Then & NowLetters-to-the-editor writers VS online trolls: why haters hate

Public debate on civic matters conducted within the letters pages of popular newspapers has a long history all over the world. Since the earliest English-language newspapers on the China coast appeared in the 1820s, letters to the editor have expressed personal viewpoints in a public forum.

At their best, these communal conver­sations help drive broader local engage­ment. Alert government officials keep a weather eye on specific details, and leader writers respond with editorials inspired by recent letters-column exchanges. Chronic roadworks, the lamentable state of gutters and drains, parking regulation infringe­ments and so on are perennial letters-page staples. Vitriolic venting upon real or perceived annoyances has always been more usual (because easier) than proposing solutions for particular issues, and Hong Kong is no exception.

In closely interwoven societies like Hong Kong, relative anonymity was essential for social survival, especially when sharply contrarian viewpoints were being express­ed. From an editor’s perspective, some contrived obscurity was necessary if a reasonable diversity of opinion was to be encouraged. And even then, a letter signed “Night-Jar, The Peak,” or “Disgusted of Kowloon Tong”, hardly guaranteed com­plete concealment. Writing styles, general tone and – in particular – the echoing of a stridently voiced opinion on a controversial civic matter expounded over multiple dinner tables, and a near-identical, virtually contemporaneous letter to the newspapers, were usually dead giveaways.

For decades, a not insignificant propor­tion of published letters found within Hong Kong’s English-language press have started life in schools as student compositions. Teachers select anodyne contem­porary-interest subjects that are readily amenable to reasoned “for and against” arguments. This provenance explains why so many letters eventually chosen for publication are firmly adolescent in both sentiment and mode of expression. Animal welfare, pollution and litter, exam pressure and similar subjects are perennial class­room staples; an eyebrow-raising, so-called “English” name usually casts the deciding vote for publication. And to judge from their occasional opinion-pages contribu­tions, many of Hong Kong’s leading public figures have never outgrown their Form Three English class selves in terms of argument style and substance.