Having spent half my life in Hong Kong and half in Singapore, allows me to point out some interesting background information, connected with the current situation in Hong Kong.

A Hong Kong government report shows that as of March 31, 29 percent of Hong Kong's population lives in Public Rental Housing. In a China Daily article of April 16, 2014, commentator Fung Keung noted that only families with household income over HK$60,000 a month could afford to buy a flat, and even if prices fell 20-30 percent few young families could afford to buy their own homes. In Singapore, over 80 percent of the population own apartments built by the Housing Development Board (HDB).

Traditional Chinese philosophy describes how four primary human needs must be satisfied, namely: clothing, food, accommodation and transport. With such a dearth of affordable accommodation for young people in Hong Kong, is it surprising they express so much unhappiness, aside from various other possible contributory factors?

During one of the riots in Singapore decades ago, then prime minister Lee Kuan Yew observed that many people would rush into the streets, grab their bicycles and other possessions left outside, and take them back to their apartments. This was elementary proof that people will protect what they owned. If people didn't own their homes, would they cherish them? But when many are owner-occupants, society is more stable.

One of the keys to Singapore's stability is the aforementioned fact that over 80 percent of families in the country own their own homes. Should Hong Kong go down the same route? Developers would be upset but ultimately a more stable Hong Kong would benefit everyone.

Many sociological studies demonstrate that when the wealth gap widens, social unrest rises. The gap between the rich and poor is invariably measured using the Gini Index, measured from 0.00 to 1.00, where 0.00 equates to absolute equality, and 1.00 would represent a society whose entire income or wealth is held by one person.

Countries renowned for a small income gap between rich and poor include the Scandinavian countries and Japan, which have a Gini Index at a low 0.3. By contrast, the index in many South American countries at one time was above 0.6. Most sociologists cite an index above 0.45 as the threshold where social unrest starts to rise. You may be surprised to learn that Hong Kong's Gini Index is above that number. However, should the SAR attempt to more or less follow Singapore's HDB scheme, over time the move would certainly go a long way towards lowering its Gini Index for wealth.

Some argue that provided the wealth or income of the poor is rising, although that of the rich might be rising faster, why should the poor be unhappy? Let us examine whether or not the Game Theory might provide the answer. This theory relates to human nature's inbuilt sense of justice and fair play. It goes something like this: The person conducting the experiment approaches two strangers and offers $20 to one of them, we'll call him A, telling him he can offer anything from $0 to $20 to the other person, X. If X accepts the offer, then A passes him that amount of money and keeps the rest.

However, if X rejects the offer, then neither receives any money. For example, if A offers $5 to X, and X accepts the offer, A would keep $15 and X $5, whereas if X rejects the offer, A will get nothing. There is no re-negotiation. It's a once-off offer. If human beings are "Homo economicus", and have only one thought in mind; that of a sudden windfall, then even if X is offered only $1, that is $1 he wouldn't have had before and he should accept it. But human beings are not only "Homo economicus"; there is also a sense of fair play. In most cases the results of the experiment demonstrated that when the offer was less than 20 percent of what was given to the first player, the offer was rejected. This was even found to be the case in developing nations where even $1 is a significant amount of money. This is the reason for the correlation between an increasing wealth gap and the rise of social unrest.

Turning now to Hong Kong's case, the issue of housing and the widening gap between the rich and the poor must be addressed. The perceived cosy relationship between the government and developers also needs to be addressed. Hong Kong now ranks No 1 on the Economist crony-capitalism index, and that is not good for Hong Kong.

The author, a practising haematologist, is a long-time observer of Asian affairs and also a principal mediator with the Singapore Mediation Centre.

(HK Edition 10/31/2014 page7)