Blame the British colonial legacy for Hong Kong's racial intolerance
Victor Fung Keung says Hong Kong's colonial past is largely to blame for the high level of racial intolerance found among citizens in a survey
Oh my goodness, we are racist! The World Values Survey shows that almost 27 per cent of citizens said they would not want a neighbour of a different race. Other intolerant citizens include those from Bangladesh, Jordan and India.
My gut reaction was: let's blame the British. They colonised us for more than 150 years until the handover in 1997. British people are notoriously racist, I thought. I was wrong. The survey finds that fewer than 5 per cent of Britons are racially intolerant. And Britain's other former colonies, such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, have low scores of racial intolerance.
So, what is wrong with us? Should we simply admit that all Chinese are racist? No. The survey found that only between 15 and 20 per cent of people on the mainland are racially intolerant, a far cry from our 27 per cent.
So, if I can't blame the British or Chinese on the mainland, I'll turn to self-denial: Hong Kong scored such a high percentage of racial intolerance because we were honest and the Americans and Canadians lied in the survey.
This doesn't hold water, either. The survey is based on well-respected research and was reported in on May 15. The writer, Max Fisher, concluded that racial tolerance has nothing to do with economic freedom.
The survey also finds that people from free-market Hong Kong don't want their neighbours to be homosexuals, people with Aids, and those with a criminal record. There is only one bright spot: we don't mind living next to the emotionally unstable.
