Two articles published online a few days ago in The Lancet highlighted the mental health problem in Hong Kong in the face of the ongoing social and political unrest. One is from two scholars at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Another is from a team of researchers from the University of Hong Kong. Both lend testimony to the fact that the ongoing unrest is taking a heavy toll on Hong Kong people’s mental health. The Chinese University scholars concluded that mental morbidity cannot be treated in isolation from the larger socio-political context; that stakeholders beyond healthcare providers need to play a role in improving the population’s mental health. The HKU research team found that one’s political attitude and whether one has participated in the protests have little to do with the probability of depression, but neutrality toward the extradition bill does halve the risk of suspected post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

PTSD is a mental disorder that can develop after a person is exposed to a traumatic event. But what is the traumatic event or experience akin to a traumatic event that had caused such damage? Why does it cause such damage, regardless of whether one is in the “yellow” camp or the “blue” camp? Violence certainly plays a central role here, and helplessness and frustration too. The unfortunate fact is that for many, there is little escape from the violence, helplessness, and frustration that haunt them all the time — as all the media, from online news and social media to newspapers, radios, and live television reports, are flooded with images of violence, abusive language and vandalism. One does not have to be direct victims of the violence, or even be related to the victims as friends, relatives, or colleagues. If one takes a stand, whether in the “yellow” or in the “blue” camp, the likelihood of empathizing with the victims is much higher. Rioters and their supporters naturally will complain about “police brutality”, while supporters of the police complain about the “brutality of the rioters”. Even those who do not take a stand on the extradition bill may be affected because in the clashes, innocent people and objects are hurt: Innocent people suffer economic losses, and traffic lights are certainly innocent. Those in the “yellow” camp are frustrated because despite the violence, they are getting nowhere. Apart from the withdrawal of the extradition bill, they have not gained an inch of success in regard to the other four demands. Those in the “blue” camp and others are frustrated because there seems to be no end to the ongoing unrest, which is ruining the economy, disrupting daily lives and social and family relations, and causing financial stress.

We must not imagine that Beijing is an adversary. Actually, Beijing’s interests and Hong Kong’s interests do not conflict

But all this has to end. Society needs to heal. And we cannot just rely on medical staff to make this happen. Some may think that giving in to the demands of the rioters is the key, saying that “political problems need a political solution,” but certainly we cannot afford to give in to unreasonable demands, which would damage the rule of law and encourage lawless people to use the same tactics by terrorizing people to get what they want. The healing must begin with everybody, regardless of political stripe, sitting down and trying to sort out the reasonable way to move forward.

In a letter to Hong Kong broadcast over the weekend in RTHK, I appealed to fellow Hong Kong people to give up their antagonistic attitudes and put themselves in each other’s shoes. In particular, we must not imagine that Beijing is an adversary. Actually, Beijing’s interests and Hong Kong’s interests do not conflict. As a matter of fact, as long as we do not undermine Beijing’s interests in territorial integrity and developmental interests, as long as we abide by the Basic Law, the “one country, two systems” principle will serve us well. In this regard, the decision by Demosisto to amend their goals from “political self-determination” to advocating “democratic reforms, progressive values and self-consciousness of Hongkongers in the city” and “turning Hong Kong into a pluralist city” is a right step forward. But we do need to take a step further, which is that Hong Kong people should stand together. We really should not divide ourselves into a “yellow” camp and a “blue” camp. We really should not see the SAR government as an adversary. Nor should we see Beijing as one.

Of course, political reform has to move forward. That is promised in the Basic Law. The political system as it currently stands is far from ideal. This much is understood. But we need to understand why Beijing prefers a “gradual and orderly progress” toward a more democratic system. Beijing needs to take precautions to guard against the possibility of an elected government that acts as a proxy to foreign interests and that undermines Beijing’s territorial interests and development interests. According to Article 45 of the Basic Law, when the “ultimate goal” is achieved, there will still be a nominating committee, and at that point, that committee will be “broadly representative.” Since Hong Kong and Beijing have agreed to these terms, let us abide by them in good faith.

The author is a senior research fellow at Pan Sutong Shanghai-Hong Kong Economic Policy Research Institute at Lingnan University. 

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.