Back

While the power elites justify their greedy interests by using an obsolete ideology, some ordinarily ranked people also show their cares for those elites, including the elites' psychological well-being.

There was a time that it was a virtue for government officials to understand the needs of the people and to listen to them. Nowadays, some Hong Kong people show a similarity of sympathy for those officials and the rich. In regard to Hong Kong local government or Beijing central government, there are a few people who are so worried that constructive or minor criticisms could step on a nerve of the power elites. Even some vocabularies having a neutral usage such as "referendum" could hit the officials' nerves. The elderly in the power ranks might associate such usage with their painful pasts. The terms "referendum" and "independence", for some reasons, become identical. Since the talk of independence becomes a taboo, the idea of discussing political referendum also falls into the cracks.

Having the most sympathetic understanding of the moguls, some Hong Kong people are equipped themselves with the outmoded bicentennial capitalist reason to patronize the interests of the tycoons. A typical way of thinking is that "in the business world, the capitalists always try to maximize their profits." From this line of thought, it leads to the proposition that "if you were the rich, wouldn't you do the same?" However, it is difficult to answer this type of hypothetical inquiry because no matter how you would answer it, there is a slight chance for verification of its truthfulness. Let us put it this way. How much is the odd that for someone who does not compromise with the rich and the powerful becomes super rich? As a matter of fact, the chances are pretty thin. If the presupposition doesn't exist, how can we derive the conclusion?

However, I would like to respond to this hypothetical question from a different perspective. A certain assumption underlies such inquiry. General speaking, the assumption can be understood as "everyone will change their values and patterns of behaviors in accordance with the change in their status". Put it more precisely, "power corrupts human nature". I don't expect to be immune from such a predisposition. There is no miracle for myself to withstand such a "rule". Neither do I expect the others to witness such a miracle. It is not the main concern that how many people can overcome this inclination. On the contrary, the focus of this discussion is based on the fact that many individuals change their perspectives after they become the rich and the noble.

I have to emphasize one more time that it is not my intent to judge one's action from a moral high ground. It is very likely that you might follow such a "rule", and I am more likely to do so. All I want to say is that not to expect a great moral and self-restraint leader to bring social stability and prosperity. It doesn't mean I have no respect for such a leading figure. However, the past always witnessed that the gift of a great moral leader could only benefit the people for a couple of decades at most. Once the great sage was gone, how much longer have we needed to wait for the next one? I am eager to having an institution of check and balance of power in place. Hence, no matter who is in charge of the high office, every individual from different ranks of the society should have an equal opportunity to seek and protect his or her rights and interests.

Please allow me to express my concerns and opinions as a poor fellow when I am still one, disregarding how I will act after I get rich. Similarly, when I became a privileged, there would be some who have not been rich making their voice in accordance with their position to watchdog my acts and interests. Whether I like it or not, I have to respect this institution of check and balance of powers.

For those who suggest that "wouldn't you act the same if you were put in the same shoes", they make a hidden assumption behind the question, i.e., "it is human nature." From such a perspective, we all actually start at the same point. Precisely, we know the limitations of human nature; therefore, we should endorse the tools of check and balance system to be against the shortcomings of human nature. Conclusively, I believe that everyone has the right to pursue their own interests or concerns of their interest groups. The fight for one's own interest is not a monopoly of a few political elites and moguls. Only through the process of multi-channels and dialogues, the making of social policies would be broadly supported; hence, this ensures the stable development of the society.

Recently, we witnessed the power of the system of check and balance being played among different interest groups in the society. In this event, the developers who bought the Hunghom Peninsula represented an interest group of one kind. On the other hand, we had the teachers, students, parents of the students, as well as environmentalists who represented quite different kinds of interests. Evaluating the impact of the destruction of the Hunghom Peninsula onto their life and value, all these involved parties expressed their opinions through different public media. Truly speaking, the developers have a prime role to maximize their profits. However, they are also members of the society. They could not overlook the public interests represented by the environmentalists and others. In the end, the developers decided not to demolish the Hunghom Peninsula. It was quite obvious that they had heard the voice of the opponents and made a rational decision.

Hong Kong, as a liberal and just society, had also successfully provided an equally open platform and let all sides make their voices heard broadly.