Valuable lessons for HK from deadly fire in UK

The pictures are stark and shocking and reverberated around the world. In London, on June 14, a devastating fire struck Grenfell Tower, a public housing block, and the death toll stands at "at least" 80. A tragic event but, sadly, such calamities are not unusual and are often quite quickly forgotten. This story, however, is not just about London but also about other modern societies, including our own. Grenfell Tower stood on the edge of London's wealthiest borough and was inhabited by those humble people who are employed as the invisible cogs that power the lowest but nonetheless essential layers of a great service economy. What has also become clear is that the fire's survivors are brimming with anger. These poor people believe that their safety and welfare were disregarded in the construction of this building, particularly the dangerously unsuitable cladding. They were angry that official help was not provided as it should have been after their homes had been destroyed and loved ones lost. They were concerned that the official inquiry will be conducted by elites who have no understanding of their problems and their way of life.

Hong Kong, thankfully, has not suffered such a catastrophe resulting in so many lives lost. Indeed, our public housing towers are proud testament to our ingenuity in housing our multitudes safely in a land-starved city. For many, to move into one of these flats is the realization of long-held dreams knowing that, compared with the private sector, rents there are affordable and the accommodation safe and comfortable. All the same, there are surely echoes of the London story since here, as there, a simmering resentment exists at the apparent indifference of the "haves" toward the plight of the less privileged. When the first resettlement estates were built in the 1950s, Hong Kong was more cohesive and the bosses of manufacturing industry better understood their workers' lives but now the comfortably off insulate themselves in exclusive residential developments, use private hospitals and, most alienating of all, educate their children away from the local system in international schools and overseas.

There is now more friction and divisions in our community than has been the case for many years. Some suggest that the answer is to provide more welfare. If this is done as simply a cynical ploy or with an unrealistic expectation of gratitude it will be quickly unmasked. "Authenticity" is a treasured precept of modern management science; I once participated in a rather bizarre discussion on the topic "can authenticity be faked?" where the conclusion was that it could not. People yearn for a government that provides them with good things simply because it should, not because it wants to win them over.

There are encouraging indications that our new Chief Executive, Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, is willing to spend more on things that will benefit grassroots families and housing. I take the liberty of offering her three pieces of advice: two "dos" and one "don't".

Foremost is a driving sense of urgency. A large new group has been set up to look at land supply. Everyone will see the sense of this but equally it will be counter-productive if interminable discussions in this forum get in the way of action. I have some sympathy with Leung Chun-ying's administration which was well motivated to provide more housing but faced many obstacles and lack of cooperation. The community should back up the government this time around in its efforts to find sites and get new public housing built as quickly as possible.

Second, the government should lean heavily on the advice and expertise of the NGOs. It has been a feature of Hong Kong's success that many worthwhile initiatives have had their genesis in the NGO sector which in turn was inspired by the energy of a few people who were impelled to act by the social problems that they saw and their harsh effects on their less-privileged fellow citizens. It is indeed amazing to think that the entire public housing initiative began with "a few conscientious members of the community" who founded the Hong Kong Housing Society in 1948.

The word of caution is with respect to the private sector. Given that we have prospered in the past under a free market economy, we should continue to facilitate our businessmen but we should look carefully at proposals emanating from the property sector to participate in the provision of public housing to ensure that their plans prioritize community interest over their profit motive.

The way ahead is difficult but the goals are worthwhile. Our history has shown time and again how important housing is to our grassroots population. Unlike the residents of Grenfell Tower, they should be given a good reason to believe that in Hong Kong their concerns are understood and addressed with effective actions.

(HK Edition 10/10/2017 page10)