Poor govt and poor people go together
Updated: 2013-10-23 06:31
By Stephen Vines(HK Edition)
|
|||||||||
The Hong Kong government used to pump out lists for the overseas media that boasted about the highest per capita ownership of Rolls Royce cars, the most expensive apartments etc., etc. The idea was to show how prosperous this place was. Hong Kong continues to be prosperous but maybe, just maybe, there is now a slight reticence in boasting about all this conspicuous consumption.
After years of focusing on the acquisition of wealth for a very small number of people, attention has recently turned to the disturbing situation where some 20 percent of the community lives below the poverty line. This enormous wealth gap puts highly developed Hong Kong on a par with the worst instances of wealth distribution in Africa and South America.
For the first time in its history the government has published a poverty line and, if officials are to be believed, a more determined attempt is to be made to tackle the problem of poverty. Lamentably this determination has been accompanied by declarations from the top down to the effect that poverty problems are somewhat intractable and incapable of big solutions.
This may well turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy because the Hong Kong government has a long record of putting poverty eradication measures on the back burner. Indeed the last administration was so dismissive of doing anything that, instead of giving financial support to the poor, it decided to dish out a HK$6,000 bonus to everyone, including billionaires.
Moreover the new government poverty line poses distinct problems because it is based on earnings below the median income instead of identifying poverty by measuring basic needs, a method used on the mainland and elsewhere.
The government has not issued targets for poverty eradication, something the European Union did back in 2010 while some countries, such as Ireland and Britain, set even more ambitious targets.
Hong Kong officials avoid targets and confine themselves to speaking vaguely about consultations. To be fair their caution reflects a general distrust of what might be called the creation of a "dependency culture", where large numbers of poor people await government handouts and are given a disincentive to work.
The ethos of self-help remains strong in Hong Kong and, because this is largely a hard-working immigrant society, many people believe that they and their families alone are responsible for themselves. Traditionally there have been low expectations of what the government may have to offer and the low tax regime was seen as a quid pro quo for the general stinginess of the government in helping out the poor.
Meanwhile disparities in income have grown and the bulk of the population is no longer first-generation immigrants. As society develops Hong Kong people are developing a strong sense of communal responsibility, as opposed to exclusively focusing on the family unit. With this comes a higher expectation of what the government can and should do.
Officials have been slow to catch up with these rather important shifts in opinion and because their advisory bodies are largely populated by the well-heeled who have no experience of poverty, those closest to the government put this issue well down on the list of things to do.
Were poverty reduction to be given high priority it would not only involve monetary support to the needy but requires a raft of non-cash measures which will make life better for those below the poverty line. Most experts in this field agree that the best way out of the poverty trap is through education and although Hong Kong has a comprehensive public education system it is clear that at the crucial primary stages, resources devoted to working class districts are distinctly inferior to those enjoyed by the middle class.
At the other end of the age spectrum where the elderly poor tend to be in greater need of medical care, Hong Kong still has a shameful system of forcing very old people to queue for hours in public clinics and the government provides nursing homes that fulfill basic requirements but not much else.
It will be argued and often is by complacent government officials that in absolute terms the Hong Kong poor are generally better off than their counterparts elsewhere in Asia. This is true but remains an astonishing excuse for complacency in a wealthy society with a sizable underclass. The contrast of great wealth and great poverty is one that asks for trouble.
Even if this trouble does not morph into violence or some other form of extreme protest, the fact is that unequal societies, with high levels of sophistication, cannot flourish indefinitely as the wealth gap keeps expanding.
This is not a prophecy of mass civil unrest anytime soon but it is a warning of what can happen. Even in the unlikely event that there are no social or political consequences of growing inequality there is such a thing as civic responsibility and doing the right thing.
Oh, did I forget to mention that Hong Kong's treasury is in the unusual position of being stuffed full of money so it can certainly afford to spend more on doing the right thing.
The author is a former newspaper editor who now runs companies in the food sector and moonlights as a journalist, writer and broadcaster.
(HK Edition 10/23/2013 page7)