The New Divide
Author: Mrs. Regina Ip (Member of Legislative Council, Chairperson of Savantas Policy Institute)
Few political scientists would disagree that Hong Kong is ripe for democracy, thanks to its high level of economic development, and its relative lack of deep-seated political, ethnic, religious or cultural cleavages. The colonial administration managed to suppress any possible conflict between pro-Communist and pro-Kuomintang forces in the post-Second World War era by shelving democracy. A predominantly Chinese society, the local Chinese have lived, worked and worshipped cheek by jowl with other ethnic minorities without any friction.
Yet every now and then, spasms of conflict would flare up and break to the fore - over a 5 cent increase of ferry fare in 1966, the demolition of the Queen’s Pier, and currently over the construction of the express rail, a project hailed by the western media as eco-friendly and welcome by the masses. Newsweek reports that the most popular destination in Beijing now is the Beijing South railway station, designed for handling up to 105 million high-speed passengers by 2030. Mega-stations serving as multi-modal hubs are bound to create new business opportunities for operators in transport, retail, restaurant, tourism and related sectors - precisely those areas where Hong King entrepreneurs excel. Yet opponents argued with frenzied passion that the express rail link in Hong Kong would benefit only “a few thousand rich”, just as it had been argued before that the enactment of the national security legislation would take away all rights and freedoms of Hong Kong people, and that the demolition of the Queen’s Pier would destroy the last fragments of Hong Kong people’s “collective memory”. In a reprise of the dramas of 2003 and 2007 over Article 23 and the Queen’s Pier, the recent fracas over funding approval for the express rail is the establishment’s living reminder that “the best lack all conviction, the worst are full of passionate intensity”.
The high cost of the express rail is also cited as a strong ground for objection. Yet, if the 3 km-long Western Island Line costs over $15 billion, and the 7 km-long South island Line, only partly underground, is slated to cost over $7 billion, is the final bill of the 26 km-long express rail, at $66.9 billion, and including construction of the rail, a mega terminus and other ancillary improvement works, that out of line? The fact is, right or wrong, the protestors see the high-profile project as a symbol of further aggrandizement of the rich at the expense of the poor.
Policy makers should step back from their hand-wringing and feverish vote-lobbying to re-focus on the new divide in our society: the divide between the have’s and have-nots. It is a divide between those who have money, property, or knowledge which enables them to climb the social ladder, and those stuck in their alleys, or caged living space, or jobs at median or below-median levels which offer few prospects for upward mobility. More alarmingly, the authorities should take note: it is an emerging divide between those who are able to make money out of Mainland China’s new-found economic prowess, and locals who are unable to benefit and left behind. It is a divide between wealthy Mainlanders seen pushing up home prices and snapping up expensive designer products, and locals void of cash or educational credentials for well-paid jobs. Many locals have scarce opportunity for travel, not even to our gleaming central business district, let alone the energizing and leveling mega train stations around the world.
It is also a divide driven by the perception that our authorities are channeling our scarce resources to benefit those from the mainland or with mainland connections. You can hardly blame many locals for this perception, as hordes of mainlanders, especially pregnant women, crowd out the locals in hospitals and threaten to over-stretch our already tight medical services. It is a perception which our authorities are well advised to watch, as they scurry to provide more land for “private”, but actually publicly subsidized, universities targeting mainland students, while annually 6,000 matriculants are denied publicly funded tertiary places because of funding shortfalls. As a privileged minority stands ready to profit from the mainland while large numbers remain deprived, would you not be mad? If our authorities are unable to turn “One Country, Two Systems” into a win-win game for all, and seen to be so, they have to brace for more turbulence in the months ahead.
Post on 2009-12-27 South China Morning Post
