Spreaders of hatred have no time for facts
- Strong evidence contradicts the claim of those who blame new migrants for Hong Kong’s overburdened public hospitals, and a ‘well-run’ system should be able to cope
The frustration and anger of overworked doctors and long-suffering patients at public hospitals are understandable and demand an immediate and sustained official response. Short, medium and long-term solutions need to be formulated and put forward to address public grievances.
So far, other than a short-term band-aid, the government has proposed little to nothing to tackle a systemic problem that lies at the heart of one of our pillars of social stability: public health care.
If anything, it has been burying its head in the sand. But equally disgraceful are some localist activists, opposition politicians and a few public doctors and nurses who are exploiting a complicated problem and try to lay all the blame on new migrants.
Those are the people who rallied on Sunday on an empirically false claim: public medical staff are being overburdened by a flood of migrants from the mainland.
Strong evidence contradicts their claim. In a previous column, I examined some of the statistics that show it’s Hongkongers who overwhelmingly use or overuse such public services. The charity NGO Society for Community Organisation has compiled extensive data to refute their claim. But facts don’t matter to people who want to spread hatred and falsehood. One goal is to halt the primary and long-standing source of immigration: the daily quota of 150 migrants.
But migration patterns are complicated and it’s not just a matter of multiplying 150 with 365 days and however many years you choose to define someone as being “a mainland migrant”. I should think after seven years, when such a person qualifies as a permanent resident, he or she is as much a Hongkonger as anyone. But nothing will stop our bigots from using such absurdly simplified maths to justify their claim of a million-strong mainland horde overwhelming Hong Kong.
Both official and academic studies have produced an annualised population growth in the range of 0.4 to 0.6 per cent from 1997 into the 2040s, peaking at under 8.5 million. Such moderate growth can be handled by a “well-run” public health system, so you know where the problem lies. And we need such growth; otherwise, general ageing will worsen the burden on public health while lowering productivity.
But, as politicians and psychologists have long known, most people don’t change their thinking by being confronted with factual contradictions. Rather, they double down.