Mentality of Hong Kong people has become not that inclusive
Updated: 2013-06-12 07:37
By Alfred Wu(HK Edition)
|
|||||||||
Who are Hongkongers (or Hong Kong people)? To which many of my Hong Kong-born colleagues responded: "are you kidding?" when I asked. "No, very serious", I replied. Few people in Hong Kong are interested in pondering the concept of what it means to be a Hongkonger. As the city has introduced programs such as "Hong Kong Property for Hong Kong People", it's a concept that bears detailed scrutiny. It should have some practical implications. Ironically, when a top policymaker in Hong Kong attended a radio interview, a mainland woman married to a Hong Kong individual phoned in to ask about whether she could benefit from a program designed for Hong Kong people. His answer was yes. However, on the same day, his subordinate replied on another occasion, the answer was no. Does the term "Hong Kong people" denote permanent residents in Hong Kong? Under the Scheme HK$6,000 and "Hong Kong Property for Hong Kong People", Hong Kong people, refers to holders of Hong Kong ID cards with three stars. Does this rule apply to other policy areas? It is plausible. The SAR government has never made it explicit. It causes a lot of confusion and unpredictability in reality.
However, if the SAR government intended to refer to Hong Kong people (Hongkongers) as permanent residents in all official documents, many people would be very angry. Some foreigners or mainland Chinese living for more than a decade in Hong Kong may not opt for permanent residency. But the majority of them definitely would oppose the fact they cannot call themselves Hongkongers. A foreigner living in Hong Kong for a decade proudly told me that his hometown is Hong Kong.
Then, how can a city claiming itself an inclusive city not allow residents to be assimilated and become a part of local culture? Facing such a dilemma, the government nonetheless seems determined to protect locals and exclude non-permanent residents from some essential benefits step by step. Some burdens are exclusively imposed on non-permanent residents as well, though many of them already consider Hong Kong as their hometown. For example, non-permanent residents need to pay more taxes when buying a house.
Not only is the government making Hongkongers exclusive through espousing various government programs, but also some citizens have developed an increasing level of anti-outsider sentiment (mainly anti-mainland sentiment). According to the latest poll done by Baptist University, among 93 post-secondary students, two-thirds of them claimed themselves to be "Hong Kong Chinese". No one wanted to be identified as Chinese only. I came across a similar survey among final year university students in Hong Kong a decade ago; 45.5 percent chose "Chinese" as their preferred identity. The study also concluded that students identifying themselves as "Chinese" are more open-minded in reality. Here I don't intend to imply that students are less open-minded nowadays. But to remind people that Hong Kong is becoming less inclusive and the idea has spread to the younger generations. On some occasions, government policy and xenophobia have reinforced each other.
Identity is collectively constructed. According to some research, "the dark side of community" might impose some preconceptions on an individual within the community. Over time, the individual would believe that although the arguments might be totally ridiculous. As to who are Hongkongers today, the current trend appears to move in the direction of exclusion and a growing hostility towards immigration. Those who strive to survive have to occupy the marginalized position politically or culturally, albeit not financially. They in turn hold hostile attitudes towards newcomers when they become permanent residents.
Recently, the local media talked a lot about the World Competitiveness Rankings 2013. The bulk of commentaries pointed to the decline of the city's economic competitiveness. Nevertheless, no attention was given to the problem of attracting overseas talent. To many job seekers, Hong Kong is an ideal place to start their careers. Nevertheless, many mid-level managers or professionals decide to leave Hong Kong even though they may spend one or two decades in Hong Kong. Emigration is not only associated with air pollution, poor living conditions, and unsatisfactory basic education (cramming education). More people have started to think about whether to leave during these two or three years because of unfavorable government programs and societal sentiments. Some lawmakers in the city also revealed that many consulates in Hong Kong ushered the concerns of many foreigners' intention to leave due to some new government policies and a deteriorating political and economic environment.
The situation must be altered. The SAR government should promote the cohesion policy in the first place. The cohesion policy is widely adopted by the governments in the EU in a bid to boost economic and social solidarity in the community. Serving a mainly Chinese society, the Hong Kong government has never paid serious attention to the cohesion issue as many argue that mainland Chinese can readily adapt to the society. My point is not about assimilating newcomers but improving social solidarity in Hong Kong. A divisive society hinders economic competitiveness and social development. The government must have a proactive management system in handling the solidarity and cohesion issue in the near future. More specifically, a committee should be formed to solicit comments and suggestions from society and make recommendations for policy changes.
The author is a current affairs commentator.
(China Daily 06/12/2013 page1)