The risk is not yours alone

 

 

In his column ‘Cold-weather bravado is far from cool’ dated January 25, Alex Lo blames the people who risked their own lives and those of the rescuers by ignoring warnings against potential dangers. I agree that the frost-chasers were silly to have overlooked the severity of the cold snap that hit Hong Kong. It is hoped that they have drawn a lesson from the experience and will refrain from such thoughtless acts from now on. 

There are, however, people whose attitude is even more blameworthy. In a video widely spread on the internet, a Hong Kong girl is seen shouting at a policeman who is trying to stop her going up the hill. ‘I’m responsible for my own life,’ she says, obviously displeased at the policeman’s interference with her freedom. She further points out that it is the police’s responsibility to save lives. 

She may have found her assertion justifiable since she is willing to be accountable for whatever happens to her. But, I don’t think she knows the least about what it means to be responsible. In fact, a responsible person will not do anything that causes an unfavorable result. In this case, her thoughtlessness could have cost not only her own life but those of others who went to her rescue. This is selfishness, which is unacceptable. Imagine a drug addict asserting that he is accountable for his own life. Would that make government attention to the problem of drug abuse unnecessary? Would a jay walker or not be charged with a traffic offence since it is his own life that is at risk?  

This may have been a rare case. But it has raised concern for a more caring and responsible attitude among the citizens and for better cooperation with the police to ensure the effective execution of their responsibilities.

Be in others' shoes

 

 

When I walked out of the lift early this morning, a fresh, energetic voice greeted me. It was our new watchman on his first day of employment. I heaved a sigh of relief; so the conflict between the flat management company and the inhabitants was finally settled.

 

For the past few months, there had been complaints about the ineligibility of the watchmen, one in his early seventies, another often untidily dressed and seemingly half drunk most of the time, the other two caught quite a few times sleeping on the job. The inhabitants kept complaining and demanding that the watchmen be replaced. The response, however, was a request for a rise in the management fee, which most of the inhabitants found unreasonable. The situation thus remained unchanged.

 

This is somehow typical of today’s society. Opinions vary and few proposals or decisions are favoured unanimously. Consequently, complaints seem the rule of the day, undermining social peace and harmony. Nothing positive is done and problems remain unsolved. What is worse is that there seems little effort to strengthen the solidarity among people. Quite on the contrary, the diversity of thought is often encouraged as a means of remaining loyal to oneself. This is due to people’s self-centeredness and narrow-mindedness, each insisting on his own point of view, unwilling to take into account others’ way of thinking. If, however, they can sit down together in peace, talking matters over, and trying to imagine themselves in one another’s shoes, they can come up with a solution sooner or later.

 

In the case of the dispute between the inhabitants and the management company, if both had been more understanding and accepting, the problem could have been solved earlier. The company could have been more considerate of the inhabitants’ worry about the inefficiency of the watchmen threatening the security of their property. The latter, on the other hand, could also have been more tolerant of the need for a wage rise for the watchmen to ensure better quality service.

 

If people can handle trifling matters of everyday life by being more understanding and accepting, an increased broadmindedness and tolerance can also reduce conflicts between people and ensure a more peaceful and harmonious society.