When four democrats plunged into the harbour last week to protest against the end of ferry services from Hung Hom to Wan Chai and Central - costing an estimated HK$100,000 of taxpayers' money for the deployment of 50 police, emergency services, fire services officers and their vehicles - it confirmed that our world has, indeed, gone mad and the public cost of political drama has reached new heights. While it is a cost that a free society must bear for the voice of dissent, the nonsensical act truly boggles the mind.
I suspect that if the four took time to mull it over, they would not have jumped. Government tenders for the services resulted in no interest for the operations. Many of us may be sad to see the end of the ferry service, but the fact is that the routes have run their course. Given that we are still arguing over how to better spend the HK$6,000 government handout, we can hardly be expected to agree over whether the government should run a ferry route that counts its passengers by the dozen.
This was not just a fleeting moment of irrationality; this year, 'March madness' has taken on a whole new meaning in Hong Kong. The Fukushima nuclear crisis caused herds of Hongkongers to empty the shelves of salt on the crazy notion that consuming - or hoarding - it would protect them from radiation.
Then there was the widespread outrage over the decision that new mainland immigrants who did not qualify under the budget proposal for the HK$6,000 cash handout should receive the cash from the Community Care Fund. Of course, it is about money and resources, but that alone does not explain or warrant the venom directed at non-permanent residents. The undercurrent of this deeply entrenched prejudice against newcomers - especially those from the mainland - has been present for longer than some of us can remember. And while a bit of political nativism is at work in every society, the blatant diatribe in this city is truly scary. Stereotyping all immigrants from the mainland as lazy good-for-nothings, collecting welfare cheques, is obviously wrong. Yet, the voice of reason - condemnation of such narrow-mindedness and ignorance - seems to be losing out. There is immense danger in allowing these sentiments to fester.
What many people once called Hong Kong's identity crisis has become a monster, awakened unintentionally by the HK$6,000 handout. Overnight, classes of citizenship were created, with native Hongkongers at the helm. Those with right of abode elsewhere became second-class residents; those without permanent residency were firmly at the bottom. Wedged in between, almost as an afterthought, are people of different ethnicities. Yet, the fact that Hongkongers are descendants of immigrants does not seem to register.
The HK$6,000 care fund proposal, more mainlanders coming to Hong Kong to give birth, and the 100,000 mainlanders expected to move to the city under the new abode policy, are just the tip of the iceberg. If we do not reject a public discourse driven by prejudice, any of these issues will be enough to take society over the 'tipping point'. Without hard work to uproot irrational notions fuelled by prejudice, we will be unable to have meaningful, civil discussions: if we can't agree on what constitutes 'universal', there is no point discussing a 'universal' retirement scheme.
