Most ordinary citizens like myself are unlikely to be the direct target of Hong Kong’s new national security law, although I do recognise the chilling effect it may have. However, I worry more about the future of public discourse in Hong Kong. Have we lost our ability to engage in meaningful conversations? If we are unable to engage in constructive public discussions, what is left? Tribalism ? Numbness? Social Darwinism? Hong Kong went through a year where reason was thrown out by both political camps in favour of their ideology. Identity politics was played up so much it poisoned our perception of the issues. Different versions of facts were received, based on one’s political orientation. As a result, the social fabric in Hong Kong was ripped apart. Examples of the collapse of reason are abundant. Do we really want a city without an effective police force? Do we really think millions of Hong Kong citizens who initially took their grievances with the administration to the streets are mindless fools controlled by foreign forces ? And yet, so many of us believed that. These unexamined beliefs in turn cultivated massive amounts of fake news and fearmongering. We no longer had a shared foundation of facts. We each had our own reference of truths and looked at each other through the lens of distorted subjectivity. Mistrust runs so deep that a few pictures online can easily rile us up and set off another cycle of revenge. Experts blame Hong Kong protests, pandemic for spike in cases of cyberbullying The real danger of this political environment extends beyond the scenes of protests. A perception of injustice and loss breeds unpredictable violence and instability. Lack of predictability further cultivates extreme pre-emptive measures and deeper mistrust. What do we do? Chris Voss, a former FBI hostage negotiator, can teach us something about overcoming mistrust in a tough conversation. To create trust, instead of getting people to say “yes”, get them to say “that’s right”. In Hong Kong, instead of getting people from the other side of the fence to agree that “you are right”, both camps should find shared understanding first. Let’s say “that’s right” to: we want a government that is accountable to its people; young people in Hong Kong deserve to see hope in their future; Hong Kong’s economy and development rely on a stable and prosperous environment; and we want the media to be unbiased and report the whole truth. The best deal possible is when both parties show their cards, because they may overlap, but that requires trust. While this may be too idealistic for struggles between formal political parties, it may work well enough between friends and families or people we drifted away from because of different political predispositions. In the end, we may still not agree with each other entirely, but at least we might understand the variations in our own beliefs and no longer believe those on the other side are complete morons or deserve the worst fate. W. Cao, Mid-Levels