When the national security law was first introduced in Hong Kong, firebrand newspaper publisher Jimmy Lai Chee-ying said local people now only have two choices – leave, or stay and fight. However, Chim Pui-chung, a former lawmaker and pro-China businessman, said au contraire, Hong Kong people should stay and help to rebuild the city after the anti-government unrest of last year. Perhaps inadvertently, the two men at the opposing sides of the political divide, have summarised the options available to people facing the decline of a body politic, a commercial entity or a social group in which they have invested a significant personal stake. E xit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organisations, and States , by the sociologist Albert O. Hirschman, is generally considered a classic in the study of how people respond to organisational decline. ‘No world peace without changing China,’ Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai says The title of the 1972 book lays out the options claimed by Lai and Chim. Like the wave of emigration before the 1997 handover, some locals are once again actively planning or are already leaving the city for other places they consider safer and/or freer. Jumping ship or “exit” is a perfectly natural response to instability, unrest or decline. The police-issued certificates of no criminal conviction are required practically by all countries accepting legal immigrants who are not refugees, so its numbers are a good indicator of emigration trends. According to Hong Kong police, the number of such certificates issued rose to 2,782 in June, from 1,711 the previous month. Last year 33,252 were certified, a sharp rise from about 20,000 in previous years. A survey released in October found that 42.3 per cent of Hong Kong people said they would emigrate if they had a chance. More than 40 per cent of Hongkongers want to emigrate, survey finds Another response, according to Hirschman, is “voice”, or protests. These can range from complaints and peaceful protests to violent unrest. Hong Kong has had all those since last summer. It remains to be seen to what extent the new security law can quieten down the “voices” – whether to shut them up altogether or allow the more moderate and reasonable voices to come through. The postponement of the September Legislative Council election by a year seems to indicate the former; but allowing opposition lawmakers already disqualified for the September polls to stay on for a year, may mean the latter, or at least a compromise. Jumping ship or ‘exit’ is a perfectly natural response to instability, unrest or decline Finally, there is “loyalty”. You stay on because you are loyal or are too attached to your group, however dysfunctional; or to put it more cynically, because you have nowhere else to go. As a loyalist, you may even welcome Beijing taking greater control of Hong Kong as the only way to reverse the radical politicisation of the city. Also, if inertia is ingrained in human nature, then sitting tight and hoping for the best is a perfectly understandable response – fingers crossed, as they say. Opposition lawmakers inclined to serve in Legco despite boycott pleas Of course, exit, voice, and loyalty are options that range over a whole spectrum of personal and political responses; they are not discrete choices. Hirschman has been criticised for making his choices sound too discrete. You can move your whole family to Australia or Canada but still maintain strong local ties with relatives and friends and take an active interest in Hong Kong’s political development. You may even join protests organised by pro-democracy groups in, say, Sydney. You can stay in the Hong Kong government because you believe in serving the people but organise internal resistance as some civil servants and public medical staff have done and now face disciplinary actions. You show loyalty by protesting. Alternatively, you can be a Beijing loyalist and think the new security law is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I admire Hirschman but often think this particular book, arguably his most famous, is a bit too obvious in its conception. In retrospect, though, having experienced a few bitter controversies as a columnist over the years, I am beginning to take a more lenient view of my opponents and enemies. Hirschman’s conceptual scheme shows how people react to difficult, sometimes, intolerable situations that are often not of their own making. We are, after all, only human.