It would be tempting, if futile, to dwell on what has happened over the past two years in Hong Kong. More constructively, perhaps, we should look towards the future and grapple with the present political reality. Three straightforward questions, then, should be answered by those governing Hong Kong. This would enable us to move forward collectively, rather than buckling under the weight of unresolved grievances. First, for all the talk of socioeconomic reforms, what will they look like – and when can we actually expect them? The city is packed with inequalities. A recent report found that 19 per cent of Kwun Tong and 16.6 per cent of Sham Shui Po residents live in abject poverty. The wealthiest district in the city, Wan Chai, has a median household income nearly twice that of Kwun Tong, the poorest. Grass-roots youth are understandably aggrieved by the exorbitant housing costs – it would take the average Hongkonger over 20 years of earnings to buy a 650 sq ft flat. Many university graduates find themselves working in industries for which they are maladapted, to make ends meet. There has been much talk from the political establishment and Beijing on the imperative of redressing the city’s housing shortages, stagnation in social mobility , and the downward spiral in job prospects among low-skilled labour. Yet the city’s poor need more than one-off handouts and short-term measures. They need opportunities, platforms and, above all, institutional recognition of their political and economic agency as choosers and doers, as opposed to mere recipients of aid and welfare. If effective governance is to take priority in Hong Kong this year, a pivotal first step would be to pry the city’s economic structure and policies out of the hands of prominent land developers and business conglomerates. It would do little good, however, for the city merely fall into the hands of a new economic elite. Hong Kong’s first Covid-19 lockdowns reveal the appalling poverty in our midst In the absence of substantive reforms to capital and job opportunities that open doors for those who lack connections, or drastic revamping of higher and continued education to facilitate the upskilling or retraining of impoverished individuals, “fixing inequality” will remain little more than noise, and signify nothing. Second, do we still have a pivotal role to play in relation to the rest of China? Hong Kong is undeniably a part of China – yet repeating this mantra will not make the city’s economy more competitive. Hong Kong is rapidly slipping behind its competitors, trailing in fields ranging from shipping and logistics to innovation and education . Consider the recent ignominious removal of the city from the Heritage Foundation’s table of the world’s freest economies. Though critics are right to note it was a political move, it shows we cannot sit on our laurels amid an increasingly bellicose international environment. Gone are the days when we could sit idly by and hope that China’s rise would automatically float all boats. It’s clear that Shenzhen, Shanghai and even Hangzhou are closing in on us as China’s gateway to the world – we are no longer indispensable. Yet, all hope is not lost. We have the Greater Bay Area to our north, an ascendant Association of Southeast Asian Nations to our south, and a nascent Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership to our east. There is much that could be done – whether it be consolidating Hong Kong’s edge in sustainable and innovative financing, broaching new possibilities in scientific and biotechnology research, or capitalising on Hong Kong’s distinctive legal infrastructure in consolidating its regional and international presence. Indeed, if Hong Kong is to preserve what remains of its political autonomy and jurisdictional independence , it must make a persuasive case for where it can be valuable – as it is – to Beijing. Yet putting forward such policies requires courage – a willingness to take risks, not avoid them; an openness to the uncertainty of innovation, not closure. Do our public officials have the stomach and the heart to cut through the silos of bureaucracy and undertake genuinely visionary transformations? That much remains unclear. Finally, there’s the million-dollar question: can there be patriots who are not sycophants? It is fair to say that Hong Kong should be governed by individuals who have the best interests of the rest of the country in mind. It has been made very clear by recent events that these are the rules of the game – and that anyone who seeks to put Hong Kong at loggerheads with Beijing will only drive the city down a dangerous path of no return. The real question is, however, what kind of patriotism are we looking at here? Is it the kind of sycophancy and platitudes that we have seen from adulating parts of the establishment? Or is it the kind of mindless bellicosity exhibited by those who pay no heed to both Hong Kong’s internationalist culture and the fact that the city does not require “loyal trash”? Could there be a kind of patriotism that reconciles competent governance in the interests of Hong Kong citizens, with the overarching interests of China as it continues to rise? I remain cautiously optimistic; indeed, hope is necessary. Rebuilding trust and resolving long-standing conflicts will take more than one-off policy pushes; it will take a concerted effort to make governance more responsive, dynamic, meritocratic and, above all, reflective of Hongkongers’ voices while bearing in mind national interests. The two need not be mutually exclusive – and our policymakers and political leaders must recognise this. Brian YS Wong is a DPhil in Politics candidate at Balliol College, Oxford, a Rhodes Scholar (Hong Kong 2020) and the founding editor-in-chief of the Oxford Political Review