to the poor but remain distrustful of the mass of the people and dislike government schemes that create a more level playing field. Who can blame them when they stand at the apex of the field and can only lose from a tilt to either side?
In Hong Kong, there is not the same kind of resentment against rich people that I experienced in my former home, Britain. On the contrary, there is a tendency to admire those who have made good. But a clear distinction is drawn between entrepreneurs who have used their wit and skill to make money and those who flourish because of the kind of cronyism that is becoming a hallmark of this administration.
Moreover, there is a high level of compassion in Hong Kong and it leads to disgust when well-padded officials defend reducing assistance to the poorest and most vulnerable people in society in the name of some higher principle.
The real issue in Hong Kong is not poverty as such, nor even inequality, but fairness.
Stephen Vines is a Hong Kong-based journalist and entrepreneur
